Archive for the ‘Anti-Semitism News’ Category

This Day in Jewish History, August 18, 1913, the Leo Frank Murder Trial Confession. “Patron Father” of the ADL of B’nai B’rith.

Once in a Lifetime

Something very unusual happened during the 29-day Leo Frank trial which was conducted within the courtroom of the Fulton County Superior Courthouse in the Summer of 1913. It was during that famous July term session of 1913, some would postulate that Leo Frank inadvertently revealed the solution to the contentious and controversial Mary Phagan “whodunit” “murder mystery”, when Leo Frank mounted the witness stand on Monday, August 18, 1913.

After Leo Frank sat down on the grand old witness stand to give orally his own carefully prepared, unsworn written statement to the court, it became one of the most dramatic climaxes within the case, because it was the moment everyone was waiting for, sitting on the edges of their seats, with great anticipation of what Leo Frank would say.

If ever in all the cosmos so many people became one focused eye of consciousness it was this moment.

Newspapers Announced its Coming.

The Leo Frank oral statement given to the court was made three weeks deep into the proceedings, it’s was significant because it was at that point near the tail-end of his own contentious Monday, July 28 to Tuesday, August 26, 1913, murder trial, the Monday, 18th of August speech was also just one week before the jury would render its verdict and final recommendation.

Which brings one forth to the single most important unanswered question over the last century by researchers, scholars, academics, southerners, northerners, lawyers, judges, court room staff, historians, revisionists and secondary sources concerning the Leo Frank trial:

Question to Answer After Studying the Leo Frank Case: After mounting the witness stand on Monday, the 18th day of August 1913, did Leo Frank during a segment of the latter half of his four-hour trial testimony divulge what amounted to an unmistakable virtual murder confession?

The “Leo Frank murder confession” was three fold and it was interpreted, threaded and articulated by the two state prosecution team lawyers, the Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey for the Atlanta Circuit and Special Assistant Solicitor Frank Arthur Hooper, as part of their closing arguments, and it was ultimately acknowledged as such unanimously by the 13-man empaneled collective-mind of Judge Leonard Strickland Roan and a Jury of 12 men.

Many neutral observers who put a magnifying glass upon Leo Frank’s trial testimony and are familiar with the three dimensional second floor layout diagrams based on the (see: State’s Exhibit A, Brief of Evidence, 1913) of the 1913 National Pencil Factory, ask: Did Leo Frank’s official trial testimony statement possibly suggest that he might have been in the time and place, the murder might have occurred? (See: Brief of Evidence, 1913, pages 185 and 186 of the official record)

To new independent scholars, observers and researchers interested in the Leo Frank Case: Only the official stenographed Leo Frank trial testimony, the National Pencil Company floor diagrams and an honest open mind without self-deception can answer the Leo Frank murder confession question definitively.

It is important that anyone who is interested in the Leo Frank case to ask the August 18, 1913 Leo Frank murder confession question and then to also ask themselves if there are possibly two other (for a total of three murder confessions) Leo Frank murder confessions according to the surviving documents of the official record.

Where There Three Leo Frank Murder Confessions?

Leo Frank Murder Confession Number One

Was the first Leo Frank Murder Confession given to James Conley (BOE, 1913) by Leo Frank at the factory on that infamous Day of Confederate Memorial Day, Saturday, April 26, 1913 (James Conley, Affidavits, May, 1913 and Trial Testimony, BOE, August, 1913)?

Leo Frank Murder Confession Number Two

Was the second Leo Frank murder confession given that same day to Lucille Frank in the evening inside their bedroom at the Frank-Selig residence (Minola Mcknight, State’s Exhibit J, June 3, 1913; Cremation request in the Notarized Final Will and Testament of Lucille Selig Frank, 1954)?

Three Total Leo Frank Murder Confessions

To answer the question of whether or not the surviving records indicate Leo Frank made three separate murder confessions, one should start with questioning “the third Leo Frank murder confession” which occurred on Monday, August 18, 1913 at the capital murder trial.

Monteen Stover vs. Jim Conley

For the last century, Frankites (Leo Frank Cult Members), Leo Frank partisans (people who take the side of Leo Frank), professional Leo Frank historical writers and the position of the Jewish community since 1913 to current, asserts that Jim Conley was the star witness not Monteen Stover, but was he really, or was she really?

What does the depth of the official record reveal?

The Depth of the Leo Frank Trial Reduced to its Nexus

21st century Leo Frank scholars who have read and studied more than 3,000 pages of the surviving official records in the case, understand everything in this case can be reduced to the “Trinity”, no religious reference applies here.

The Trinity is the Solution to the Mary Phagan Murder Mystery: Monteen Stover’s Testimony + State’s Exhibit B + Leo Frank Trial Testimony = Case Solved! That’s the Tight and Narrow of it!

Stitched Together…

Has Leo Frank inadvertently put himself in the metal room bathroom sometime between noon and 12:50, or possibly even “12:05 to 12:10, maybe 12:07” (State’s Exhibit B, Monday, April 28, 1913) with an “unconscious” bathroom visit to the metal room (BOE, August 18, 1913), deduced from the “triangle” of Monteen Stover’s official sworn testimony at the trial (BOE, 1913), State’s Exhibit B, and Leo Franks Trial Statement response to Monteen Stover on August 18, 1913 (BOE, 1913)?

Walk with Leo Frank Across the Second Floor From His Inner Office to the Metal Room Where the Bathroom is Located

Does Frank “unconsciously” put himself walking from his second floor inner office, through his outer office, into the hall way, then down the hallway, to and through the metal room door, into the metal room with his “unconscious bathroom” visit to the only bathroom in the metal room in response to Monteen Stover’s trial testimony?

In order to be able to answer this question, one must study the factory floor plans in the Brief of Evidence, which are available to review online in the 1,800 page Georgia Supreme Court Leo M. Frank case file in the online Leo M. Frank archive.

Please Review These National Pencil Company Factory Diagrams

1. State’s Exhibit A (Small Image) or State’s Exhibit A (Large Image)

2. Different Version: Side view of the factory diagram showing the front half of the factory

3. Bert Green Diagram of the National Pencil Company

Indisputable Acknowledgment Number One is Based on the Factory Diagrams: One has to go into and through the metal room door to get into the metal room where the ONLY toilet on the second floor exists, which is down the hall from Leo Frank’s office. Did Mary go to that toilet to use the bathroom? or did Mary Phagan go into the metal room to find out if the brass sheets had come in?

The Ultimate Blunder

Observers are wondering if Leo Frank lost his mind in placing himself in the very place the prosecution spent a month (29 days) trying to convince the Jury where the murder of Mary Phagan really occurred and ultimately between the time frame of 12:02 and 12:19? The reason observers ask this, is because Leo Frank told the 7-man panel lead by Coroner Paul Donehee, and the 6 man Jury of the Coroners Inquest, he (Leo Frank) did not use the bathroom all day long, not that he (Leo Frank) had forgotten, but that he had not gone to the bathroom at all. The visually-blind prodigious savant Coroner Paul Donehee with his highly refined bullshit detector was incredulous as might be expected. Who doesn’t use the bathroom all day long? It was as if Leo Frank was mentally and physically trying to distance himself from that place.

Why is the Leo Frank Murder Confession Question Important?

The importance of asking if Leo M. Frank made a near confession is an honest and genuine one; it is a question that has inexplicably not been touched by anyone since 1913 to 1915, and it is hoped that beyond 2013 with the centennial of the Mary Phagan murder, every contemporary writer would broach the subject of the August 18, 1913 “Leo Frank murder confession question” and comment on it after ignoring it for 100 years, but the likelihood is slim to none, because the super vast majority of people who produce works and treatments on the Leo Frank trial are members of the Cult of Leo Frank, known as the Frankites.

Bottom Line Can the ‘Question’ Be Answered by the Official Record?

So we will address and articulate the Leo Frank murder confession, here and now, in full, and hope the word gets out: Leo Frank made an unmistakable murder confession on August 18, 1913 at his own capital murder trial that he strangled Mary Phagan in the metal room on April 26, 1913, based on a commonsense interpretation of the official record.

The Leo Frank Murder Confession vs. Leo Frank was Scapegoated

The Leo Frank confession question is one that has puzzled scholars for more than a century and fair-minded observers are wondering why Leo Frank partisans, the Jewish Community, Jewish writers and film producers, and other Leo Frank activists keep dodging and avoiding the Leo Frank murder confession question that Leo Frank’s testimony suggests, since it was first delivered Monday, August 18, 1913.

Anti-Gentile Smear Campaign

From the Southerner Perspective, “Instead of discussing the Leo Frank confession question, why do Jews and Leo Frank partisans unilaterally resort to defaming the descendants of European-Americans with what amounts to unsubstantiated anti-Gentile blood libel, false accusations of conspiracy and scapegoatery, and bigoted anti-Gentile smears which still continue unabated to this very day.” Some Anti-Semitic Southerners think Jews are trying to instigate another civil war.

100 Years of Hate, Rebuked

For 100 years the Jewish community has been unraveling an unrelenting cultural and race war against Gentiles with the accusation of collective guilt, to wit: that collectively European-American pervasive anti-Semitic bigotry unilaterally inspired the anti-Jewish railroading, framing, conviction and assassination of an innocent Jew, the B’nai B’rith President Leo M. Frank, through the years 1913 to 1915.

Jewish-Gentile Tensions Smoldering Beyond Smears to a Final Global Conflict?

Even the average observer is wondering if these very loud and lopsided century old anti-Gentile smears made against European-Americans, coming from the Frankite side of the Leo Frank case, are part of a wider historical blame game by Jews against Gentiles. The Leo Frank case has become another example of the unforgivable instigation of conflict by Jews against Gentiles that remains mostly unchallenged today.

5,800 Years of International Jewish Cultural Terrorism Reaching a Boiling Crescendo

For European-Americans, the Leo Frank Case is not a Jewish-Gentile conflict, but simply a grizzly murder case involving an infatuated boss who is high functioning despite some very serious psychological, behavioral and emotional problems “hidden under the surface”, who couldn’t handle rejection and felt frustrated, scorned-spurned, rejected and thus became ever more aggressively persistent to the point of violent rage.

Because Jews are stacking up fabricating pathological lies and falsifying everything about the case, using the case as part of their wider culture war against Gentiles and Western Civilization, it is artificially turning up the heat concerning Jewish-Gentile tensions, that could lead to a boiling crescendo.

Not Even the Most Prominent Frankite Would Even Dare Broach the Subject

The Leo Frank scholar Steve Oney, the seasoned tabloid virtuoso and Jewish Frankite Cult Rock Superstar, does not even dare to address the “Leo Frank Confession Question” in his egoist and pretentiously biased, but well written 2003 book, ‘And the Dead Shall Rise: The Murder of Mary Phagan and the Lynching of Leo Frank’.

Back to the Ignoring of the Leo Frank Confession Question by Frankites

Observers are wondering why no contemporary Frankite (Leo Frank partisan) writers have ever analyzed or offered their spin on this very reasonable “Leo Frank Confession Question”? Why won’t they even peep a single word about it?

Answer:

Is it because it might be wasteful for any contemporary writer in the Frank partisan camp to touch this subject, as it would wipe out a century long racist blame game by a large and vocal segment of the Jewish community and Frankites, a defamation campaign by Jews which have been perpetuating the Leo Frank anti-Semitic blood libel hoax for more than 100 years?

From the Prosecution Side of the Equation – The Age of Enlightenment: 2012 and Beyond

The Leo Frank anti-Semitism hoax came to its end with the centennial of the strangulation of Mary Phagan and Leo Frank between 2013 to 2015 as the Leo Frank subject went viral and more people reviewed the primary source materials than ever before in history! It is hoped that the smears and slanders directed at Hugh M. Dorsey, Southerners and European-Americans as a collective will eventually die off, or there is likely to be an exacerbation of fighting words and increased conflict between Jews and Gentiles between 2013 and 2015.

The Last Man to Articulate the Leo Frank Murder Confession

The last man with enough fiery brass to address this question superbly was the ginger headed genius Tom Watson in 1915, published through his Jeffersonian Publishing Company in Watson’s Magazine 1915 issues January, March, August, September and October and his 1914 / 1915 Jeffersonian newspapers (Watson, 1914 & 1915). Before Watson, Hugh Dorsey and Frank Arthur Hooper in late August 1913 both threaded and incorporated the Leo Frank murder confession as part of their long closing arguments (American State Trials Volume X 1918, “Closing Arguments of Hooper and Dorsey August 1913”)

The Best Articulation of the Leo Frank Murder Confession

Tom Watson does not get original credit for making this analysis about Leo Frank’s statement being a near murder confession, but he does articulate it better and more colorfully than Mr. Hooper and Hugh M. Dorsey. True or False?

Compare the three by reading: Argument of Hugh M. Dorsey, followed by The Argument of Mr. Frank Hooper where they both elucidate in their final closing arguments what sounds like a near confession being made by Leo M. Frank. Compare Hugh M. Dorsey’s and Mr. Hooper’s articulations of Leo Frank’s bathroom statement together against Tom Watson’s version published August and Sept 1915 in Watson’s Magazine. It reveals this case centers around Monteen Stover more than it does James Conley aka Jim Conley.

Which Closing Argument is More Convincing Neutral Observers? The closing argument of Dorsey or Hooper? How does former Senator and Attorney Tom Watson’s post trial testimony analysis?

A POWERFUL Historically Significant Question Emerges From the Testimony of Leo Frank

One hundred years after Leo Frank gave his trial testimony on August 18, 1913, dispassionate researchers, revisionists and neutral scholars who meticulously studied the Leo Frank case began asking a much grander scale and historically intriguing question:

How many times in United States history has the prime suspect and defendant made what amounts to a virtual confession at their own capital murder trial?!

It is a question that has never been publicly asked before until here and now.

Don’t take our word on it…

Independent Reader: Can You Solve the Leo Frank Confession Equation With the Trial Testimony?

Let’s begin with opened minds.

The Detailed Approach To the Leo Frank Murder Confession, August 18, 1913:

First

Before first independently undertaking the task and then answering the Leo Frank murder confession question, one must be very familiar with several separate elements of the official record: one must first read Leo Frank’s State’s Exhibit B, pay special attention and note the time Leo Frank said Mary Phagan had arrived at his office. State’s Exhibit B is concerning a lawyer and police witnessed, stenographer captured, statement made on the morning of Monday, April 28, 1913, by Leo M. Frank about Mary Phagan entering his office between 12:05 and 12:10, with a “maybe” 12:07.

Nothing about a bathroom visit is mentioned in State’s Exhibit B or the inquest testimony given by Leo Frank, but it is finally revealed at the trial after Monteen Stover, the Star Witness, gives her testimony. Even more startling is Leo Frank told the inquest that he did not use the bathroom all day, not that he forgot, but that he didn’t use it. He was trying mentally and physically to keep himself away from that side of the building on his floor.

Second

Read and study the trial statement of Monteen Stover, about her arriving in Leo Frank’s inner and outer office at 12:05 and looking for him and waiting for him for five minutes based on the big clock on the wall in Leo Frank’s office, until she eventually leaves at 12:10; followed by the testimony of Leo Frank defense witness Detective Harry Scott, then the Assistant Superintendent of the Pinkerton Detective Agency, see: Leo Frank murder trial testimony for both statements (BOE, 1913).

Third

Then read the Leo M. Frank Murder Trial Testimony, where Leo Frank says two very intriguing things to counter the testimony of Monteen Stover as he slips in two interesting defenses. First, Leo Frank does not mention seeing Monteen Stover in his office or at all, and pay very close attention to what Leo Frank then explains where he might have “unconsciously” gone on the second floor of the National Pencil Company between 12:05 to 12:10 as the reason he was not seen by Monteen Stover in his office and second, Leo Frank says the reason Monteen Stover couldn’t see him [Leo Frank] in his office was that the safe door was open and blocked off the door in the inner office out of view. Both of these statements were newfangled revelations for the purpose of creating two doorways or possible alibis countering Monteen Stover’s testimony concerning Leo Frank’s whereabouts between 12:05 and 12:10 – both of Leo Frank’s defenses, “the safe door” and the “unconsciously” going to the bathroom in the metal room were totally shocking revelations, because one put him at the scene of the crime and the other was a complete fabrication – Monteen Stover was very motivated and wanted her paycheck (this was never disputed) and thus she checked both of Leo Frank’s inner and outer offices and saw the time on the clock in Leo Frank’s inner office from 12:05 to 12:10.

Monteen Stover even looked down the hall and saw the door to the metal room closed shut. Frank was presumably on the other side of that shut door finishing off Mary Phagan.

Fourth

If you need even more help in solving the Leo Frank confession question, see what prosecution team members Hugh Dorsey and Frank Hooper have to say about Leo Frank’s “unconscious” bathroom admission (The August 1913, Argument of Hugh M. Dorsey, Published 1914; The August 1913, Frank Arthur Hooper, Closing Arguments, American State Trials Volume X, Published 1918). In other words, start by first seeing if you can connect the dots between these three people: Harry Scott, Monteen Stover and Leo Frank, via their own official trial testimony and statements.

If you want more definitive explanations of the Leo Frank confession question, add two more people at the trial to help articulate it, Hugh Dorsey and Frank Arthur Hooper, that is if you need five people (Dorsey, Hooper, Harry Scott, Monteen Stover and Leo Frank) to help you make a stronger connection than the three witnesses.

If you want to save time you can read the best analysis ever written on the Leo Frank case. Tom Watson’s reviews of the case provide the best analysis, they are published in Watson’s Magazine August and September of 1915.

Closing Arguments August 1913

Prosecution team leader Hugh Dorsey and prosecution team member Mr. Frank Arthur Hooper would later interpret in their closing arguments, the exact words Leo Frank said during the very specific exultation in his testimony, as a very strong admission of guilt, but they were both careful to not focus too much on it, but instead bring each point of evidence together to concatenate the circumstantial chain of evidence around him. The strategy of the State’s prosecution resembled “death by a thousands wounds”, rather than a single death blow, even though the Leo Frank virtual murder confession amounted to virtual suicide.

Over 2 dozen impartial men, half of them Juryman and the other half Judges, from 1913 to 1915, all called to review the case affirmed the guilty verdict by not disturbing it and they certainly didn’t miss the Leo Frank murder confession either.

“The Lone Jurywoman”

Lucille’s will notarized in 1954 (The Will of Lucille Selig Frank, 1954) specifies she wanted to be cremated instead of being buried next to Leo Frank (Stern-Frank plot #2) at the Mount Carmel Cemetery in Queens NY in Stern-Frank plot #1 which was reserved for her, it was a smidgen odd, but tends to add another powerful undeniable vote of guilt against Leo Frank by the the only “Jurywoman”, Lucy Selig Frank. The cremation tends to vindicate Leo Frank murder confession #2 known as State’s Exhibit J (Minola McKnight, June 3, 1913).

Fifth

Tom Watson’s Fire and Brim Stone Articulation

If you want a better understanding and historical perspective of the Leo Frank Murder confession, you can also read Watson’s Magazine’s five magazine issues which cover the Leo Frank trial within the January, March, August, September and October of 1915. The “unconscious” bathroom visit is also covered in some of the issues of the Jeffersonian newspaper as well 1914 and 1915. To cut to the chase though, skip Watson’s Magazine Jan and March 1915, the magazine issues that cover the Leo Frank murder confession the best are the August and September issues of Watson’s Magazine – start there.

The Shocking Blunder

How it all began in more specific details: SOME PEOPLE COMPLETELY MISSED IT!

On August 18th, 1913, Leo Frank mounted the witness stand at his murder trial and while giving testimony to the Court and Jury, throughout his half-chronological, half-rambling, and mostly mind numbing and brain bending four-hour speech he revealed the solution to the Mary Phagan Murder Mystery. It was revealed like this, After putting the courtroom to sleep during his Bueller-Bueller-Bueller Bueller-Bueller-Bueller (Ferris Buellers Day Off) four hour speech, like a foxman, he snuck in some very specific statements about his “unconscious” whereabouts in the shuttered and nearly empty pencil factory during the specific time frame of the Mary Phagan murder, but he was careful not to be too tight and narrow, so he softened it by widening the time spectrum on it, but he also made another mistake to immediately explain why Monteen Stover did not see him with a supposed safe door blocking his view. The two explanations were shocking.

It was the first time in all of his numerous statements that he revealed his “unconscious” whereabouts after noon on 4-26-1913. Though the slipped in testimony might have been missed by the average Joe Cracker and Sally Whitebread, it absolutely wasn’t missed by the lucid Prosecution team members, who made a point to articulate it in their closing arguments as a single thread woven amongst numerous other threads into a hang mans noose. The prosecution closing arguments were remarkable, they were presented on a silver platter to the conscientious Judge and highly attentive Jury.

High Society

The Leo Frank murder confession was not missed by the social and political elite, the highest legal minds of Georgia who were incensed by the illegal shenanigans and black handed tactics of the criminal bribery scandals created by the Leo Frank defense team that unraveling from 1913 to 1915.

The upper strata of Georgia would respond to Leo Frank defense team successful bribery efforts, extensive witness tampering and chicanery, by finally orchestrating one of the most nervy and ballsy commando raids, it has been described as one of the most audacious prison breaks in U.S. history and thus de facto overturning the criminal-traitorous John M Slaton’s toady and cronyesque commutation.

The elites of Georgia delivered hanging justice for Leo Frank in favor of the Jury which consciously chose the determination of Guilt without recommendation of mercy. The Jury collectively and specifically voted for a hanging as the just payment of the guilty verdict in other words. In the eyes of the prosecution side of the Leo Frank case the Jury was ultimately vindicated by the aristocratic minds of high society Marietta and Georgia.

Take off the blinders Frankites

True modern Leo Frank scholars didn’t miss the Leo Frank confession either and are now asking Frankites “how about it?”

Now Test Your Intuitive and Detective Mind

Take a deep breath and read the mind-numbing trial testimony of Leo Frank and see if you can figure it out yourself, before referring to Dorsey, Hooper and Watson. However if you can’t figure it out on your own without Dorsey, Hooper and Watson, keep on reading here for the deeper analysis and details, then check the original sources of the Leo Frank case on your own to confirm their veracity and truth.

Frank Arthur Hooper Made His Final Closing Argument Before Dorsey in Late August 1913

In the concluding days, Mr. Frank Hooper of the Leo Frank prosecution team in his final closing argument would correctly suggest to the Jury that Frank’s statement about an “unconscious” bathroom visit, was the first time Frank mentioned it (Frank denied using the bathroom previously at the Coroners Inquest). Hooper asserts, Frank’s statement put him on the other side of the building, directly in the metal room where the bathroom was, the alleged area of the crime scene (Hooper, August 1913).

Frank Arthur Hooper was indeed correct, because Leo Frank told Harry Scott witnessed by another police officer name Black, he [Leo Frank] was in his office every minute from noon to half past noon, and in State’s Exhibit B, Leo Frank never mentions a bathroom visit all day which seems odd. At the Coroner’s inquest Coroner Paul Donehoo was incredulous as he should have been that Leo Frank claimed he had not used the bathroom at all that day – it was unbelievable and raised red flags.

An Excerpt from Mr. Hooper’s Final Argument

There was Mary. Then, there was another little girl, Monteen Stover. Frank never knew Monteen was there, and Frank said he stayed in his office from 12 until after 1, and never left. Monteen waited around for five minutes. Then she left. The result? There comes for the first time from the lips of Frank, the defendant, the admission that he might have gone to some other part of the building during this time, he didn’t remember clearly. (August, 1913)

The other part of the building Mr. Hooper is referring to is the metal room, which is just down the hall from Leo Frank’s office and the place that all the evidence suggests Mary Phagan was really murdered. Review the original references listed below and make your own conclusion about whether Leo Frank was guilty or not.

Analysis of Hooper

Indeed, for the first time, in 3 months, it was only after Monteen Stover said Leo Frank’s office was empty from 12:05 to 12:10 when she went to get her pay on April 26, 1913, that’s when Leo Frank for the first time came up with his “unconscious” bathroom visit to the metal room – a shocking revelation interpreted as the Leo Frank murder confession.

What was so shocking about the metal room bathroom revelation is that Leo Frank had more than 3 months to prepare a statement for the court and jury, and for the first time at the trial mentions an “unconscious” bathroom visit to the very place the prosecution had spent 4 months building a case trying to prove the metal room was the REAL scene of the crime (not the basement where Mary had been dragged and dumped).

The virtual murder confession left people who had hoped for a good fight scratching their heads and disappointed, wondering why Leo Frank would “tip his hand” and drop a such a bombshell spoiler, by say something so ineluctably and irreversibly incriminating at the trial.

It was an absolute total let down, after all everyone was hoping for a good fight, not even Frankite spin could re-engineer this ugly debacle Leo Frank unveiled with remarkable stupidity, so the Frankites simply ignore it, knowing 99 times out of 100 the average person is never going to take the time to read and study the official record known as the 1913 Leo Frank Trial Brief of Evidence.

Tom Watson’s “Frank Entrapped Himself Beyond Escape”

Tom Watson would describe Frank’s “unconscious” metal room bathroom revelation, colorfully saying Frank had implicated and entrapped himself BEYOND ESCAPE (Watson, Sept 1915). Watson, like most legal observers, considered it an inescapable confession that Leo Frank murdered Mary Phagan in the metal room, because Frank by his own words put himself in the metal room toilet during the approximate time span of the murder. More specifically, Frank stated Mary Phagan was in his office between 12:05 and 12:10, maybe 12:07 on Saturday, April 26, 1913 (State’s Exhibit B, 1913). Most observers could easily consider the “Maybe 12:07” in State’s Exhibit B as the moment Leo Frank was sure Mary Phagan was dead or that Mary Phagan made her last breath, because the words rung vividly indicating an engram of exultation and truth. If Frank said in State’s exhibit B that Mary arrived between 12:05 and 12:10, and that he was “unconsciously” in the metal room bathroom in response to Monteen Stover’s testimony, it created the most tight and narrow admission of guilt possible without outright coming out and admitting it in a full confession.

Leo Frank Murder Confession? August 18, 1913. Yes, No or Maybe? None of the Above?

What about the other side of the Leo Frank confession question? Let’s Give Leo Frank the “Benefit of the Doubt”.

Though to be fair, the original confession question itself sounds loaded, like it presumes Leo M. Frank makes a near confession about murdering little Mary Phagan. The confession or near confession is one interpretation by 3 published principles and attorneys, Dorsey (Argument of Hugh M. Dorsey, 1914), Hooper (American State Trials Volume X, 1918), Watson (Jeffersonian Newspaper, 1914, 1915; Watson’s Magazine, 1915), others might interpret it as just a harmless visit to the bathroom in the metal room at about the same time the murder occurred. In fact, Leo Frank might have been in the bathroom in the metal room, while Phagan was being killed on the first floor by Jim Conley.

The only problem with the Jim Conley murder theory is that there is little to no evidence to support it and Leo Frank made a blunder saying Lemmie Quinn came to his office at 12:20, making such an attack on the first floor impossible unless Lemmie walked in on it. At the trial Leo Frank changed his story and said Mary Phagan arrived in his office 10 to 15 minutes after his stenographer left at 12:02, putting Mary Phagans arrival at his office from 12:12 to 12:17 (his 4th different version of her arrival), and her staying in his office for 2 minutes meant she should have nearly bumped into Lemmie Quinn.

The Lemmie Quinn revelation made the murder on the first floor hard to believe, without Lemmie Quinn walking in on it. Most historians though, think the Lemmie Quinn revelation was likely a lie and a blunder. What made the first floor “Jim Conley theory” even less plausible is the fact Leo Frank was less than 35 feet away, he would have certainly heard a scream in the silent building.

Making Matters Worse

The Leo Frank defense only made a confusing half-hearted attempt to blame Jim Conley at the trial that came off as insincere, insecure, half-baked, hokey and desperate. True or False? What does the official record say concerning the failed blame Jim Conley attempts by the defense team, which was partly abandoned and changed through the trial, for a different version of events, making it seem phony and disingenuous? The defense version of the murder will be discussed in greater detail in another section of the Leo Frank web site.

The Defense Version of the Murder

The Leo Frank defense team would claim the murder of Mary Phagan happened when she went downstairs to the highest traffic point in the Factory, the front entrance and in their version, Mary Phagan was accosted by the sweeper Jim Conley for her paltry $1.20 so he could buy booze – a pretty good plausible attempt, but there is one problem with it. Why would Jim Conley be waiting around in the factory all morning long, when he was paid $6 the evening before, shouldn’t he be at the bar drinking 15 cent pitchers or 5 cent pints of beer?

Zero Evidence on the first floor

Though the police found no blood, or evidence of such a struggle near the entry or first floor lobby, and because it was the highest traffic spot in the factory and Jim had been sitting there all morning according to Alonzo Mann, and other people had seen Jim Conley sitting there during the late morning like Mrs. White, it was more likely the truth that Leo Frank asked Conley to be his look out, rather than Jim Conley had come to work to rob factory employees. Observers are wondering when in the history of the 13 billion year old universe, does a negro come to work on a Saturday holiday when he doesn’t have to. It was more likely the truth, that Jim Conley was called to come to work by Leo Frank, who would have the factory all to himself in the afternoon and would need a look out for his usual Saturday whoring. Something else happened instead on that infamous April 26, 1913.

The defense also suggested Jim Conley dumped Phagans body down the scuttle hole, and if that were the case her 120lb body would have hit the ladder all the way down during the 14ft drop and would have broken, bruised, cracked or bled on the ladder – the autopsy showed no indications of a 14ft fall against a ladder. The other problem with the scuttle hole theory was that there were drag marks noted coming from the front of the elevator shaft leading to the pile Mary had been dumped onto and there is no record of evidence showing Phagan had any broken or cracked bones or had bruises from that kind of fall either (elevator shaft fall). Phagan would have at least bruised. The defense then abandoned the scuttle hole dump theory, and claimed Conley threw her down the elevator shaft, there were no bruises to indicate she had been thrown down the elevator shaft and if she had, why didn’t she land on Steve Oney’s “Shit in the Shaft”?

Defense Version

National Pencil Company Factory Diagram 1, 1913
National Pencil Company Factory Diagram 2, 1913
Stages of the Defense Version of the Mary Phagan Murder

The Leo Frank Case Open or Closed?

When did Mary Phagan Arrive and When Was She Killed?

According to Leo Frank: The answer is sometime between 12:02 and 12:17 according to Leo Frank at various times, at different times he said Mary Phagan arrived: 12:02, 12:03, 12:05 to 12:10, Maybe 12:07, or 12:12 to 12:17, or 12:02 to 12:03, which answer of Leo Frank’s do you believe? He gave more than 4 during different times in total concerning when Mary Phagan stepped into his office. Immediately after the murder, the time Leo Frank gave, was very close to noon, minute or two after noon, but as time went by, the arrival time moved away from noon toward a quarter after noon and more.

Time Shift Summary of Leo Frank

On Sunday, April 27 1913, Frank told police officers that Mary had arrived in his office at about 12:02 to 12:03. Monday, April 28th 1913, it turned into 12:05 to 12:10, maybe 12:07, at the Coroners inquest Jury it would turn into 12:10 to 12:15 and at the murder trial it would be 12:12 to 12:17 when Frank made a four hour statement to the Jury on August 18, 1913 – the day he made his virtual murder confession. For some reason the time shift seems to be away from the time it most likely really happened to a much latter time.

Who Received the Different Versions?

Leo Frank had given numerous and different accounts of when Mary Phagan had arrived at his second floor office to: Detective Black; Chief of Detectives Newport A. Lanford; Defense witness Detective Harry Scott of the Pinkerton Detective Agency; The 7 men of the Coroner’s Inquest Jury; and lastly at the Murder Trial Jury of Thirteen Men (Judge + 12 Jurymen).

Let’s Review: What do the following details reveal?:

Sunday

1: On Sunday April 27th 1913, Frank told police officers, Mary Phagan arrived minutes after miss Hall left his office at noon on April 26th 1913. Minutes after translates into 12:02 or 12:03, given that Miss Hall left at noon.

Monday

2: On Monday, April 28 1913, Frank made a “statement” to Police Chief of Detectives Newport A. Lanford in front of numerous other police officers and a stenographer. Leo Frank said that Mary Phagan arrived at the second floor office of the factory between “12:05 to 12:10, maybe 12:07” (as documented in State’s Exhibit B). thus the arrival time increase by 3, 5, 8 minutes from 12:02 to 12:03 to 12:05 to 12:10, maybe 12:07. The “maybe” 12:07, some feel indicates some kind of mental revelation as the exact time, Phagan’s strangled body stopped struggling and breathing.

Inquest

3: At the Coroners Inquest Jury of 7 jurists (Coroner Donehoo plus 6 jurymen), Frank said Mary Phagan had arrived between about 12:10 and 12:15. Now the time moved past his 2 other statements, by 8 to 13 minutes, presumably to be much closer to when “Lemmie Quinn arrived” in his office at 12:20 to 12:25 to make it seem like he didn’t have enough time to strangle Phagan.

Murder Trial (July 28 to August 26 1913), August 18, 1913 – Confession Question

4: On August 18, 1913, Leo Frank said Mary Phagan arrived between 12:12 to 12:17. More specifically, during his murder trial Frank said that Mary Phagan came into his office 10 to 15 minutes after Miss Hall left (Miss Hall testified she left immediately to a minute after noon) his office just after noon, putting Mary in his office in this changing version from as early as 12:10 through 12:12 to as late as 12:15 through 12:17 (assuming Miss Hall left at 12:00, 12:01 or 12:02).

Leo Frank Gave At Least Four Different Versions of Mary Phagan’s Arrival Time. Observers want to ask Leo Frank: so which one is it Leo? and why are all four so numerically precise and so disparate?. Observers are asking why Leo keeps moving the time forward into the future? Knowing the answer is to likely distance himself from when the crime occurred. The Frankites over the last 100 years give very poor analysis of these vastly different times Leo Frank gave for obvious reasons.

The Big Fat Office Clock in Front of Leo Frank

The problem is that Leo Frank had a big clock right there in his office which was an important part of his 5 years employment at the pencil manufacturing plant, so people are only half-wondering why the time of arrival keeps changing, when the clock was ticking so steadily and smoothly. Clock accuracy was only off by a minute or few, either way, 100 years ago, adding another intriguing dimension to the time factor, but irregardless, Frank knew the exact time Phagan arrived in his office, but he changed it 4 times.

The bottom line concerning the time: Frank repeatedly changed when Mary Phagan arrived and his whereabouts thereafter.

In What Way Did the Time Leo Frank Gave About Phagan Arriving Change?

Each time Frank gave a slightly different version of when Mary Phagan had arrived that inched forward by minutes, sometimes he used exact clock times, other times he used slightly more vague terms, putting the arrival time in terms in reference of when other people left (like when Hattie hall and alonzo mann left) or arrived (Lemmie Quinn). How come every time Leo Frank is asked when Mary Phagan arrived the time changes completely. People are wondering why a precise accountant who logs the exact time, numbers and money so precisely can’t seem to give a precise answer when a big clock was right in front of him at the time. Watson says Leo Frank repeatably lied about his whereabouts and that of Mary Phagan, because Leo Frank’s statements were contradicted by others and himself (Watson, 1915).

The Ever Widening Time Spectrum

The ranges of time Leo Frank said Mary Phagan had arrived in his office and left according to the different statements he made varied from as early as 12:02, 12:03, 12:05, 12:07, 12:10, 12:12, 12:15 to 12:17. The problematic nature of this 15+ minute time range is that Leo Frank is unaccountable during this period in terms of their being a single witness to testify as to having seen Franks exact whereabouts.

The hypothetical

If Mary Phagan had come after Monteen Stover at 12:11 or 12:12 (wouldn’t they bump into each other?), instead of the other way around which really happened (Mary Phagan came before Monteen Stover), Leo Frank would put himself in the metal room bathroom alone without Mary Phagan and thus Monteen Stover would wait in Leo Frank’s office while Leo Frank was making #2 in the metal room toilet, because if he was making #1 instead in the metal room bathroom, he would have been back within the 5 minute time span that Monteen Stover waited for him in his office from 12:05 to 12:10. Applying the common sense test: In general, no man pees for 5 minutes or more. It would mean Frank was making #2, and he came from the toilet into his office when Mary arrived. This is what Leo Frank is postulating as his defense. Leo Frank is changing his testimony to account for Monteen Stovers testimony.

Newfangled: Leo Frank Forgot Lemmie Quinn for One Week

Frank also seemed to have forgotten Lemmie Quinn for nearly a whole week after the murder and because Frank waited so long to bring him up, it was considered suspicious and highly questionable as to whether it really happened or not. Both Leo Frank and Lemmie Quinn, say that Quinn arrived between 12:20 to 12:25 at Frank’s office, and mention this at the coroners inquest and again at Leo Frank’s murder trial, but not before both of these events.

The coroner wanted to know why Leo Frank had waited so long to bring this new evidence forward, even after he remembered it before the Coroners Inquest. Why did he wait to bring it up at the Coroners Inquest and not tell the police sooner (Oney, 2003).

Two employees would testify that they saw Lemmie Quinn leave the building area at around 11:30 to 11:45, putting Quinns testimony about coming to Franks office at 12:20 in question as possible perjury and a poorly concocted arrangement to make it seem like Frank did not have enough time to kill Mary Phagan.

Lemmie Quinns Affidavit Contradicted His Testimony

The affidavit in the Leo Frank brief of evidence by Lemmie Quinn makes it even more impossible that he might have come back to the office to visit Frank and ask about speaking with Schiff at the factory – on a holiday.

Schiff Never Missed Work For Five Years

Schiff who was not supposed to even be at the factory that day, broke the whole Lemmie Quinn visit apart. Schiff prided himself on never missing a day of work in five years, why on August 26,1913, did he suddenly break this 5 year perfect record? He was never supposed to come to work on that holiday.

The whole Lemmie Quinn and Leo Frank 12:20 to 12:25 breaks down under the common sense test.

Frank couldn’t even manufacture it with Lemmie Quinn at 12:20.

Since the whole Lemmie Quinn thing is a bunch of hokey malarkey — manufactured evidence, why didn’t Frank have Lemmie visiting him earlier to account for him? Because it would have pushed the murder time closer to when the murder really started and happened which was around 12:03PM . Not only that, it would mean that defense would inadvertently shrink the time Jim Conley had to “commit the crime” if Lemmie came earlier than 12:20 to 12:25, because according to the defense, Mary has to walk down the stairs first before she can get assaulted by Jim Conley. Leo Frank admitted Mary Phagan was in his office for about 1 to 2 minutes.

 

 

Debunking Lemmie Quinn and his Contrived Testimony in three steps

Back to Witness Lemmie Quinn who puts Leo Frank in his office after the murder supposedly already occurred, but Lemmie Quinn’s newfangled testimony (Read Leo Frank’s account of it and read Lemmie Quinns version in the official record) sets off the highly refined bullshit detector of Coroner Donehoo and others had an orange alert on the Frank-Quinn matrix and so did the prosecution and thirteen man Jury at the murder trial

First

Two female witnesses would testify and make statements that would put Lemmies testimony into doubt, saying Lemmie had already come at 11:30 to 11:45, come and gone.

Second

So would Lemmie Quinns early affidavit (Brief of Evidence, 1913) also contradict his testimony at the trial, which has him at another part of town.

Third

Finally Schiff was never meant to be at work that day. Check out Lemmie Quinns Affidavit in the Brief of Evidence and compare it with his testimony and schiffs statements. Do you believe Lemmie Quinn? Look at his picture, what’s your gut feeling on this one?

Monteen Stover vs. Leo Frank:

One witness for sure, Monteen Stover, confirms that Leo Frank was not in his office during 12:05 to 12:10 which makes Leo Frank’s statement to Chief Lanford in State’s Exhibit B a strong piece of evidence of Frank’s guilt, because it was when Frank said Mary Phagan arrived 12:05 to 12:10, maybe 12:07 (States Exhibit B, April 28, 1913), that created one persons word against the other, but it also put Leo Frank in the metal room, the only other place he could have been, because Frank made a statement affirming his “unconscious” whereabouts.

Ironically, Monteen Stover was a Character Witness for Leo Frank

The irony is this, Monteen Stover actually liked Leo Frank, she had nothing bad to say about him concerning licentious or lascivious behavior at the factory. She acted as a character witness on behalf of Leo Frank and the defense were unable to impeach her claim of coming to the Pencil factory to get her weekly pay and waiting between 12:05 to 12:10 on April 26, 1913, in Leo Frank’s second floor office.


Jim Conley’s Version

Jim Conley saw Mary Phagan enter, also said he heard Leo Frank and Mary Phagan walk towards the metal room, as the wooden floor boards reveal the direction people walk, followed by a scream (Conley, 1913). After the scream, Jim Conley saw a girl with tennis shoes walk up the stairs and wait a little while and then leave. Jim Conley did not know the girl was Monteen Stover, but he described her clothes exactly. Monteen Stover was discovered around or before May 10th, 1913 in a twist of luck through the extended interview process of associates, employees and principles in the case.

Jim Conley’s story was corroborated because of this intricate detail.

Another thing that corroborated Jim Conley’s story that he heard Frank walk toward the metal room, was Leo Franks admission of “unconsciously” going to the bathroom in the metal room.

Appellate Review

Two years of review from 1913 to 1915 by more than a bakers dozen of seasoned judges overwhelmingly believe the onus of guilt is on Leo Frank beyond a reasonable doubt, that puts the unanimous Jury voting against Leo Frank at over 2 dozen.

Questions Beget More Questions

Questions people ask after reading Leo Frank’s trial testimony: How come Monteen Stover didn’t bump into Mary Phagan coming or going, or getting assaulted on the first floor, observers are wondering why? Why does Frank harp on about $1.20 in his testimony? Was he anticipating Dorsey dropping a bombshell on the accounting books? What about the contrived murder notes that have Mary Phagan going to the bathroom in the only place she could have in the metal room? How come Leo Frank denies knowing Jim Conley was downstairs on the first floor, but Mrs. White later remembered seeing him waiting down there and Alonzo Mann in his 80’s admitted to seeing Jim Conley waiting all morning on the first floor in his usual watch dog spot. Since Jim Conley was seen numerous time, in the most high traffic area of the factory, is he likely to rob and assault someone there?

Does it even matter if Monteen Stover waited in Leo Frank’s empty inner and outer office, or not, for 5 minutes, between 12:05 to 12:10? If Frank made an unconscious visit to the bathroom before, during or after the time Monteen Stover said she waited for him in his empty office, does it matter? Yes, Harry Scott said that Leo Frank told him [Harry Scott] that he [Leo Frank] was in his office from every minute from noon to 12:35. Is it important that the only bathroom on the second floor is located in the metal room? Think about it. It was only at the trial, that Leo Frank brought out the bathroom revelation, he did not bring it up any other time – and as we remember the coroner was indignant about this fact. The Death Notes have Mary Phagan going to the toilet to make water and Leo Frank has himself going to the toilet to make water or number 2.

Was it a Blunder or Nothing at All?

ABSOLUTELY SHOCKING: Why would Frank make such a blunder and state he may have unconsciously gone to the toilets in the metal room to account for Monteen Stover saying he (Leo Frank) was absent from his 2nd floor (inner and outer) office between 12:05 and 12:10?

Leo Frank moves Mary Phagans arrival time to 12:12 in his August 18, 1913, last statement at his murder trial, because he has to make sure Monteen Stover doesn’t bump into Mary Phagan, and two minutes buys that time, but very sharply. Notice, she doesnt arrive at 12:10 or 12:11, because of the collision problem between Stover and Phagan?

That’s a subtle nuance.

Total Blunder? Why would Leo Frank put himself in the crime scene that the prosecution spent 4 weeks trying to prove the murder happened there between 12:05 and 12:15.?

What other possibility could he have come up with as to why he was not in his office?

Upstairs? Only if those witnesses on the 4th floor could be bribed.

Downstairs? Jim Conley.

Bathroom in the metal room? By admission, Yes!

Alonzo Mann On Jim Conley

Alonzo Mann’s revelations in the 1980’s tended to create more contradictions in Leo Frank’s testimony, because Frank denied knowing Conley was waiting on the first floor of the building all morning long on April 26, 1913, yet Franks August 18, 1913, statement reveals in the morning period Frank was coming and going, in and out of the building.

Where was Jim Conley?

The Specific Pages of the Murder Confession From the Official Record

If you do not want to read Leo M. Frank’s abridged 4 hour speech, you would need to at least familiarize yourself with 2 pages of the Leo M. Frank trial testimony pages 185 and 186 of the official record.

A two page excerpt (185 and 186), from the official record of Frank’s August 18, 1913 testimony captured in the Brief of Evidence (see the 2 pages listed below) provides a snap shot of his unconscious bathroom visit.

Let’s Look Closer at the Leo Frank Murder Confession

Here are two original pages from the Official Brief of Evidence, p. 185 and 186, download them.

Please review these two pages in 1913 Brief of Evidence –
http://www.leofrank.org/georgia-archive/B056/D260-B056-1216.JPG
http://www.leofrank.org/georgia-archive/B056/D260-B056-1217.JPG

If these images do not load contact us.

When was the “unconscious” visit to the metal room bathroom?

The presumption is perhaps most likely 12:03 or 12:04.

Frank claimed only three people were in the factory

Frank said (to paraphrase) that to the best of his recollection when he was in his second floor office from 12:00 to 12:45, that aside from temporary visitors, the only other people continuously in the building he was aware of were Mr. White and Mr. Denham on the 4th floor, banging away and doing construction, as they tore down a partition.

That’s it, three people.

By Frank’s statement that there were only three people in the building, the question one asks: If there are 3 people in the factory, and 2 of them didn’t do it, who is left?

Leo Frank Forgot Mrs. White’s Visit at 12:35

Frank also seems to “disremember” Mrs. White coming into his office at 12:35. Mrs. White came in asking if she could go up to the 4th floor to visit her husband, she said Frank was startled at the safe, when she spoke to his back. Frank might have been putting Phagan’s purse in there at the time, is one theory. Mrs. White noticed a Negro relaxing and waiting inconspicuously on the first floor, that looked like Jim Conley.

Alonzo Mann Corroborates and Sustains Jim Conley’s Testimony?

Alonzo Mann, confirmed it was Conley waiting there the whole morning in the 1980’s as was later discovered.

Other factors would lend to discrediting Leo Frank…

Credibility Check: Frank Denied Knowing His Employee Mary Phagan

Frank also stated from day one of the investigation all the way up to and during the trial, that he did not know Mary Phagan by her name.

Eight Ways Leo Frank Could Not Deny Knowing Mary Phagan

1. The problem with this Phagan Denial, is Mary worked down the hall from Leo Frank’s second floor office, where she worked in the second floor metal department. One employee mentioned that Leo Frank would walk around at check that people were not loafing and examining the quality of work. This was to be expected given Leo Frank was an attentive manager.

2. Mary received 50 “paychecks” (pay envelopes) each weekend from Leo Frank for working 55 hour work weeks, at 7.5 cents an hour, earning $4.05 per week and punched the time clock inside Leo Frank’s office more than 500 times (13 months x 4 weeks per month x 5 days per week x two punches per day, one checking in and one checking out). In general how important is the detail that Leo Frank was responsible for monitoring and logging employee punch card hours and then calculating weekly payments?

3. Leo Frank had to walk by Mary Phagans work station each day during her 1 year tenure at the Pencil factory to get to the metal room bathroom. Leo Frank being an avid coffee drinker would have had to go to the bathroom at least once a day if not more during the normal 10 to 12 hour a day work week. Ask anyone who binges and guzzles coffee like it’s going out of style how many times they go to the bathroom in a an eleven hour period.

4. Other employees testified that Frank spoke to Mary on a first name basis and would often get a little bit too close for comfort at times. One employee at the trial remarked about seeing Leo Frank putting his hand on Marys shoulder and newsie George Epps her neighbor, chum and fellow-employee said Mary confided to him that Leo Frank was sexually harassing her.

5. In terms of Hours: How did Leo Frank not know the girl that worked more than 2,500 hours for him (and punched the clock in front of him to log those 2,500 hours)?

6. Frank made a blunder and told detective Harry Scott that his former employee J. M. Gantt was “intimate” with Mary Phagan, which meant Leo Frank got caught in a lie, because it meant Leo Frank knew Mary Phagan enough to know that juicy little tidbit about her.

7. Leo Frank recorded the payment he made to Mary Phagan in his accounting book which the police reviewed. Frank said Mary Phagan’s initials MP and her employee number 186 were on her pay envelope and that her pay was either filled with a paper dollar and 2 silver dimes or 2 silver half dollars and 2 silver dimes. He remembered such details about what might have been in her envelope, then how could he not know MP meant Mary Phagan and wouldn’t that mean Frank knew 186 meant Mary Phagan, when it was logged in his ledger next to her name? How any times did he log Mary Phagan, 186?

8: George Epps said Mary Phagan confided in him that Leo Frank would wink at her, run up in front of her and block her on her way out, and frighten her.

Why did Frank try so strongly to lie that he didn’t know Mary Phagan and distance himself from her? What was he hiding?


Rewind to Harry Scott:

If you remember that Leo Frank told his own Detective Harry Scott, that he (Frank) was in his office every minute from noon to 12:30, he never made mentioning of any possible unconscious bathroom trips. Frank also during the Coroner’s inquest never mentions any bathroom trips. Did Leo Frank “unconsciously” forget? Why did Frank not tell the Police Chief of Detectives Newport Lanford (State’s Exhibit B), about a bathroom visit either? Three separate occasion he denied a bathroom visit, until the trial when he revealed an unconscious bathroom visit.

Frank had at least 3 opportunities or more to mention the bathroom visit, but did not, writing them off as “unconscious”, the problem with this is that he claimed he never went to the bathroom at ALL which seems impossible – it wasn’t that he forgot to mention it. Leo Frank cornered himself by outright saying he never went to the bathroom.

Time Travel

As we already discussed, the first revelation of the unconscious bathroom trip was revealed at the murder trial after Monteen Stover made her statement about his office being empty 12:05 to 12:10 – Frank also changed when Mary Phagan arrived from 12:02 to 12:12.

10 Minutes

References:

Leo Frank Case files from the Georgia Supreme Court, Adobe PDF format: http://www.leofrank.org/library/georgia-archives/

High Resolution Graphical Images: The Brief of Evidence in the Leo M. Frank 1913 Murder Trial, has been ratified by both the Leo Frank Defense and Prosecution Team. Leo M. Frank, Plaintiff in Error, vs. State of Georgia, Defendant in Error. In Error from Fulton Superior Court at the July Term 1913. Brief of Evidence. Read Leo Frank’s original trial testimony about his unconscious bathroom visit in the metal room. Also be sure to read the trial testimony of Monteen Stover, Harry Scott, Newt Lee and look over State’s Exhibit B.

Leo Frank murder trial closing arguments by Hugh Manson Dorsey are published under the title, ARGUMENT OF HUGH M. DORSEY, Solicitor-General, Atlanta Judicial Circuit, AT THE TRIAL OF LEO M. FRANK, Charged with the murder of Mary Phagan. This fascinating 146 page book was produced by Nicholas Christophulos, 411 Third Street, Macon, Georgia (GA) in 1914, through the Press of THE JOHNSON-DALLIS Co., Atlanta, Georgia. Introduction Forward, Facts of the Crime, Chronological History of the case written by Nicholas Christophulos, Macon, Georgia (GA), April 20th, 1914. Republished in this book before the arguments by Hugh M. Dorsey begin, is part of an article by Sidney Ormond published originally by Atlanta Constitution, August 27th 1913.

Read the Final closing arguments of Mr. Frank Arthur Hooper in the Leo M. Frank trial and what he had to say about Leo Frank’s unconscious bathroom visit in the metal room, available in John Davison Lawson’s American State Trials 1918, Volume X (right mouse click and save as). (READ ALL THE CLOSING ARGUMENTS).

Read what Tom Watson had to say about Leo M. Frank’s “Unconscious” bathroom visit in the metal room: 4. Watson’s Magazine, September 1915 (right mouse click and save as).

Read Mary Phagan Kean’s analysis of the Leo Frank Case: The Murder of Little Mary Phagan (right mouse click and save as).

See: Internet Archive copy of Leo M. Frank, Plaintiff in Error, vs. State of Georgia, Defendant in Error. In Error from Fulton Superior Court at the July Term 1913. Brief of Evidence 1913

See: State’s Exhibit A

The Solution to the Murder of Mary Phagan From Leo Frank’s Statement

Leo Frank’s August 18, 1913 Response to Monteen Stover’s Testimony, about why Monteen Stover did not see Leo Frank in his empty office from 12:05 to 12:10PM

Now, gentlemen, to the best of my recollection from the time the
whistle blew for twelve o’clock until after a quarter to one when I went
up stairs and spoke to Arthur White and Harry Denham, to the best of
my recollection
, I did not stir out of the inner office; but it is possible that
in order to answer a call of nature or to urinate I may have gone to the
toilet. Those are things that a man does unconsciously and cannot tell
how many times nor when he does it.
Now, sitting in my office at my
desk, it is impossible for me to see out into the outer hall when the safe
door is open, as it was that morning, and not only is it impossible for me
to see out, but it is impossible for people to see in and see me there.

The “Now Gentlemen”, almost amounts to letting the Judge and Jury know that Leo Frank is about to make
a virtual murder confession. It kind of brings their focus and attention to him, after he mind numbed
them for four hours about immaterial nonsense concerning the irrelevant minutiae of his accounting work.

Then Leo Frank gives it all away with Reason #1:

Reason 1 Monteen Stover Didn’t See Me in My Empty Office: I was in the metal room.

The “but it is possible that in order to answer a call of nature or to urinate I may have gone to the
toilet. Those are things that a man does unconsciously and cannot tell how many times nor when he does it.”

With the bathroom / metal room confession being a bit strong, Leo Frank takes their focus away from that with the safe door
being, the reason Monteen Stover could not see him, which was corny and the average person even without a highly refined
bullshit detector can see right through it.

Reason 2 Monteen Stover Didn’t See Me in My Office: The Safe Door Was Open.

Leo Frank: …it is impossible for me to see out into the outer hall when the safe
door is open, as it was that morning, and not only is it impossible for me
to see out, but it is impossible for people to see in and see me there…

Monteen Stover, was there for her pay envelope, no one disputed this and she said she checked both his inner and outer office, and both were empty, the common sense test says she did the proactive thing anyone would do who came for their weekly pay and had been working at the factory for more than a year, and she knew the routine like every other employee who had worked at the factory for a long time.

Monteen Stover did not see a safe door blocking her entry into either the inner or outer office, infact when she went into the inner office she described it as being completely empty, she waited around for 5 full minutes and began to leave, she looked down the hallway and notice the door to the metal room was closed shut, the building she described seemed completely deserted. but was it?

Observers are asking, where was Leo Frank and where was Mary Phagan between 12:05 and 12:10, according to State’s Exhibit B? Because Monteen Stover coming and going did not bump into Mary Phagan or Leo Frank.

State’s Exhibit B + Monteen Stover + Leo Frank newfangled metal room bathroom admission = CASE CLOSED, August 18, 1913.

But Monteen Stover was interviewed by police doing routine questioning before May 10th, when the important time discovery was made, so really, wasn’t it May 10th 1913 the Case was Closed? Technically yes, given that Leo Frank said he never left his office, but sometimes it requires putting all the circumstantial variables together to solve a murder case. Sometimes the best evidence is circumstantial.

or Was the Case Closed in the evening of April 26, 1913, when Leo Frank in a drunken stupor told his wife Lucille Selig Frank he didn’t know why he would murder and called for his pistol so he could shoot himself (State’s Exhibit J, June 3rd, 1913)?

Lucille Selig Frank’s request to be cremated and not buried with her husband tends to corroborate the first private Leo Frank murder confession, more than the public Leo Frank murder confession.

Background on the issue of the bathroom at the Coroners inquest and then at the trial, for an understanding of Dorsey’s Interpretation

Leo Frank’s ever changing story, meant he got caught in a bold faced lie and entraps himself beyond escape in the process.

Remember that Leo Frank specified at the Coroner’s inquest that he never went to the bathroom on that infamous day of Saturday, April 26, 1913, not that he had forgotten whether or not he had gone or not, but that he had remembered never going. Dorsey articulates the admission of Leo Frank saying he went to the bathroom in the metal room to account for Monteen Stover being in his second floor office when he was not there.

Dorsey:

Frank was in jail, Frank had already stated in his affidavit
at Police Headquarters, which is in evidence, contradicting
this statement and this chart which they have made, that he
didn’t leave his office between certain hours. Frank didn’t
know that his own detective, Harry Scott, had found this little
Monteen Stover,-and I quote her evidence, I quote it and
I submit it shows that she went in that office and went far
enough in that office to see who was in there, and if she
didn’t go far enough in, it’s passing strange that anybody in
that office,-Frank himself, could have heard that girl and
could have made his presence known.

Scott, their own Pinkerton
detective, gets the statement from Monteen Stover,
and he visits Leo M. Frank in his cell at the jail. Frank
in order to evade that, says, “to the best of my recollection
I didn’t stir out of the office, but it’s possible that, in
order to answer a call of nature, I may have gone to the
toilet, these are things that a man does unconsciously and
can’t tell how many times nor when he does it.”

Didn’t Hear Monteen Stover?

I tell you, gentlemen of the jury, that if this man Frank
had remained in his office and was in his office when Monteen
Stover went in there, he would have heard her, he would
have seen her, he would have talked with her,
he would have given her her pay. I tell you gentlemen
of the jury, that if this man Frank had stepped out of
his office to answer a call of nature, that he would have remembered
it, and if he wouldn’t have remembered it, at least
he wouldn’t have stated so repeatedly and unqualifiedly that
he never left his office, and only on the stand here, when he
faces an honest jury, charged with the murder, and circumstances
banked up against him, does he offer the flimsy excuse
that these are things that people do unconsciously and
without any recollection. But this man Scott, in company
with Black, after they found that little Monteen Stover had
been there at exactly the time that old Jim Conley says that
that man with this poor little unfortunate girl had gone to
the rear, and on May 3rd, the very time that Monteen Stover
told them that she had been up there, at that time this
Pinkerton detective, Scott, as honest and honorable a man
as ever lived, the man who said he was going hand in hand
with the Police Department of the City of Atlanta and who
did, notwithstanding the fact that some of the others undertook
to leap with the hare and run with the hounds, stood
straight up by the city detectives and by the State officials
and by the truth, put these questions, on May 3rd, to Leo
M. Frank: says he to Frank:

Detective Scott Loyal to Truth.

“From the time you got to the factory from Montag
Brothers, until you went to the fourth floor to see White and
Denham, were you inside your office the entire time?”

Leo Frank Answer: “I was.” Again, says Scott-and Mr. Scott, in
jail, when Frank didn’t know the importance of the propo-
sition because he didn’t know that little Monteen Stover had
said that she went up there and saw nobody in his office-
Scott came at him from another different angle: “From the
time you came from Montag Brothers, until Mary Phagan
came, were you in your office?” and Frank said “yes.”
“From twelve o’clock,” says Scott, “until Mary Phagan entered
your office and thereafter until 12:50, when you went
upstairs to get Mrs. White out of the building, were you in
your office?” Answer: “Yes.” “Then,” says Scott, “from
twelve to twelve thirty, every minute during that half hour,
you were in your office?” and Frank said “yes.” And not
until he saw the wonderful capacity, the wonderful ability,
the wonderful devotion of this man Scott to the truth and
right did he ever shut him out from his counsel. No suggestion
then that he might have had to answer a call of nature,
but emphatically, without knowing the importance, he
told his own detective, in the presence of John Black, that
at no time, for no purpose, from a few minutes before this
unfortunate girl arrived, until he went upstairs, at 12:50,
to ask Mrs. White to leave, had he been out of his office.

Questions You Will Be Able to Answer After Studying the Leo Frank Case:

Can you solve the Mary Phagan murder mystery from the trial testimony alone? Can you solve the mysterious murder of Mary Phagan from the associated affidavits alone? Or do you need both the trial testimony and affidavits? Or are neither sufficient?

What is the century long Leo Frank Blood Libel hoax? Was Leo Frank railroaded into a vast European-American and African-American anti-Semitic conspiracy because of prevailing Anti-Jewish bigotry at the time? Was Leo Frank a scapegoat at his trial for the murder of Mary Phagan, because Jim Conley as a Negro is not “worthy” enough to pay the “price” for her so, they picked a Jew instead?

Which of the State’s Exhibits was the most revealing at the trial? National Pencil Company Factory Diagram, State’s Exhibit A, Leo Frank’s State’s Exhibit B, Affidavits of James (Jim) Conley or Minola McKnight’s Controversial State’s Exhibit J?

How many separate Leo Frank murder confessions where there according to the official record?

The official record shows Leo Frank confessed to murdering Mary Phagan three times, though he would deny all three.

Leo Frank Murder Confession Number Three: August 18, 1913

The third Leo Frank murder confession occurred on August 18, 1913, when Leo Frank mounted the witness stand at the trial. He told the Courtroom, Judge and Jury, in response to Monteen Stover saying his office was empty from 12:05 to 12:10, that he might have “unconsciously” gone to the bathroom in the metal room. Leo Frank had stated to the police on Monday, April 28, 1913, Mary Phagan arrived in his office between 12:05 and 12:10.

It was a slam dunk for the State’s prosecution, because Dorsey and his team had spent 29 days trying to prove to the Jury that Leo Frank murdered Mary Phagan in the second floor metal room.

Leo Frank Murder Confession Number One: April 26, 1913

Leo Frank murder confession number one was made to Jim Conley, when Leo Frank told him he had tried to have sex with Mary Phagan and she refused him, he then said he picked up Mary Phagan and slammed her. Mary Phagan’s bloody hair was discovered on Monday, April 28, 1913, on the handle of a lathe in the second floor metal room.

Leo Frank Murder Confession Number Two: April 26, 1913

Leo Frank confessed murdering Mary Phagan to his wife Lucille Selig Frank on the evening of April 26, 1913. Leo Frank said he didn’t know why he would murder and asked his wife for his pistol so he could shoot himself. Lucille told her family and cook Minola McKnight about what happened.

Those are the three Leo Frank murder confessions in the official record.

Leading one to ask:

Who was the “higher” star witness at the Leo Frank trial, was it Monteen Stover or James “Jim” Conley? Whose testimony was the most damaging for Leo Frank at the trial: Monteen Stover or Jim Conley? Out of the responses made by Leo Frank to the testimony and evidence provided by Monteen Stover and Jim Conley, which was one convinced the Jury of Leo’s guilt? What does your intuition and instinct tell you when all things are considered concerning the innocence or guilt of Leo Frank?

What do neutral and unbiased Leo Frank scholars think about his four-hour statement made on August 18, 1913 to the judge and jury in the Fulton County Superior Court? What do you think about Leo Frank’s four-hour statement (read it slowly and carefully)?

Images: State’s Exhibit A, The 3D map of the factory

Image: Second Floor of the National Pencil Company

The Jeffersonian Newspaper on Leo M. Frank 1914, 1915, 1916, & 1917: http://leofrank.info/images/jeffersonian/

–8-17-2011

Fair Usage Law

August 18, 2011   Posted in: Anti Racism, Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, Ashkenazi, B'nai B'rith, Christian, Discrimination News, Holocaust, Holocaust Denial, Holocaust Revisionism, Israel, Jerusalem, Jewish, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism, Leo Frank, Multicultural News, Race Relations, Racism News, Racist News, White Nationalism, White Supremacism, Zionism  Comments Closed

This Day in Jewish History: August 17, 1915, the Mob Lynching of Leo M. Frank for the Bludgeoning, Rape and Strangulation of little Mary Anne Phagan (1899 to 1913)

Leo Frank Lynched August 17, 1915

Photo Archived at the Library of Congress. Leo Frank was Lynched at 7:17 AM, August 17, 1915, this photo was taken later that morning after word got out about what happened and people flocked to Frey’s gin creating a critical mass of spectators.

Lynched Leo Frank

A Very Rare Photo of Leo Frank More Than an Hour After the Lynching Occurred

August 17, 1915, Post-lynching Hours Before Noon: At the behest of the photographer, a morbid gawker holds the tan-brown sarong wrapped around Leo Franks waist to steady his suspended body, preventing his body from twirling gently in the breeze, because it might create a blurry photo. On the right a malnourished-looking rail-thin Red Neck Cracker with “sunken cheeks” stares at the camera in a state of utter disbelief.

Multifunctional, Zoomable and Modern Aerial Map of the Approximate Location of the Leo Frank Lynching on August 17, 1915: http://www.wikimapia.org/#lat=33.9506291&lon=-84.5168781&z=19&l=0&m=b

The Jewish Version:

For the Jews and Frankites (Leo Frank Partisans), who keep on churning out dishonest propaganda and re-writing history to quench their collective and insatiable Jewish egomania, PRESENTS: The mellow dramatic, Hollywood and dramatized version Leo Frank lynch party invitation, which might as well have been read out loud by a big fat booger eating hillbilly farmer in manure stained overalls, with rotting missing teeth, a pitch fork in one hand and a torch in the other, saying something like this (please use an exaggerated and very slow southern accent and drawl while speaking out loud), Say Out Loud:

Ye are invited to the anti-Jooish Leo Frank lynch party, come August 16th and 17th, dusk to dawn! Don’t be late or you will be left behind, pre-party meet up location point to be announced. Kickoff at 10:00 PM at the gates of the Milledgeville Prison. After the abduction of the dehorned Jew, there will be an all night Model-T tailgate party to the final Good Ole Boys roundup destination near Marietta at the Fork of Frey’s Gin. Final Party Preparations at Sunrise, 7:00 AM is the main event, so Be there or Be Square. No cussing. No Alcohol. This is a dry party after all, though we will be serving drinks at the afterparty. Proper dress is required, please bring your clean white sheets and robes. Special afterparty location at Stone Mountain with Bonfire and Cross burning to be announced before we leave Frey’s Gin. We still need torches, rope, small table and peanut butter. Please RSVP to both Tom Watson and Hugh Dorsey.

The Southern Perspective

For Southerners the August 17, 1915 lynching of Leo Frank was not a Jewish Hollywood freak show, nor was it about media frenzies, anti-Jewish racism or bigotry. This is despite all the Jewish propaganda flat out lying to the public by misrepresenting the truth, with dramatized works and treatments like the Jewish fictionalized docudrama, People vs Leo Frank, 2009, and the Jewish propaganda miniseries, Murder of Mary Phagan, 1987, which together paint the picture of the Leo Frank trial and Frank’s lynching to be a vast anti-Jewish White Gentile conspiracy, AND the ultimate bamboozling of the entire United States Legal System by a semi-literate drunken Negro sweeper named Jim Conley.

For Southerners and the Elite men who carried out the judge and jury’s 13-man unanimous verdict — guilty as charged, no recommendation of mercy, signed and delivered — with the execution orders fulfilled, the lynching was a painfully somber and terribly depressing event which reminded them of an unchangeable truth about the unnecessary and tragic loss of a child – it’s irreversible.

The lynching of Leo Max Frank was no booger eating hillbilly mob of drunken revelers whipped up — on a moments notice — into an alcohol-fueled frenzy of outrage and revenge, it was instead, an extrajudicial execution done with the slow careful planning, and cold calculating bureaucratic manners of the State, by very prominent and elite men.

At 7:10AM on August 17, 1915, before the table was kicked away from beneath Leo Frank (who was hoisted upon it by 4 men), one of the Lynchers, a former State Judge, read out loud for all those present to hear: the verdict of the Jury originally August 25, 1913, sentence of death ordered by the deceased Judge Leonard Strickland Roan, originally delivered August 26, 1913, and the decisions of the higher courts (1913 to 1915).

Many of the lynchers were fathers, and even with the lynching of Leo Frank fulfilled to serve the verdict of the entire United States Legal System, they knew with its flawless execution, they could never bring Mary Phagan back alive, a little girl lost in the spring of her life.

For many people ironically, the Leo Frank case was a racial awakening, because the lynching wasn’t actually about bigotry, prejudice, media frenzies or anti-semitism, those pejoratives are false accusations and slanders coming from members of the cultural terrorist religion of Judaism, the historical enemies of Gentile Western Civilization that live within it in a parasite-host or virus-host paradigm.

For those who identify with being Southern or Southerners, what the lynching was really about was fulfilling Justice for a violent sexual predator, a man whose wealthy and powerful tribal kinsmen enabled him to nearly escape the verdict of the Judge, Jury and every level of the United States Legal System. By bribing a corrupt and unscrupulous outgoing Governor, John M. Slaton, a well connected Lawyer, who also, just so happened to be the part owner of the law firm providing Leo Frank a legal defense dream team and the result of Slaton commuting his own clients death sentence to life in prison, it made people who were never racist or anti-semitic really think differently about Jews. For many other people who considered Jews to be White, it was an awakening that perhaps Jews are different and not really “White”, it revealed to others Jews are the most “tribal” group of people in the world, even to the extreme of defending a child rapist and convicted murderer.

For Anti-Semites, the former Governor John M. Slaton, was a man who sold out the people for 30 shekels of Jewish silver.

What REALLY Happened on Confederate Memorial Day within the National Pencil Company at 12:02 PM, Saturday, April 26, 1913?

In the shuttered and virtually empty National Pencil Factory on Confederate Memorial Day, Saturday, April 26, 1913, Mary Phagan tripped into the building lobby on the ground floor and climbed the 14 foot tall stairway that had a platform half way up, and upon her arrival in the office of Leo Frank on the second floor, she called out to collect her pay, and asked Leo if the “Metal had arrived”. Mary was referring to the brass, which came in sheets and was processed into eraser holders, which were wrapped around and partially hanging off the ends of individual final production pencils, before she inserted erasers in them using her Knurling machine.

Even though Leo Frank knew the answer was, “no, not yet” to the question Mary Phagan posed, he instead inveigled her, immediately coaxing Mary Phagan into the metal room with an “I Don’t Know, Let’s find out”, to see whether or not Mary would have her job back on Monday morning, April 28, 1913.

Using the little Irish girls job as a species of sexual coercion, there inside the metal room, the two of them alone, with the metal room door securely locked, Leo Frank tested Mary. Leo Frank made his aggressive sexual advance unmistakeable, unlike his less overt and subtle sexual pestering reported by 19 fellow child pre-teen and teenaged girl employees.

Now securely entrapped in the metal room at that exact moment, the 13 year old Mary Phagan flat out refused the proposition of the freaky creepy bugeye’d bespectacle’d lecherous Jewish bossman, but with no where to run or hide in a locked metal room, it was rape with no escape. The little 13 year old girl who had spurned the sexual advances of her boss, was about to get a little lesson.

A Heart Pounding Moment of Terror

The situation took a wrong turn, in these heart pounding moments, because the 4’11” girl was trapped (Brief of Evidence, Bolt Lock, State’s Exhibit A, 1913), Leo Frank 5’8″ (Leo Frank passport application) nearly 9 inches taller than her could now have his way and turn her out in that tantalizingly violent, ancient and brutal way millions of young boys and girls of every race, religion and creed throughout all of human history, in every corner of the world, have been turned out with such extreme cruelty.

On that old Southern Confederate Memorial day, given the implications, there would be the most extreme measures taken to ensure Mary Phagan could tell no one.

Leo Frank exploded in a flash of anger inside the metal room.

In a sexually savage and grizzly release, Leo Frank delivered a most cruelly violent face pounding and slammed little Mary Phagan’s head against the handle of the lathe and delivered an especially degrading and sadistic rape, one that was followed by a fist flexing garoting, as Leo Frank suffocated Mary Phagan at the same time reaching his own psychosexual religious exultation and epiphany.

It wasn’t enough what Leo Frank had done to her, the soul disfiguring moment was that Leo Frank ordered his very own personal Pet Negro, the Step-and-Fetch-it named James (Jim) Conley, to drag her from the entry of the elevator shaft in the basement to the rear cellar furnace with the intimation of cremating her and destroying the evidence. The Pet Negro refused.

Mary Phagan was dragged across the hard dirt floor of the basement from the elevator shaft to the cellar oven staging area 150 feet away, where she was finally dumped on a sawdust mound and her hands were crossed over her breast reverently by Jim Conley. Dragging Mary Phagan by the arms left her face grating over the hard dirt floor, it thus caused her dead face to get “pocked”, cut and scratched from the hard cinders and it was because the scratches on her face didn’t bleed the physicians who gave Mary Phagan an autopsy believed she had been killed earlier on a different floor. The fact her face did not bleed at all from the dragging scratches, became part of the indisputable evidence she was not killed in the basement.

The Ultimate Plot Within Plot Thickens

Once Leo Max Frank and his roustabout Jim Conley were back up in Leo Frank’s second floor office lighting sulfur matches, smoking fags and ruminating, Leo Frank formulated an outrageously botched intrigue attempting to scapegoat the bludgeoning, rape and strangulation of Mary Phagan on an innocent and honest old Negro, the Night watchman (night witch) named Newt Lee. An old nightwatchman security guard that had yet to arrive.

One allegation by the factory sweeper is during their afternoon conversation after the body was dumped in the basement and before Leo Frank left the factory at 1:20PM, was Leo Frank looked up at the ceiling and said to Jim Conley, “Why Should I Hang? I know wealthy people in Brooklyn”.

The Scapegoat

Thus Leo Frank plotted to get the hard working Night Security Guard, the Negro Newt Lee indicted, convicted and lynched, after Leo Frank himself allegedly bludgeoned, raped and strangled the little girl to brain damaged death. It was a most shocking fabrication of evidence formulated by Leo Frank to draw suspicion on Lee, it would require notes written in a Negro’s hand writing.

For anti-Semites, “the Plot” was another case of a Jew committing a crime and trying to blame it on the Goyim. The pattern reminded them of the Jews plotting to blame the crucifixion of Christ on the Romans.

How Low Can You Go? Death Row.

Only the best Hollywood writers high on crack, LSD, Meth, Schrooms and the finest eugenically bred California Kush could dream up a murder case as twisted, bizarre, perverted, farout, freaky and unusual as this one, especially given the principle, a clean cut Ivy League educated Jew from Brooklyn serving as B’nai B’rith President and Superintendent of a very successful manufacturing plant, the National Pencil Factory.

Some people believe, if Leo Frank was not a Jew, the case would never have been judaized in the sickening way it has been by a race of ultra tribalist and petulant parasites over the last 100 years.

For Some, The Truth is…

Leo Frank was a wife cheating, whoremongering, drug abusing, chain smoking, black coffee pot guzzl’n, violent, murdering, pedophile-rapist, child molesting, sexual predator who receives endless idealization, rehabilitation of image, and romanticizing, mostly from Jews and Leo Frank partisans in books, magazine articles and films.

12:03 to 12:04 PM, the Face Pounding Unravels

Leo Frank cornered and grabbed Mary Phagan just inside the metal room, she resisted and then he pounded his angry fist into Mary Phagans beautiful face and slammed the back of her head against the lathe machine which was bolted to a bench table, she ran terrified in the only direction she could travel away from him, toward the bathroom, there Leo Frank continued his violent assault, hammering his fists against her face and slamming her, until she became unconscious on the floor of the bathroom bleeding out. Leo Frank then ripped up a strip from the crotch area of her petty coat, and put the torn fabric under the back of her head to catch the pool of blood from her slumped body, he then tore and bisected up her bloomers ripping it up the right leg across the crotch to the seam, revealing her virgin 13 year old vagina, he unbuckled his pants and undid his fly, pulled down his pants and underwear, revealing an STD infected erect small-medium Jewish penis, then like a filthy dog ravaged Mary Phagan, savagely drilling and pumping his ‘without-a-condom-prostitute-seasoned’ diseased Jewish schmeckle into her dry virgin vagina, bloodying it, leaving medically observed inflammation, breaking her Hyman and leaving the remains of her still attached but torn underwear drenched with her blood (Mary Phagan Autopsy, Undertaker Notes, P.J. Bloomfields Mortuary, 4:30 AM, April 27, 1913).

This was a crime of passion and revenge against the little girl who spurned and rejected her infatuated boss.

While in the midst of pumping her she began to wake up from her unconsciousness and as she continued crying, covering up as best she could, her pounded beaten-up face and black and blue eye, before Leo Frank could orgasm, he raged in anger.

Snatch the Cord hanging on a nail in the Wall

At this point Leo Frank wanted a different kind of orgasm, the orgasm of murder, he also felt he had only one immediate choice given the implications and magnitude of it all. With malice aforethought Leo Frank quickly snatched a nearby looped 7 foot cord hanging on the wall, placed it around her neck, creating the equivalent of a thin hangmans noose, and then he yanked it up as tight as he physically could, flexing his fists until the cord sunk deep and tight into the tender flesh of her neck.

Leo Frank continued flexing upward until his hands were white knuckled and sore (that’s why he was always seen rubbing his hands afterward, and any time the name Mary Phagan was brought up), soon thereafter, Mary Phagan never woke up again, she died of brain damage within less than 4 or 5 minutes during the strangulation process. A Rape and murder of this kind was achieved in less than 10 to 15 minutes, from 12:02PM to 12:17 PM.

Send the Janitor to Cleanup the Metal Room Bathroom

Leo Frank left a grotesque scene in the metal room bathroom. Mary Phagan was found spread eagle with her arms above her head on the floor of the bathroom in the metalroom by Jim Conley, moments after Leo Frank confessed in a roundabout way to him after what had happened between 12:02 and 12:17 (Leo Frank Confession One of Three, April 26, 1913). After the first Leo Frank murder confession given to Jim Conley, Leo asked Conley to go “there” and wrap up that package with the intimation it was to be moved.

There would also be a half-assed clean up job in the metal room commenced afterwards and nearly never talked about in all the works written on Leo M. Frank.

Put the Dead Girl in the Oven

Later, Leo Frank told Jim Conley to take Mary Phagan from the second floor and burn her in the cellar furnace. The docudrama ‘People vs Leo Frank’ by Ben Loeterman suggest that “if Leo Frank had answered his phone in the earliest morning of April 27, 1913, the outcome of the case might have come out a whole lot different”. In speculation, had Leo Frank’s pet lackey and roustabout Jim Conley listened to his Superintendent and cremated Mary Phagan, the outcome of the whole case might have been a whole lot different.

The Death March

The unbeknowst death march of Mary Phagan began at around 12:02 when Mary Phagan arrived in Leo’s Second floor office, they almost immediately walked to the metal room by 12:03, when Jim Conley heard the most harrowing scream imaginably possible traveling through the nearly empty building, and by no later than 12:17 PM, Mary Phagan was no longer moving, with a rope left taut around her neck.

Star Witness: The Girl Who Broke Leo Frank’s Alibi

While Mary Phagan was in the process of being choked out by Leo Frank, a young 14 year old girl named Monteen Stover unbeknownst to Leo Frank arrived in Leo Frank’s second floor inner office seeking her pay.

At first Monteen Stover looked at the huge wall clock and saw it was 12:05 PM, once she arrived insider Leo Frank’s office she called out her bosses name, with no response from him, she looked curiously for Leo Frank in both his outer and inner office, she specifically waited inside his office till 12:10 based on the wall clock. Perplexed there was no one around at payoff time, Monteen Stover even looked down the hall and she remembered seeing the metal room door closed shut. She described the factory as being deserted.

Leo Frank was on the other side of that door “unconsciously” going to the bathroom in the metal room according to his August 18, 1913, trial statement to the Jury (Leo Frank Murder Confession Number 3, August, 18, 1913).

When Monteen Stover left Leo Franks office at 12:10 PM, Saturday, April 26, 1913, walking downstairs from the second floor to the lobby, and feeling disappointed, she knew then she would have to unfortunately wait for the next payday, which would not be until next Saturday at Noon. May 3rd, 1913, would be the day Monteen Stover was discovered and interviewed by police.

Monteen Stover clearly specified she looked in both Leo’s inner and outer office, because she was there waiting to collect her pay envelope (this was never disputed by the defense), she was there as you would expect any employee to be there who came for their weekly pay. Monteen did what any normal person would do, after waiting in what she thought was a deserted building, she finally gave up and left.

It was that next Saturday, when she was discovered and the Mary Phagan murder mystery would be considered by the police as essentially solved.

Monteen Stover was specifically discovered the following payday when she was looking to collect her pay and then it was police determined that she had found Leo Frank’s office empty on April 26, 1913, one week before. It was then that John R. Black and Pinkerton Detective Harry Scott went to the cell of Leo Frank and asked him if he had been in his office every minute from noon to 12:35, and Leo Frank’s response was an affirmative “Yes” (Trial Testimony of Harry Scott, BOE, 1913).

It was then and there that it was believed that the Murder of Mary Phagan had been solved, because if Leo Frank was not in his office, where else could he have been? Leo Frank would answer this supposition at the trial.

The police theory was Leo Frank had murdered Mary Phagan in the metal room, based on Leo Frank’s lawyer witnessed statement — State’s Exhibit B — concerning when Mary Phagan had arrived. The affidavit and testimony of Monteen Stover cracked Leo Frank’s alibi wide open, however it wouldn’t be until August 18, 1913, that Leo Frank would respond to Monteen Stover, making the equivolent to a virtual murder confession, by telling the Jury he might have “unconsciously” gone to the bathroom in the metal room during the laps of time that Monteen Stover claimed she was waiting in his empty office from 12:05 to 12:10 PM, on Saturday, April 26, 1913.

An Important Detail

Remember that in 1913 Atlanta Georgia, even the best wall clocks were 3 minutes off in accuracy on any given day, so when you see 1913 time concerning the Leo Frank case add and subtract up to 1, 2, or 3 minutes (plus or minus).

Monteen Stover did not bump into Mary Phagan coming into the building as Monteen Stover exited at 12:11 PM, nor did she see her approaching the building when Monteen Stover arrived at the factory at 12:05 PM, because Mary Phagan had come a couple to a few minutes (12:02 PM) before Monteen arrived (12:05 PM) at the National Pencil Company.

State’s Exhibit B: Monday, April 28, 1913

Leo Frank in State’s Exhibit B said Mary Phagan arrived at 12:05 to 12:10, maybe 12:07. When Monteen Stover arrived at 12:05 and left at 12:10 she did not bump into Mary Phagan on her way IN OR OUT, because Mary Phagan was already in the Metal room being killed during this time between 12:05 PM or 12:10 PM, maybe 12:07 if we are to take Leo Frank on his word given (State’s Exhibit B, Monday, April 28, 1913) about when Mary first arrived according to State’s Exhibit B (3D Map of the Second Floor, State’s Exhibit A, 1913)

Humiliation and Three Leo Frank Murder Confessions


What was the ultimate humiliation for Southerners: Was the fact that Leo Frank made a statement to the Jury to counter the sworn testimony of Monteen Stover that amounted to a virtual admission of murder, one that was public, it would turn out to be the third Leo Frank murder confession, two were made in private (1. Jim Conley, 2. Lucy Selig, 3. Public, Leo Frank).

Leo Frank said he might have unconsciously gone to the bathroom in the metal room or left the safe door open in his office as the reason Monteen Stover could not see him [Leo Frank] in his office and why he [Leo Frank] could not see Monteen Stover. Leo Frank had just made his whereabouts at 12:05 to 12:10 the crux of the whole case. Leo Frank never mentions seeing Monteen Stover.

The trial statement by Leo Frank to rebut Monteen Stover with two options of explanation about his disappearance, one being about the safe door being open tended to insult the intelligence and common sense of all those listening who had been paying very close attention and understood there was only one bathroom on the second floor in the metal room. The prosecution made sure to show this point with diagrams and floor plans of the building.

How many times in US History has someone made a virtual confession at their own capital murder trial?!

The greatest blunder in US Legal trial history is this, if Leo Frank went to the bathroom in the metal room between 12:05 and 12:10, he certainly would not have left his safe door wide open when there were always people coming in and out of the factory all day, even on a holiday, this is even with the fact no one was working that day except two carpenters on the 4th floor, Leo Frank and Jim Conley waiting on the first floor. The building was unlocked according to Leo Frank, so he naturally would not leave his safe open. So the whole case came down to the word of the REAL Main Star Witness Monteen Stover vs. Leo Frank, NOT the word of the Lower Ranking Star Witness Jim Conley vs. Leo Frank.

Frankites give too much credence to Jim Conley, it was Monteen Stover’s testimony and Leo Frank’s response to her testimony that equated to a murder confession, not Leo Frank’s response to Jim Conley. So why do Frankites persist in claiming Jim Conley was the star witness?

How do you reason with Jews a racially neurotic, egomaniac people fanatically obsessed with their own sensitive ego image and victim persecution complex?

As you can see this case was not about railroading an innocent man or anti-Jewish bigotry and racism, these false anti-semitic claims, have become the longest running Jewish hoax in US History and why it is accurately called: the century long JEWISH HOAX. The whole Leo Frank case was distilled down to this single point, When Monteen Stover came to collect her pay envelope, she called out for Mr. Frank and looked for him in both his inner and outer office, but there was no Leo Frank to be found and the safe door was certainly not left open, so that meant Leo Frank was “unconsciously” going to the bathroom in the Metal Room between 12:05 to 12:10, as he revealed on August 18, 1913 at his trial.

Leo Frank at the Coroners Inquest Jury where the vote was 7 to 0 to bind Leo Frank over for Murder before a Grand Jury of 23 men

Leo was very specific that he did not use the 2nd floor bathroom ALL DAY when he spoke at the Inquest. Not that he didn’t remember, but that he DID NOT USE it. It certainly seems as if he was distancing himself (verbally and mentally) from that area in the metal room. The prodigious savant Coroner Donehee was incredulous as might be expected, who doesn’t go to the bathroom all day? Does that seem likely for any normal person? How about for a Leo Frank who guzzled black coffee by the pot, does that seem likely that he wouldn’t use the toilet all day when he was in the factory from 8:30 AM to 6:00PM? Leo Frank would change that statement that he never used the bathroom later at his trial with his deadly revelation made on August 18, 1913 to the Jury.

The result?

Leo Frank had just confessed to going into the metal room, something he had denied for months, the very place the prosecution spent 29 days from July 28, 1913 to August 25, 1913 trying to prove Leo Frank garroted Mary Phagan sometime between 12:05 to 12:10, maybe 12:07 in the metal room. What makes matters infinitely worse, James “Jim” Conley, in his last sworn affidavit, after his first two fell apart, finally admitted being told by Leo Frank to take the body of Mary Phagan from the bathroom in the metal room to the basement.

On August 18, 1913, Leo Frank had just corroborated Jim Conley’s admission to being an accomplice after the fact. It was the most shocking thing that the Leo Frank defense team spent 29 days trying to suggest that maybe Jim Conley actually did the murder on the first floor lobby, and Leo Frank essentially admits to killing Mary Phagan in the metal room bathroom. People were literally scratching their heads in disbelief.

Three Lawyers Articulate the Leo Frank Murder Confession, Two at the Trial, and one Later On

Prosecution Team Leader Hugh M Dorsey articulates the August 18, 1913, Leo Frank murder confession in his 9 hour closing arguments delivered at the end of the trial, so does State’s Prosecution Team Member Frank Arthur Hooper, they can both be read in American State Trials Volume X 1918, but the best articulation of the August 18, 1913, Leo Frank murder confession, does not come from the two State’s Prosecution lawyers, it comes from the Anti-Semite Tom Watson, the seasoned attorney and Senator from Georgia, who published his interpretation of the Leo Frank murder confession through his Jeffersonian Publishing company in his magazine titled: Watson’s Magazine, 1915, issues: January, March, August, September and October, and also in some of his Jeffersonian Newspapers in 1914, 1915, 1916, & 1917. These three lawyers Dorsey, Hooper and Watson each articulate the Leo Frank Murder Confession differently and you should be familiar with all three of them. And that is the solution to the Murder of Mary Phagan it was confessed by Leo Frank in the afternoon of August 18, 1913 in his trial statement to the Judge and Jury, and before the August 18, 1913 confession, Leo Frank made his second murder confession, when he secretly confessed the murder of Mary Phagan to his wife Lucille Selig Frank on the evening of April 26, 1913 (Minola McKnight, State’s Exhibit J, June 3, 1913).

Was Minolas affidavit telling the truth in State’s Exhibit J?

Lucille Selig Frank’s 1954 will specifying cremation instead of her requesting burial next to her husband tends to corroborate State’s Exhibit J as true. Today the empty grave plot #1 reserved for Lucille immediately adjacent next to Leo Frank, speaks volumes, the cremation was mandated in her 1954 will (Last Will and Testament of Lucille S. Frank, 1954).

The first of three Leo Frank confessions was made to Jim Conley at the factory and you can read the testimony of James Conley in the 1913 Brief of Evidence, along with Leo Frank murder confession #2 in States Exhibit J, and Leo Frank Murder Confession #3 is in the Trial Statement of Leo Frank in the Brief of Evidence 1913.

Before you study the three different Leo Frank confessions, study States Exhibit A and B it ties it all together and closes all the lose ends.

Anti-Semitic Mob Terror and Injustice? Good Old Fashioned Vigilante Justice Southern Style? Vindication and Victory for the Jury and U.S. Legal System? Extra-Judicial Murder? … one or more of the above? a little bit of each? all of the above? none of the above? Depends on who you ask.

Every Party has its Cliques, Right? This party was 2 months in the making.

This topic is a written attempt to show all perspectives and vantage points on the lynching of Leo Frank, including some lenses that are controversial, viewer discretion advised.

An attempt to present all sides and views, so students of the Leo Frank case can understand the lynching from a 360 degree panoramic, from the Leo Frank Defense, Frankite and Jewish community perspectives on one side, to Tom Watson, the Leo Frank opposition, the States Prosecution Team, the Elite Lynch Party and the non-Jewish perspective on the Lynching from the other side. The Leo Frank Library Archive strives to present all views, perspectives and vantage points of the Leo Frank case as convincingly as possible, so let’s start with the defense, Jewish community and Frankite vantage point and position.

The Cult of Leo Frank, Meet the Frankites: The Jewish community and Leo Frank partisans

The defense side of the Leo Frank case over the last 100 years appears to be formed by the merger of 2 groupings, one is major and one is minor, but together they create: The Frankites.

Meet the Frankites

First and foremost, Jews of all political spectra, left, center or right, genericized and called the ‘Jewish community’ hereafter, and second, to a lesser degree, mostly non-Jewish liberals on the left (the weenie, runt of the litter and egalitarian type, androgynous, sexless types, the kind of people we are sooooo grateful they finally have a low fertility rate), called ‘Leo Frank partisans’ hereafter, or together for short, we can call the Jewish community and Leo Frank partisans: “the Frankites”, as Watson originally coined, branded and summed them up with one word.

Coined Circa 1915

Considering this unusual political alliance still exists today in absolute full force, the term: Frankites is very fitting and relevant, much easier and simpler to use, than always referring to the “Leo Frank Defense Side of the Equation” as the group with the long winded name, ‘the Jewish community and Leo Frank partisans’. Also because most Frankites are predominantly Jews, the terms Frankites and Jewish Frankites are interchangeable as a very accurate description of this cult-like group, even though there are non-Jews welcomed and part of this Jewish Leo Frank cult movement. So let us begin.

The Leo Frank Defense League Position: The Frankites 100 Years Strong

In 1913 a group calling itself the Leo Frank Defense League formed (sounds similar to terrorist Jewish Defense League), though the group name has become in disuse after 1915, Frankites are not defunct, the mantle of their movement is very strong today as the Jewish Frankite Cult and is very strongly expressive through countless media efforts, the Jewish Lobby and on a global level with the ADL of B’nai B’rith.

The voice, video and print produced by members of the “Frankites” for nearly a century is virtually unanimous, concerning their position on the Leo Frank conviction and his Lynching, they summarize the whole affair as a bigoted European-American reign of terror, plus antisemitic scapegoating, which resulted in the antisemitic conviction and assassination of an “innocent” Jewish man. The mellow drama surrounding their own egomania plus their vicious smears and racist hatred are often directed against the general Gentile population, detectives in the case, the media, Hugh M. Dorsey and Tom Watson (the man who solved the murder of Mary Phagan in 1915 using the trial evidence without Jim Conley’s testimony). The Cult of Leo Frank and 100 year long Leo Frank Jewish Hoax about a conspiracy was invalidated in 1915 by Tom Watson, but the Frankites are still running strong 100+ years later.

The Frankite Position on the Leo Frank Trial: Solicitor General Dorsey, An Unscrupulous and Ambition Climber

In terms of the all encompassing false allegations of mob terror, antisemitic and wrongful conviction of Leo Frank, the Prosecutor Hugh M. Dorsey is one of the leading figures accused of being at the center of it all, labeled as the unscrupulous and ambitious Solicitor General who used the Brooklyn Jewboy as a sacrificial lamb to gain political power, prominence, a heroes countenance and prestige. Moreover, the Frankites assert the Leo Frank trial was a legal travesty used as a stepping stone by Hugh Dorsey to ascend to the highest executive position in the State of Georgia, enabling him to capture the Governorship through the popular vote.

For the Frankites: Who is Nemesis Number One?

For the Frankites the most hated figure in the Leo Frank case, is not Hugh Dorsey the man credited with making the “anti-Jewish” conviction with a death sentence of Leo Frank possible, it would instead be an unlikely third party who did not participate in the 1913 trial at all, but who ferociously struck back publicly against the Leo Frank cause celebre movement that went national sparked by Rabbi David Marx and financed via Jews Media moguls from NYC and Chicago. For the Jewish Frankites, the alleged ring leader of the latter half of this “extra-judicial diabolical travesty” which lead to the lynching of Leo Frank is almost always named as one infamous man.

Please Allow Me to Introduce You to the Fire Storm Maker: Tom Watson

For the Frankites: the Hangman, lynch party agitator or simply put the man who could be described as instigating the extra-judicial assassination of Leo Frank is populist politician, publisher and lawyer Tom E. Watson.

In terms of the sum total of the Leo Frank case, the Frankites label Tom Watson as enemy number one, not even Hugh Dorsey, who is accused of unscrupulously dragging an “innocent” Leo Frank through a kangaroo trial to ambitiously climb the political ladder, does not even get the same level of fang-bared foaming at the mouth wrath, hissing venom and vicious hatred by the Jews as Tom Watson does.

Why Watson?

What made Watson hated so much by the Jewish community and Leo Frank partisans is many fold,

Watson Infinitely Simplified a Complicated Murder Trial

One, Tom Watson simplified the Leo Frank trial by deconstructing it through his energetic writings (Watson’s Magazine Jan, March, August, September and October of 1915) in a way the average lay person could easily understand what really happened in totality during the one month long trial (July 28 to August 26) in less than an hour of reading. The alternative to trying to understand the Leo Frank trial without Tom Watson’s Magazine was simply unthinkable and unimaginable, for instance try imagining the average person attempting to read the Leo Frank trial Transcript which was more than 3,500 pages and then trying make sense of it, something like this is not realistic or reasonably possible for the average person in 1913 or 2013. Even if the average person reads the 318 page 1913 murder trial brief of evidence, the average mind untrained in legal matters might get lost in some of the testimony not being able to distill it to it’s important essentials and see with clarity the deeper emergence of the Murder Confession made by Leo Frank during his trial.

Because Watson made a complicated trial infinitely simple it was for that reason — amongst others — which we will discuss, why his writings on the Leo Frank trial are forever banned and censored by Jews and the Left, the editors of Jewish controlled Wikipedia will NOT allow Watsons works about the Leo Frank case to be listed in the references section on the Leo Frank article — even for historical purposes — that alone should make the average curious person want to read them. In fact, the most downloaded items on the LeoFrank.org web site are Tom Watson’s works, because the Frankites have made his writings a forbidden fruit. And those fruits are delicious, because they make you see things with clarity.

Number Two, Ad Hominem Attacks

Two, most gentiles just stand there and take it or cower when Jews reach into their fat cottage cheese asses to squeeze out shit to throw at Gentiles. Watson hit back, and at times Watson hit back hard and unleashed an ugly, and childish no holds barred attack against the Jewish community in response to their Jewsmedia vile smears campaign and attacks on the Honor of Georgians. Watson clowned the Jewish community by attacking the physical features of Leo Freak using harsh and extreme language to describe him.

Watson’s attacks on Leo Franks simian features could be easily taken or interpreted as antisemitism, because they were attacks against some stereotypical Jewish features and physical patterns, that are not necessarily uncommon in Jews. These typical Jewish features are reflections known as phenotypes caused by and from common tribal Jewish genotype patterns.

DSL, Dick Sucking Lips, 2013

In the modern unpublished Jewish fratboy dictionary, Dick sucking lips is the phrase which in a crude way is used in Jewish Fratboy parlance for describing the mouth of a girl with gorgeous lips, but Leo Frank was not a woman. Leo Frank had a very interesting physical feature, it was his succulent satyr lips, the kind you might find on a human-animal chimeric hybrid created with futuristic human genetic engineering, the cross between a camels lips and the lips of a seasoned Russian prostitute with extremely well painted-on lipliner to exaggerate and accentuate the lips. Leo Frank had lips that kind of looked goat-like and they were very crisply defined in the outer perimeter of them with what looked like it could be genetically encoded and genetically expressed intense lip liner, as in you don’t have to add a single drop of make up to achieve that look, it had the natural appearance of such, and naturally made women envious of Leo Franks dick sucking lips for a lack of a more accurate description.

Even worse, Watson attacked Jewish physical features in a way that was deeply entertaining and probably garnered tens of thousands of giggly snickers, deep belly laughs and knee slapping ruckus from his readers. Therefore in essence, Watsons humorous expressions of morphological antisemitism were used to degrade and denigrate Jewish people and make the public laugh at them as a physically ugly inbred tribe of physically ugly monkey trolls that would defend to the death one of their own Jewish pedophile rapist murderers, upholding him as a Martyr of a two year long anti-Jewish conspiracy.

Watson’s writings were surging with poisonous rage and energy that easily attracted a cult following.

The Leo Frank Murder Confession, August 18, 1913

Three, In 1915, Watson brought attention to the murder confession Leo Frank made on the witness stand at his own trial when Frank gave his blunderbuss statement on August 18, 1913. A confession the Jews and Frankites never ever ever ever dare bring up in any of the secondary source works they produce. You will not find Leo Frank’s THREE SEPARATE AND UNIQUE murder confessions mentioned in any books, booklets, videos, texts, documents, round tables, get-togethers and so forth, at least the ones organized by Frankites, they totally and intentionally ignore it (let’s just tuck that 800 pound break dancing pink gorilla back in the closet). Even though the three separate Leo Frank confessions were inescapable and that is what makes the rage against the Jews and Frankites so extreme, that even with the most prominent August 18, 1913, Leo Frank confession, the Jews still reach deep into their own FAT gelatinous asses to extract ammunition and smear glatt kosher human feces on anyone who might even dare to suggest Leo Frank was not only absolutely guilty, but Why?

The flash of anger as Leos fist pounded her face. Leos face surging with blood as he pulled the rope tightly around her neck so it buried deep in the flesh.

From the Southerner perspective only the most dangerous race in the universe would attempt to transmogrify a devil into Jesus, that’s what the bribed and corrupt Governor did on behalf of the Jews.

Why is the Leo Frank murder confession always left out by Frankites?

Answer: It would wipe out 100 years of Jewish and Frankite propaganda!

Watson and the Blood Libel Lynching

In what amounts to nothing less than a single unified bloc vote by the Jewish Community and Frank partisans, or the “Frankites” as they are more accurately described, they universally point the angry and guilty finger of accusation with single minded unity toward Tom E. Watson, as the alleged person to have essentially:

1. been central to inspiring the lynching of Leo Frank by whetting the murderous passion of the people, impelling them to orchestrated violence, all via the catalyst of Watson’s ferocious and venomous publications all unleashed through his Jeffersonian Publishing Company,

and

2. protected the perpetrators of the Leo Frank lynching from prosecution by shaping public opinion before and after the lynching in 1915, thus making it virtually impossible to form any Jury capable of convicting any single individual lyncher or the lynch party as a whole, because as it goes without saying, only one sympathetic lone person is needed to hold out in any Jury of twelve, no matter how compelling the evidence. It is also said that the lynchers were known by some of the public, and no one would dare speak their names openly in a way that would endanger them and it is also said that the lynchers names are now on the streets, landmarks, buildings, etc… in the greater vicinity.

Overtly or covertly these are two main supposition of the Frankites concerning the pre-party planning June to August, lynch party August 16 and 17, 1915, and the afterparty and Grand opening party for relaunch of the KKK at Stone Mountain, Thanksgiving, 1915.

(The KKK taken into its real context was an ineffective immunological response of the Host attempting to counteract the JewisHIV+ virus that has infected Western Civilization and is working to undermine it).

The Frankites (Jewish community and Frank partisans) suggest these two main accusations listed above against Tom E. Watson in virtually every secondary source written on the Leo Frank case and for good reasons too which have strong merit, at least if measured at superficial cosmetic face value, because when one carefully reads and studies the five (5) booklets on Leo M. Frank that Tom Watson published, in his ‘Watson’s Magazine’ issues January, March, August, September, and October of 1915, in total, they collectively make a very powerful, convincing, easy to follow and compelling case to show the conviction of Leo Frank was the correct decision and rightfully supports his execution by hanging as the Jury made no recommendation for Mercy from hanging on August 25, 1913.

Against Capital Punishment?

The Leo Frank conviction was perceived as correct by a public that is at least amongst the largest majority of open minded people, who are incapable of self-deception and haven’t taken sides, this is of course presuming the individuals are not morally against capital punishment when it is just in the eyes of the law.

Dorsey made sure to initially weed out potential jurors who might be against capital punishment for this reason, because even if Dorsey made a good case, there was a risk of someone against capital punishment not convicting out of fear of the outcome. Protecting against this risk, Roan gave the Jury the option of life in Prison or the death penalty by hanging. Frankites say Leonard S. Roan doubted the conviction, but what doubting judge sentences a man to die on his birthday, when he can set any date out of the year?!

Could you convict a lyncher?

In terms of justice for the lynchers, the “public jury”, if their only frame of reference on the case came from the local newspapers at the time which were blandly undetailed and un-analytical, and Tom E. Watson as their source of analysis, even local Jews would find it a double-think to hold two contradictory concepts in their mind, Leo Frank is innocent and Leo Frank is guilty. It only takes one Juror hold out to prevent a conviction, one out of twelve, that’s 8.5%.

Watson’s 1915 writings on the Leo Frank case are dangerous, because they invalidate every Frankite book written in the last 100 years and that is why his writings are banned today by Jews and Jewish occupied Wikipedia. Anyone who criticizes Jewish behavior is automatically put through the Jewish smear machine, banned, ostracized and marginalized.

There were no serious contenders producing booklets and books at the time, to balance out Tom Watson’s writings in 1915. He had a virtual monopoly on the issue of Leo Frank in 1915. So the question is could Tom Watson have been the match that sparked the boiling gasoline flood in 1915? It’s debatable. Was Watson the Straw that Broke the Camels Back? No, Leo Frank would probably have been lynched with or without Watson, the newspaper articles about the trial, the elusive closing speeches captured in the newspapers and booklets would have surely captivated the educated and elite in terms of the depth and truth of it. They never would have let Leo Frank get away with what he did, especially after Frank made a near confession during his own testimony given at the trial on 8-18-1913.

Watson Inflamed the People Against Frank?

The lynching accusations against Watson are partly overstated, because it should be noted, that the mood of the people before Watson stepped into the Leo Frank media circus in most of 1915, was already strongly against Frank, and that Watson may have only served to catalyze the permanent crystallization of those feelings which were already strong and nearly absolute against Frank after his conviction.

Can we really say Frank got a fair trial? If the mood of the people was strongly against him pre-trial?

The police, detectives and investigators had honed in within a matter of hours and days on Leo Frank (56 hours to be exact is how long it took the police to figure it out and arrest him after the discovery of Mary Phagan) and the newspapers had reflected the strength of the evidence against Frank early on well after his arrest, but the newspapers did not make any attempt to railroad Leo Frank or make him the prime suspect because he was Jewish as some Frankites like Elaine Marie Alphin have suggested.

Once Leo Frank was unanimously recommended by the Coroner’s Inquest Jury of seven men (Coroner Donehee plus six members) to be bound over for murder and reviewed by a Grand Jury, and a Grand Jury of 21 men which included 4 Jewish members together unanimously indicted Leo Frank for the strangulation murder of Mary Phagan, it might have tended to create a situation in the minds of the general public that Leo Frank was more likely to be guilty than innocent, even though our justice system requires that one is always considered innocent until proven guilty. And in a perfect society everyone is innocent until proven guilty, despite the unanimous decisions of both the Coroners Inquest Jury and the Grand Jury in terms of their belief that Leo Frank was guilty. It was not prejudices or anti-Semitism at the time that led to their belief in Leo Frank’s guilt, it was the facts, testimony and evidence.

The newspapers at the time had some influence on public opinion, as the media has forever had the ability to shape opinion.

There was no TV, Internet, texting, cell phones, mainly the only news was delivered through the newspapers. Perception is reality, this is why media control is sometimes more powerful than governments and armies in its day to day influence. Though it can’t be stated enough, there is no evidence that the media was responsible for making Leo Frank the prime suspect, they were simply reporting the facts as they came in.

The real reason Leo Frank became the prime suspect is that he lied and told the police that the Negro Newt Lee had missed 3 punches on his time card, opening up three one hour segments of time unaccounted for the Night Watchman.

Once the trial Jury of twelve men unanimously convicted Leo Frank and two years of appellate courts failed to disturb or overturn the verdict of the Jury, in most Southern peoples minds it was with absolute mathematical certainty, the factual guilt of Leo Frank. However for the Jewish Community, Leo Frank had been swept into a vast and neurotic antisemitic conspiracy and the conspiracy theories would never stop even to this day, including wild hoax claims that Jim Conley made a murder confession to his lawyer William Smith (poppycock).

Hey Frankites, what about the Leo Frank confession on August 18, 1913 that was real and is in the official record

Therefore given that Leo Frank went through a Coroner’s Jury, a Grand Jury, a Trial Jury and two years of failed appeals, all suggesting the strong likelihood of his guilt, to suggest Tom Watson caused the unjust lynching of an innocent Jew Leo Frank, is only telling a selective part of the story and showing only a portion of the whole picture. Watson is certainly important in the tail end of this dramatic Greek tragedy that is the strangulation of Mary Phagan and lynching of Leo Frank, but his role is overstated in terms of the Lynch Party. The truth is, it was Slaton and not Watson that caused the lynching.

Watson’s Death Blow

Tom Watson made sure to emphasize to his readership of 100,000, with his uniquely colorful vernacular and Southern linguistic dialect, something the masses might not have been fully cognizant of because no newspapers talked about it at the time, that is the near murder confession made on August 18 1913 by Leo Frank when he mounted the stand at his own murder trial to tell his side of the story.

For most people, they did not know the details of the trial, except for the sometimes blandly detailed and generic reports coming from the newspapers, for the masses they just assumed that the unanimous Coroners Inquest Jury, Grand Jury, Judge, Petite Jury and Appellate courts had rendered their verdict from 1913 to 1915. The average person did not read the trial testimony 3,500 pages or brief of evidence 318 pages, but they certainly will today, if they are curious enough, now thanks to the Internet and this web site. The lost Trial testimony questions and answers coming online in 2015.

Dinner Time Talk

Watson did something unheard of at the time, he made the official record available to the public, published relevant and material portions of it and discussed it in a way the Joe Six packs and Sally Soccer moms of the time could understand, and it would have surely been the exciting dinner time talk of the town in both the Jewish and Gentile homes.

Watson made it lucidly known and clear about the rarely mentioned near confession made by Leo Frank at the murder trial and expounded to his readers about the final speeches delivered by the State’s prosecution team leaders at the most crucial and critical moment in the trial of Leo Frank.

During their final closing arguments in late August 1913, Hugh M. Dorsey and Frank Arthur Hooper, vividly reminded observers and the court, that during the August 18 1913 testimony provided to the Jury by Leo Frank, for the first time, Frank made an inescapable admission that he might have “unconsciously” gone to the bathroom in the metal room during the time period of the murder, the time the prosecution spent 4 weeks successfully proving Leo Frank murdered Mary Phagan there. It became an easy victory after Leo Frank made his public virtual murder confession.

You Can’t Hide the Confession Frankites

Not one single secondary source ever covers this glaring fact and most people are wondering why Frank partisans won’t talk about Leo Frank’s virtual murder confession at his trial now that the centennial anniversary of the trial becomes a new reality?

Leo Frank Four Hours on the Stand August 18 1913

The way that Frank made this virtual admission was done in a way that might not have been obvious to the average person, except for those who had been paying very close attention to what Leo Frank was saying at the time and was captured in the official record as what he had said. Moreover to understand the importance of the “unconscious” bathroom visit, one must understood the layout of the second floor of the factory which contains the metal room and bathroom.

During Leo Frank’s four hour testimony to the court and Jury he spent more than three hours of it talking about the boring specifics of numeric accounting computations he had done that day and to top it off showed his accounting books and diagrams, describing the math, even going down to the minutiae explaining the actual numbers he was adding, subtracting and multiplying during his long day at the factory. It was Boring, immaterial and obtuse, the Jury wanted an explanation of why his office was empty and Frank gave it to them! However the slippery Leo Frank snuck his confession within the mind numbing 4 hours of his testimony to counter Monteen Stover.

Mob Terror Convicted Leo Frank Setting the Stage to Later Lynch Him

Another charge made by the Jewish Community and Leo Frank Partisans, is concerning the mob terror pattern and mob terror chain of events leading to the Lynching of Leo Frank. It starts with the Jury was mob terrorized, accusations that people were chanting, “Hang the Jew, Hang the Jew” would later be put out into circulation, yet not a single newspaper at the time has ever once published anything about a mob terrorists outside the court chanting “Hang the Jew, Hang the Jew”, if this really happened it would have not only been in the Newspapers at the time, but would have been mentioned during the appeals process and there is not a single line in the 1800 pages of the Georgia State Archive on Leo Frank to substantiate this claim, therefore it is likely this is pure fabricated propaganda, rumor and dishonesty by the Jewish community. The mob terror claim is overstated according to 2 years of appellate courts reviews saying this charge is absolutely not true.

Mob Terror or Leo Frank Testimony? Imagine you are on the Jury

Imagine if someone had spent the majority of their time on the witness stand going over math and accounting problems during their own murder trial as an attempt to show they were too busy to have murdered someone that day, would they come off as a total nut ball? They would if their own defense witnesses said the work they do only takes 2 to 3 hours. Leo Frank stayed at the factory till approximately 6:00 PM at night, if he arrived at approximately 8:30 in the morning, it meant he had more than enough time, even with errands to get 2 to 3 hours of work done, but to make matters worse, it was a Holiday, and he wasn’t expected to put in a 10 or 11 hour day and the work he had to do that day did not take 2 to 3 hours, it took a lot less. The Jury, Judge and Courtroom could see through it all and no impartial conscientious person was buying the nonsense and blather Leo Frank was shoveling about pencil manufacturing, everyone there wanted to know .

The specific numbers and calculations coming from Leo Frank were so mind numbing that people might have become totally dizzy, dazed, yawning and tuned out when Frank made his near murder confession on August 18, 1913, a confession that he slipped into his testimony, because no newspapers pointed it out, it was only brought up in the closing arguments of State’s prosecution Team members Hugh Manson Dorsey and Frank Arthur Hooper in later August 1913 and then later by Tom E. Watson in 1915, and now www.LeoFrank.org 2013 to 2015.

The question observers are asking is when will the next secondary source come out that goes over this compelling fact, since 1915 was the last time the Leo Frank murder confession was really discussed in any physically published work?

The Leo Frank Murder Confession of August 18, 1913, is indisputable, and so where Leo Frank other two murder confessions made on April 26, 1913 one to James Conley and one to his wife Lucille Selig Frank, this is part of what caused so much rage, when the Leo Frank defense lawfirm partner and corrupt Governor of Georgia John M. Slaton commuted Leo Frank’s death sentence. Leo Frank was not lynched because he was a Jew, but because he beat, raped and strangled Mary Phagan.

Why wont anybody talk about Leo Frank’s virtual admission of murder? Instead of accusing mob terror, anti-Hebrew race cards, and prejudices as the major reasons for Leo Franks conviction and lynching?

But what about the Lynching? Mob Terror? or Cold Calculating Commando Killing? The execution of Leo Frank was not by some whipped up into a frenzy, alcohol fueled, spontaneously violent crowd, coming together by the forces of rage and nature, creating a crazy mob of booger eating hillbillies and farmers with manure stained overalls, blackened teeth, fire torches and pitch forks.

It was no MOB at all

The lynch party was formed by the cognitive and genetic elite of the State of Georgia, who executed a military operation of exquisite precision. It was the single most audacious prison break in US history. One that had been planned for nearly 2 months and fulfilled to perfection.

Back to the Leo Frank Confession as the Source of His Lynching

It is important to mention this verifiable truth in the record of the closing arguments of State’s prosecution council and in the self-incriminating testimony provided by Leo Frank, because not a single contemporary writer ever mentions this glaring fact of a virtual confession by Leo M. Frank, not Oney, not Dinnerstein, or Elaine Marie Alphin whose book is filled from beginning to end with made up fabrications. Though there are plenty of sources accusing some variation of semantics in place of “Mob Terror” or “Prejudices” from the trial to the lynching, and concerning the lynching, Watson’s name is cited the most as the individual who inspired the “mob like terror lynching of Leo Frank”.

Watson: The Devils in the Details

Watson was unequivocally in support for the Lynching, and he certainly made that clear, but so was everyone else after Leo Frank’s appeals failed, he should have died at the end of a rope as prescribed by the Law and he did. Tom Watson also provided the details of the Leo Frank case in easy to understand series of works, though how much influence he had in inspiring the lynching tends to be grossly over stated. Many outside observers of the case and the general people who were interested in the trial at the time, might not have been aware of this virtual admission of guilt by Leo Frank, but Watson made sure to vividly and lucidly ensure it was unmistakably clear in 1915, so that the commutation by Slaton would and could only be seen for what it really and truly ‘was’ in the eyes of Watson, the people and elites who understood why they were against Frank: that is Slaton’s order of Clemency for Leo Frank was the most brazen and audacious betrayal of power against the law and people.

The Jewish Perspective

For the Jewish community and Leo Frank partisans, the clemency was a token of relief for an innocent man who was convicted by a mob terrorized Jury, little did they know it would become the catalyst for his lynching.

Part of Jewish self-deception and denial requires that they trick themselves into believing Tom Watson caused the lynching, they always need a devil figure to direct their hate.

For the Southren public it was the commutation that was the real source of inspiration for the Lynching, though Watson making Leo Frank’s guilt clear can not be given as a reliable reason as to why Frank was lynched, nor can his advocacy of it become part of the Jewish blame game. It is more likely that Watson was articulating the feelings of the public, rather than he was telling them what to think. Afterall the Leo Frank trial and appeals was one of the single most watched events in 20th Century Southern history.

When the Leo Frank Defense Fund Turned People Out They Invariably Moved to New York

The betrayal perceived in the eyes of the elites and general masses of Georgia was inspired by the criminal acts by the Leo Frank defense team culminating with the clemency at the end, which was such an extreme insult to ones intelligence, it dealt a death kiss for Slaton, but Slaton was no slouch and saw the writing on the wall, he could see what lurked around the corner for him, his prescience saved his own life and he moved to New York City in the nick of time (like many people did who supported the Frank side), that is, until eventually, the inferno of rage died down, he came back to Georgia to live a quiet life. This was a pattern observed thoughout the entire Leo Frank ordeal from 1913 to 1915, whenever the Leo Frank trust fund bribed someone they ended up in NYC, like the lawyer of James Conley named William Smith. William Smith got turned out like fifty dolla hooker working the corners of 42nd street in NY, but he was not alone, the affidavits in the appeals reveal so many other people who the Leo Frank defense tried to turn out and ones it did turn out. It shows you some people can be bought and others can not. None of the books written by Jews and Frankites reveal the dirty little secrets of all the criminal activity and bribery coming from the Leo Frank defense.

No Where to Run and No Where to Hide

Leo Frank however had no chance to run away to new york city, like all the people his defense fund bribed. Leo Frank had no where to run and no where to hide, as his whereabouts where fully known and within two months his doomed fate would be sealed at the end of a 3/4th inch manila rope at Frey’s Mill. The prison doubled the guards on duty as well, because they may have suspected what was coming.

Watson Sold Out!

Watson’s magazine, despite having a circulation which tripled and surged to a record circulation of 100,000, still sold out instantly during the tail end of the Leo Frank Saga in 1915, they couldn’t print the issues containing booklets about Leo Frank fast enough. The magazines were ravenously read, re-read, shared and talked about endlessly, because they intensely covered the subjects the people of Georgia and the entire nation were enthralled with, for Leo Frank, the devils in the details.

Watson’s Magazine, January, March, August, September and October 1915

There was certainly an aroma of blood lust and vengeance in the air at a time in history when the men of the community would sometimes come together in an extra-judicial critical mass to be the Judge and Jury with a hang mans noose. It was a time when criminals and rapists were dealt with effectively at the end of a rope, not locked up in jail to work out, become stronger and join powerful prison gangs. Lynchings were community affairs, it was the ultimate form of democracy celebrated and it kept rapists shaking in their boots. If every convicted rapist or murder were publicly hanged today, crime rates would drop.

Another Perspective: Watson is the Anti-Semite Superstar

Watson talked about the Leo Frank Case, at the time and in a way that no one else dared – with delicious venom, energy, wit and sarcasm. However, from the perspective of the Jewish Community and Frank partisans, Watson committed the ultimate thought crimes and hate crime, simply put, Watson articulated the guilt of Leo Frank like a virtuoso with some of the most vile antisemitic gutter language and openly incited Frank’s assassination. However, when Tom Watson wrote about these things in 1915, two years after the trial, he was releasing his own anger in his own way.

It is one thing to articulate the guilt of Leo Frank with the depth and linguistic mastery of a seasoned Lawyer, it is another to outright call for his extrajudicial extermination. Watson anyway you spin it called for bloody murder, but was he only reflecting the rage of the people? How pissed off would you be if someone raped and strangled a 13 year old girl in your family and the Jewish community tried to turn the perpetrator into a hero?

August 1915 issue of ‘Watson’s Magazine’

Even the August 1915 issue of ‘Watson’s Magazine’ published just weeks before Leo M. Frank was lynched on August 17 1915 and nearly 5 weeks after the Frank commutation on June 21 1915, makes a very compelling case for a conviction well beyond a reasonable doubt and presumably advocates delivering extra-judicial justice to Leo Frank in a roundabout way, especially because incensed and indignant southerners would want the highest penalty paid for such a heinous crime against one of their own.

After the Conviction

Leo Frank in the eyes of the general public, became the symbol of depraved, wealthy and corrupt power trying to use outside influence and big Jewish money to escape justice, and that no matter what, Frank would have to pay the fair price, handing over his own life for raping and strangling Mary Phagan. Twenty five to thirty five men were willing to risk their lively hood to ensure Frank did not escape justice.

For the Jewish community Frank became a martyr of anti-Semitic injustice. Jews suffer from some kind of tribal neurosis and mental pathologies that presume that because Leo Frank was a Jew that he couldn’t have committed this crime. Jews are the most racist people in the world obsessed with their own race.

Tom Watson as Robinhood

For Southerners, there was very much some kind of a robin hood factor in play with Tom Watson, that being, the rich Jews would have to pay dearly for their crimes against the poor working class. Moreover, that the rich, no matter how much money they threw at the Leo Frank appeals, no matter how many letter writing campaigns they launched and no matter how much national media control muscle they flexed on Franks behalf, they would not be able to weasel their way out of this one, at least not at this time. In response to this reality, the Jews have become more determined to romanticize the image of Leo Frank.

Tom Watson as a Rabblerouser

For the Jewish community, many saw the rage against Leo Frank from a neurotic victim and persecution lens which seems to be a genetically innate behavioral expression of Jews. The prosecution and persecution, as Elaine Marie Alphin might put it, of Leo Frank, was perceived as a kind of Southern blind ignorance and jungle prejudice that knew no bounds of decency, with Dorsey at the helm. Though Elaine Marie Alphin can not be considered as an overall reliable source, alas she is mentioned because she does articulate the pro-Frank side of the Leo Frank case well, even if she does so dishonestly and by completly fabricating a series of fantastic lies in her book.

The Final Word on the Matter

Though the final verdict would be re-affirmed with directly or indirectly by every level of the United States legal system, providing the “ultimate truth” of the matter and the bottom line in the Leo Frank Case from 1913 to 1986. The verdict of the Jury has not been disturbed, not even in 1986, no matter how much spin is applied by the Jews. The final verdict is unchangeable now more than 100 years after the original guilty verdict was delivered 1913, the guilt of Leo Frank is now eternally permanent as of 1986 onward. Not even the Pardon of 1986 would exonerate Leo Frank or disturb the verdict of the Jury, should make it clear that the kosher feces being flung by the Jewish Supremacists, shows that Jews are incompatible with Gentile Nations and Jews represent a terminal cancer for Western Civilization.

Another View: Articulation for those who may have once only believed emotionally in Franks guilt having faith in our legal system

As a seasoned lawyer, Watson provided power, clear and inescapable articulation of Leo Frank’s guilt for many southerners, because some of them may have only or simply believed in Frank’s guilt on an emotional level because the system said he was guilty after careful consideration and for a want of righteous vengeance for the strangulation of Mary Phagan (not because of blind anti-Jewish prejudice), rather than because they had actually read the official record of the Leo M. Frank murder trial and reasoned it out for themselves, most people have faith in our legal system of trial by Jury.

As it does today, the media has a powerful influence on the opinion of the masses, because perception is reality and Watson was able to use this eternal herd like tendency within the masses of people, to amplify their rage to a fevered pitch, with logical, well reasoned and compelling arguments as to Frank’s guilt and the necessity to lynch him. But by the time Watson wrote about the Leo Frank case the Justice System had already made up its mind and was just going through the motions.

Sept 1915 issue of ‘Watson’s Magazine’, shielded the Lynchers of Leo Frank

See the booklet that makes the strongest case for convicting Leo Frank which could be described as making it impossible to convict any lyncher of Leo Frank in any local court, simply because of the case for extra-judicial justice it makes is so strong and compelling. Moreover even without the Sept 1915 issue, the mood of the people reached its height against Frank after Slaton’s late June 1915 commutation. See: The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, Jew Pervert, September 1915 by Tom Watson, Watson dubs Frank a “Jew pervert”.

From Watson’s view, he Perceived an ongoing Slander and Defamation campaign by the Jewish Controlled media in the Oct 1915 issue of ‘Watson’s Magazine’

Be sure to also read the October 1915 Issue of Watson’s Magazine produced by Watson, in that issue Watson both accuses and makes a compelling argument that the Jewish community lead a national campaign of hate, slander and defamation against the State of Georgia. Oney in his subtle and careful maneuvering argues that the nationwide campaign against the State of Georgia, may have back fired and hints that it also may have been in some part influential in Frank’s lynching. Indeed, even Governor John Marshal Slaton in his commutation letter, speaks of outsiders trying to influence the local and internal affairs of the State of Georgia, and that most of these outsiders have never actually read the official record and that they will have no influence on his commutation. Observers are wondering what really influenced Slaton to give his commutation, was it really because he doubted the guilty verdict? or was there something more sinister that inspired the clemency given to Frank.

After 2 years of appellate reviews failing to overturn the verdict of the Jury, the people of Georgia were enraged to murderous heights by Slaton’s commutation, it seemed to many, that the entire legal system of the United States, was turned upside down on June 21 1915, by a corrupt Governor bribed by Jewish money. For the Jewish community, the masses of Georgians were part of a vast antisemitic conspiracy.

Antisemitic Reasons From the Perception of the People

However, there is compelling evidence that many factors and variables influencing the lynching of Leo Frank, include more than Slaton’s controversial commutation, they are:

1. the big money influence of the Jewish community,
2. the Jewish nationwide letter writing campaign launched outside of Georgia in every state,
3. Jewish national media control waging a campaign of defamation, slander and blood libel against Georgia,

5. outside meddling by wealthy Jews Adolph Oct and Lasker,
6. Watson’s Antisemitism,
7. subtle and overt class, and political influences which were maneuvering both behind the scenes and openly, and the
8. strong desire of the people to see justice fulfilled against all odds.

May 5, 2004

Steve Oney’s List of the Leo Frank Lynchers

http://flagpole.com/Weekly/Features/SteveOneysListOfTheLeoFrankLynchers.5May04

In 2000, Stephen J. Goldfarb’s website, www.leofranklynchers.com, identified 12 of the Leo Frank lynchers. As a result of Steve Oney’s book, which identifies 17 more lynchers, the number of known lynchers of Leo Frank has more than doubled, from 12 to 29. There is no reason to doubt the reliability of the lynching lists complied by Goldfarb and Oney. As a matter of historical fact, the total number of lynchers may have reached 40, and both Goldfarb and Oney acknowledge that their lists are incomplete.

Oney furnishes the names of 26 of Leo Frank’s lynchers, nine of whom had previously been identified as lynchers by Goldfarb. According to Oney, the 26 lynchers, who all were from or associated with Cobb County, fell into three categories. First, there were the leaders and the planners, who conceived, plotted, and organized the lynching. Second, there were the field commanders, who were part of and traveled with the lynch party, and were in charge of the footsoldiers who comprised the rest of the lynch party. Third, there were the footsoldiers, who either were part of the lynch party that abducted Frank or materially supported or made helpful arrangements for the lynch party. Oney gives the names of six planners, three field commanders, and 17 footsoldiers (11 of whom were on the lynch party), for a total of 26 lynchers.
Both Goldfarb and Oney agree on the identity of nine lynchers. Goldfarb lists three lynchers (John Augustus (Gus) Benson, Ralph Molden Manning, and Moultrie McKinney Sessions) who are not on Oney’s list, and Oney names 16 lynchers not named by Goldfarb.

The Leaders and Planners

Joseph M. Brown (1851-1932) Governor of Georgia, 1909-1911 and 1912-1913, and a political ally of Tom Watson. On Dec. 27, 1914 he published in The Augusta Chronicle an article hostile to Leo Frank in which he asked rhetorically: “Are we to understand that anybody except a Jew can be punished for a crime?” On Aug. 8, 1915, only days before Leo Frank’s lynching, he published a position paper in The Macon Telegraph in which with regard to the Frank case he asserted that the time had come for “the people to form mobs.” As Governor of Georgia, Joseph M. Brown was the immediate predecessor of Gov. John M. Slaton.

Newton Augustus Morris (1869-1941) An 1893 graduate of the UGA law school, he held numerous public offices during his career, and was a superior court judge of the Blue Ridge Circuit (which included Cobb County) in 1909-1912 and 1917-1919. He was also a property developer and contractor. Oney calls him “a sharp operator” and “a devious and brassy character.” A person who knew Newton Augustus Morris said of him, “He was a fourteen-karat son of a bitch with spare parts.” In 1891 Morris had been charged with attempted murder and cattle rustling in California.

Eugene Herbert Clay (1881-1923) The son of a U. S. Senator, Clay was Mayor of Marietta in 1910-1911, district attorney of the Blue Ridge Circuit in 1913-1918, and a Georgia state senator in 1921-1923. Oney tells us that Clay’s personal life “was a thoroughgoing scandal and had been since boyhood.” In 1901, while a UGA student, he wandered the streets of Athens one night, firing pistol shots into the air, and as a result was expelled from the university. He was found dead at the age of 41 in an Atlanta hotel room on June 22, 1923. There are several different a accounts of how he died. According to a longtime Cobb County Superior Court judge, Luther Hames, “Clay was killed when a whore hit him over the head with a liquor bottle.”

John Tucker Dorsey (1876-1957) One of Marietta’s premier trial lawyers, John Tucker Dorsey was a member of the lower house of the Georgia General Assembly in 1915-1917 and 1941-1945, and served as district attorney of the Blue Ridge Circuit in 1918-1920. Years before the lynching he had been twice convicted of manslaughter and had served an imprisonment sentence on the chain gang. John Tucker Dorsey was a distant cousin of prosecutor Hugh M. Dorsey.

Fred Morris (1876-?) A prominent lawyer, Fred Morris was serving his first term in the Georgia General Assembly at the time of lynching. “[W]hen the Boy Scout movement began,” Oney says, “he organized the Marietta troop.”
Bolan Glover Brumby (1876-1948) Brumby owned a furniture manufacturing company, the Marietta Chair Company. In 1910 The Atlanta Constitution described him as “one of North Georgia’s most successful businessmen.” Oney says that Brumby “was the very image of arrogant Southern aristocracy” and that “nothing angered him more than Northerners.”

The Field Commanders

George Exie Daniell (1882-1970) The proprietor of a jewelry shop on Marietta Square for 40 years, he was a member of the Rotary Club and (like fellow lynchers Newton Augustus Morris and Eugene Herbert Clay) a charter member of the Marietta Country Club.

Gordon Baxter Gann (1877-1949) An attorney and protege of Newton Augustus Morris, Gann was Mayor of Marietta in 1922-1925 and 1927-1929, and a member of the lower house of the Georgia General Assembly in 1919-1922. At the time of the lynching Gann was the judge of the probate court in Cobb County.

Newton Mayes Morris (“Black Newt”) (1878-?) A first cousin of Newton Augustus Morris, he ran the Cobb County chain gang and was so proficient in using his bullwhip on prisoners that he was sometimes known as “Whipping Newt.” In 1891 he had been arrested in California for attempting to murder someone by shooting him with two blasts from a shotgun.

The Footsoldiers

The footsoldiers who assisted the lynch party in a supporting role included:
William J. Frey (1867-1925) The Sheriff of Cobb County in 1903-1909, he prepared the noose used to hang Frank, and may have actually looped it around Frank’s neck. Frey’s Gin, the location of the lynching, was his property.
E. P. Dobbs The Mayor of Marietta when the lynching occurred, he lent his car to the lynch party.
L. B. Robeson A railroad freight agent, he lent his car to the lynch party.
Jim Brumby Bolan Glover Brumby’s brother, he owned a garage and serviced the automobiles used in the lynching.
Robert A. Hill A banker, he helped fund the lynching.

The footsoldiers on the lynch party included:

George Swanson, who was serving as Sheriff of Cobb County in 1915, and two of his deputies, William McKinney and George Hicks.
Cicero Holton Dobbs (1880-1954), a taxi driver. (According to Stephen J. Goldfarb, Cicero Dobbs “operated a grocery store in Marietta for 25 years, and later the Dobbs Barber Shop.”)
D. R. Benton, a farmer, and an uncle of Mary Phagan.
Horace Hamby, a farmer.
“Coon” Shaw, a mule trader.

Emmet and Luther Burton, two brothers, who are believed to have sat on either side of Leo Frank in the automobile that took him from prison to death. Emmet is said to have been a police officer, and Luther a coal yard operator.

“Yellow Jacket” Brown, an electrician, who rode his motorcycle to Milledgeville ahead of the lynch party and cut the city’s telephone lines just before the lynch party entered the prison.

Lawrence Haney, a farmer.

——————————————————————

January 1st 2000

Leo Frank Lynchers

Copyright January 1, 2000 by Stephen Goldfarb, Ph.D.

Since the infamous lynching of Leo Frank on August 17, 1915, in Cobb County, Georgia, the identity of those involved has remained a closely-guarded secret. The list reproduced below and the ensuing discussion documents for the first time the identity of some of those who both planned and carried out this murder. This document is an incomplete list of the men who planned and carried out the kidnapping and lynching of Leo Frank in August of 1915.

The document (used with permission) is part of the Leo Frank collection and is housed in the Special Collections Department, Robert W. Woodruff Library of Emory University. Although the document is unsigned, the identity of the author is known to me; however, because of the nature of this list, I have decided not to disclose its author at this time. *(*SEE ADDENDUM TO THIS PAGE FOR RECENT ADDITIONS TO THIS INFORMATION)

Leo Max Frank (1884-1915) was the manager of the National Pencil Factory in Atlanta, Georgia, from the time of its establishment sometime in 1909. On April 26, 1913, one of his employees, a young girl named Mary Phagan, was brutally murdered in the factory. Frank was convicted of this crime in the summer of 1913 and sentenced to be hanged. For most of the next two years, Frank’s lawyers appealed the death sentence, twice to the United States Supreme Court, but to no avail. In June 1915, shortly before he was to leave office, Governor John M. Slaton commuted Frank’s death sentence to life in prison. About two months later, Frank was kidnapped from the state prison farm at Milledgeville, transported about 175 miles to Cobb County, original home of Mary Phagan, and lynched near a place called Frey’s Mill on the morning of August 17, 1915. None of the lynchers of Frank was ever tried for the murder of Frank, much less convicted; in fact the identity of the lynchers has remained a closely-guarded secret. [2]

The list itself contains twenty-six names, two less than contemporary accounts claimed as having taken part in the lynching.[3] Some of these names are of people who will very likely never be identified, unless someone with special knowledge of the lynching comes forward. In some cases only surnames are given, and in others the names are so common, that there are likely to have been several persons among the thousands of males living in Cobb County at that time with that name.[4] Nevertheless, nine of the lynch mob members, including all but one of those listed as being either a “leader” or a “planner” can be identified with confidence. The two “leaders” were identified as Judge Newton Morris and George Daniels.

Newton Augustus Morris (1869-1941) was, according to his obituary in the Marietta Daily Journal, a “leader in the Democratic party in Georgia.” He served in the Georgia House of Representatives from 1898 to 1904, during which time he was speaker pro tem (1900-1901) and then speaker (1902-1904), after which he served two terms as judge on the Blue Ridge Circuit (1909-1912, 1917-1919), the Georgia court circuit that included Cobb County. [5] Morris was credited with preventing the mutilation of Frank’s body after the lynching. According to newspaper accounts, Morris rushed to the scene of the lynching as soon as he heard about it, and once there, he “interceded and pleaded with everyone to permit Frank’s remains to be sent home to his parents for a decent burial.” While Frank’s body was being removed, one member of the crowd, who had earlier wanted to burn Frank’s body, began stomping on the corpse; Morris was able to stop this, which enabled the undertakers to remove Frank’s body to a funeral home in Atlanta. [6] The other man listed as being a leader is George Daniels. Research in contemporary documents has failed to turn up a man by that name, though two persons with the name George Daniel (or Daniell) have been identified, whose age was similar to those of the other lynchers. George Daniels is the only one on the list that is identified as being a member of the Ku Klux Klan. [7]

The following three men are listed as being “planners”: Herbert Clay, M. M. Sessions, and John Dorsey. Of the three, the best known was Eugene Herbert Clay (1881-1923). Son of United States Senator Alexander Stephens Clay, and older brother of four-star General Lucius D. Clay, who served as Allied High Commissioner of Germany from 1945-1949, Herbert Clay was mayor of Marietta (1910-1911) and solicitor general (i.e. district attorney) of the Blue Ridge judicial circuit (1913-18). In this capacity Clay should have prosecuted the lynchers of Frank, a bitter irony, as he himself was a planner of the lynching and may well have taken part in the lynching. He was subsequently elected to the Georgia State Senate and served as its president in the years 1921-1922; he was elected to the Georgia House of Representatives the following year but died in an Atlanta hotel, a few days before the opening of the 1923 session. [8] Clay is the only lyncher whose identity as such has appeared in print.[9]

Born in neighboring Cherokee County, Moultrie McKinney Sessions (1863-1927) moved to Marietta as a child and lived there for the rest of his life. Son of a prominent judge, Sessions received his legal training in a law office and became a lawyer while still a minor. A successful lawyer and financier, he founded Sessions Loan and Trust Co. in 1887. Although active in civic organizations, Sessions does not appear to have held any elected political office.[10]

Also a lawyer, John Tucker Dorsey (1876-1957) moved to Marietta in 1908, after graduation from the University of Georgia and practicing law in Gainesville, Georgia. According to his obituary in the Marietta Daily Journal, Dorsey was active in many civic activities and served in the Georgia House of Representatives (1915-1917, 1941-1945), as solicitor general of the Blue Ridge Circuit (1918-1920), and as ordinary of Cobb County from 1948 until his death. Dorsey represented the state of Georgia at the Coroner’s Jury that met to investigate the lynching of Frank. [11]

Of the remaining twenty or so lynchers, five more have been identified with confidence, these being the following: Gordon Baxter Gann (1877-1949), attorney, mayor of Marietta (1922-25, 1927-29) and member of the Georgia House of Representatives (1919-1922). Gann served as “special attorney” for coroner John A. Booth at the Coroner’s Jury, investigating the Frank lynching. [12] John Augustus (Gus) Benson (1873-1960) operated the Benson Brothers Mercantile Co., which was located on the square in Marietta from 1908 to 1933. Benson testified at the Coroner’s Jury that though he saw several automobiles near Frey’s gin on the morning of Frank’s lynching, he did not recognize anyone in any of the automobiles.[13]

William J. Frey (about 45 years old in 1915) sheriff of Cobb County (1903-1909). Frey’s mill (or gin), the location of the lynching of Frank, was owned by Frey. After his name on the list is the notation: “doubled as hangman.” Like Benson, Frey testified at the Coroner’s Jury that, though he saw several cars near his gin on the morning of the lynching, he could not identify any occupants of these automobiles. Frey also testified that after seeing the cars, he ate breakfast then drove into Marietta, and oddly enough went “to the cemetery where Mary Phagan is buried” and then drove back to the gin where he found “the body of Frank hanging [and he stated that] I looked at him but didn’t put my hands on him.” [14]

Circero Holton Dobbs (1880-1954) operated a grocery store in Marietta for 25 years and later the Dobbs Barber Shop. (He did not serve as mayor of Marietta, as the list would indicate; it was rather Evan Protho Dobbs, presumably a relative, who did so for two terms and was mayor at the time of the lynching of Frank).[15] Ralph Molden Manning (1877-1940) worked as a “contractor and road builder” much of his life and was, at the time of his death, “supervisor of street work for the city of Canton” in neighboring Cherokee County.[16]

The identification of a third of the lynch mob certainly bears out the claim that at least some of its members were prominent citizens of Cobb County, and a few were known state-wide. Included are a former speaker of the Georgia House of Representatives and president of the Georgia State Senate, and other members of the Georgia House of Representatives and Senate, mayors of Marietta, as well as judges, prosecutors, and other members of the local judiciary. Furthermore, this research offers an explanation for the failure of the criminal justice system to prosecute Frank’s murderers, for a member of the lynch mob was also the solicitor general for the Blue Ridge Circuit, the person responsible for the prosecution of the lynchers.[17]

AC=Atlanta Constitution

AJ=Atlanta Journal

MDJ=Marietta Daily Journal

NYT=New York Times

[1] There is a large literature on the Phagan murder.The standard scholarly account is Leonard Dinnerstein, The Leo Frank Case (Athens, GA, 1987), to which should be added the same author’s “The Fate of Leo Frank,” American Heritage 47 (October 1996), pp.98-109.

[2] The name D. B. (Bunce) Napier does not appear on the list, though a claim that he was one of the lynchers was made some years later; see Dinnerstein, Leo Frank Case, p.141, footnote.

[3] August 23, 1915, p. 5. Other sources reported the 25 men were involved; see AC, August 18, 1915, p.1.

[4] A case in point is “Joe Brown.” This person is likely to be Joseph Mackey Brown (1851-1932), who served as governor of Georgia two separate times between 1909 and 1913. (He should not be confused with his father Joseph Emerson Brown [1821-1894], who was also governor of Georgia, as well as a United States senator.) “Little Joe” was a vociferous critic of Governor Slaton for his commutation of Frank; see Dinnerstein, Leo Frank Case, pp. 116-17; NYT, Sept. 27, 1915, p. 6. At the time of the lynching of Frank, Brown was a resident of Cobb County.

[5] MDJ, Sept. 23, 1941, p.1 ;AC, Sept. 23, 1941, pp.1-3 ; AJ, Sept. 23, 1941, p.9.

[6] Dinnerstein, Leo Frank Case, pp. 143-44; AJ, August 17, 1915, pp. 1,3; NYT, August 19, 1915, p.3.

[7] A possible candidate is George Exie Daniell (c.1882-1970), who owned a jewelry store on the square in Marietta for over forty years. MDJ, July 27, 1970, p. 1:8. Daniell was acquainted with several of those on the list including Herbert Clay, Newton Morris, and M. M. Sessions, as all four were charter members of the Marietta Country Club, which was founded in 1915 the year of the Frank lynching. MDJ, Sept. 15, 1995, p. A-6.

[8] AC, June 23, 1923, pp. 1, 14, 16; AJ, June 22, 1923, p.1.

[9] Steve Oney, “The Lynching of Leo Frank,” Esquire, 104 (Sept. 1985), p. 101.See also “Clays Crucial for Cobb,” MDJ, Feb. 13, 1994, p. D-2.

[10] AC, June 23, 1927, pp. 1, 3; Lucian Lamar Knight, A Standard History of Georgia6 vols. (New York and Chicago: Lewis Publishing, 1917), 4:2102-4.

[11] MDJ, Feb. 22, 1957, pp. 1, 4; AC, Feb. 22, 1957, p. 48; NYT, Aug. 25, 1915, p. 6.

[12] MDJ, May 2, 1949, p.1; Walter Gerald Cooper, The Story of Georgia 4 vols. (New York: American Historical Society, 1938) 4:228-29; NYT, August 25, 1915, p.6.

[13] MDJ, Sept. 4, 1960, p. 1.

[14] NYT, August 25, 1915, p. 6.

[15] MDJ, June 2, 1954, p. 1.

[16] MDJ, July 17, 1940, p. 1.

[17] And an ex-Governor of Georgia; see footnote 4.

Many of the lynch mob members remain unidentified. I invite those who have knowledge that could add to the list of the identified to contact me so that the bright light of history can be cast on this dark and evil corner of the past.

Stephen Goldfarb, Ph.D.

ADDENDUM

(Copyright July 5, 2000, by Stephen Goldfarb, Ph.D.)

Now that she has been identified in both the national, as well as the Atlanta press, I can disclose that the list of lynchers posted on this website is in the hand of Mary Phagan Kean, great-grand niece and namesake of the young girl who was murdered in the National Pencil Factory in Atlanta, Georgia, on April 26, 1913.[1] Mrs. Kean wrote a book about the murder some years ago and in which she described those who committed the lynching in the following way:

Each was a husband and father, a wage-earner, and a church-goer. They all bore well-known Cobb County names.[2]

Mrs. Kean then added that

There is an individual alive today who knows all the vigilante group members names and has told them to me.[3]

In at least one press account Mrs. Kean claimed a different source for her list of lynchers. According to Mrs. Kean, starting at the age of 15, people would voluntarily confide in her that a family member was involved in the lynching of Leo Frank. She wrote these names down and over the years her list grew and a “version” of this list found its way into the Leo Frank Collection, Special Collections Department, Robert W. Woodruff Library of Emory University, where I found it in late 1994.[4] In either case it would seem likely that Mrs. Kean would have the confidence of the person (or persons) who could identify the lynchers and for this reason the authenticity and substantial accuracy of this list of lynchers can reasonably be assured.

Press reports, email messages, telephone calls and face-to-face conversations allow me to confirm that two persons whom I had (in footnotes) provisionally identified as being involved in the lynching of Frank can now be identified as lynchers with certainty. The “George Daniels” on Mrs. Kean’s list is George Exie Daniell (1881-1970). A native of Bremen, Georgia, Daniell owned and operated a jewelry store on the square in Marietta for 40 years.[5] Like several of the other lynchers, Daniell was a charter member of the Marietta Country Club (see footnote 7 above) and has the dubious distinction of being the only one on the list as being identified as a member of the Ku Klux Klan.

The second provisional identification, which now can be asserted with certainty, is that of “Joe Brown.” Joseph Mackey Brown (1851-1932), son of the 19th-century Georgia governor and United States senator Joseph Emerson Brown, was the oldest of the lynchers that have been identified and the only lyncher who would have had a direct memory of the Civil War. College educated (B.A., Oglethorpe University, 1872), the younger Brown (a.k.a. Little Joe) was admitted to the Georgia bar in 1873 and subsequently became a successful railroad executive. He served as governor of Georgia on two separate occasions between 1909 and 1913 and was defeated for the United States senate in 1914 by his political rival Hoke Smith. [6] Brown pleaded with Governor Slaton both in person and in the press, not to commute Frank’s death sentence and continued to attack Slaton for the commutation even after Slaton had left office and Frank had been lynched. [7]

In addition to providing confirmation for two provisional identifications, recent press coverage has led to the identification of yet another lyncher. Two recent articles on the posting of Mrs. Kean’s list, confirm that Bolan Glover Brumby (1876-1948) was one of the lynchers. [8] From a pioneer Cobb County family, Brumby was involved in the family’s furniture manufacturing business (the Washington Post called him “owner of a local chair company”); about five years before his death, he moved to Murphy, North Carolina, where he was associated with a son in a hosiery manufacturing business.[9]

At this writing (July 5, 2000), 12 of the lynchers of Leo Frank have been identified; this is almost half of those on Mrs. Kean’s list and about third of those who were involved, as the total number may have been as many as 40. [10] Response to this web page and the resulting press coverage has put me in contact with several persons who have additional information that should lead to the identification of even more lynchers.

[1] Front-page stories appeared in the following newspapers: Wall Street Journal (June 9, 2000); Atlanta Journal-Constitution (June 11, 2000); Washington Post (June 20, 2000).

[2] Mary Phagan [Kean], The Murder of Little Mary Phagan (Far Hills, NJ: New Horizon Press, 1987), pp.221-22.

[3] Ibid. p. 222.

[4] Washington Post, June 20, 2000, p. A-12.

[5] Marietta Daily Journal, July 27, 1970, p. 1:8.

[6] Dictionary of Georgia Biography Kenneth Coleman and Charles Stephen Gurr, eds., 2 vols. (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1983), 1:121-22 and James F. Cook, The Governors of Georgia, 1745-1995 revised ed. (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1995),196-98.

[7] Leonard Dinnerstein, The Leo Frank Case (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1987), pp. 116-7 and New York Times, Sept. 27, 1915, p. 6.

[8] Atlanta Journal-Constitution, June 11, 2000, p. A-11; Washington Post, June 20, 2000, p. A-12. The name on Mrs. Kean’s list reads “R. G. Brumby.” It is likely that the “R” should be a “B”; perhaps a slip of the pen was responsible. The other possibility is that two Brumby’s were involved in the lynching.

[9] Marietta Daily Journal, Dec. 28, 1948, p.1.

[10] Washington Post, June 20, 2000, p. A-12.

—-

—End:

Conclusion of Southerners on the Leo Frank Lynching

The majority of Southern people had a united perspective which was they wanted honest justice and the lynchers also showed the influential Jewish media moguls and extremely tribal Jewish community that their evil power and big money could not overthrow the United States Constitution and every Level of the United States Legal Appellate System, Nor could the perfidious Jewish money bags, working in concert with their united ethnoreligious tribe prevent truth, Justice and righteousness from prevailing.

The greatest dishonor to Southerners today is the 100 year long Leo Frank hoax perpetuated by the Jewish community, that Leo Frank was convicted and lynched because of anti-semitism and prejudice.

One theory suggests Leo Frank was not convicted because of anti-semitism and Leo Frank was not lynched because he was a Jew, but partly because a corrupt Governor wheeling and dealing behind the scenes with Jews, who so happened to be the part owner of the Law firm representing Leo Frank, was not qualified to commute his death sentence and when he did, it was the ultimate dishonor, to openly disregard the evidence and testimony, and to save the neck of a perverted pedophile-rapist, child beating strangler.

When Georgia Governor John M. Slaton, the senior law partner of the Leo M. Frank legal defense team chose to commute his own client Leo Frank’s death sentence to life in prison on June 21st 1915, it was one of the most brazen acts of treason in Georgia History. See: Leo M. Frank Clemency Decision by John M. Slaton June 21st 1915.

References:

The Jeffersonian Newspaper on Leo M. Frank 1914, 1915, 1916, & 1917: http://leofrank.info/images/jeffersonian/

Tom Watson’s Magazine, 1915, Jan, March, Aug, Sept and Oct. (see download library)

-August 17

Fair Usage Law

August 17, 2011   Posted in: Anti Racism, Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, Ashkenazi, B'nai B'rith, Christian, Discrimination News, Holocaust, Holocaust Denial, Holocaust Revisionism, Israel, Jerusalem, Jewish, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism, Leo Frank, Multicultural News, Race Relations, Racism News, Racist News, White Nationalism, White Supremacism, Zionism  Comments Closed

JW Revisionism of Holocaust

In the latter 1960s, the WatchTower Society commissioned an exact and comprehensive history of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Germany, which was to include exact and precise statistics for the Holocaust period, which were to be extracted from not only government archives, but, more importantly, from the WatchTower Cult’s own METICULOUS RECORDS in Germany and other European countries. That report was published by the WatchTower Cult in 1973.

Apparently, the WatchTower Cult was greatly disappointed in the Holocaust statistics uncovered by its own legal
researchers, because that report has rarely been cited by the WatchTower Cult in its’ own Holocaust-related articles published subsequent to the 1973 report. Instead of using its’ own documented exact statistics, both the WatchTower Cult and individual Jehovah’s Witnesses routinely cite inflated statistics from non-WatchTower sources whose numbers are inflated “guestimates”, or are inflated numbers from unreliable and inaccurate records.

Accordingly to the WatchTower Cult’s own 1973 report, only 6019 Jehovah’s Witnesses were arrested in Germany during the entire 12 year Nazi period of 1933 through 1945. Only 2000 German JWs were ever sent to concentration camps. Only 203 were executed. Another 432 German JWs died from other causes while in custody in all German jails, prisons, and camps.

Exact numbers for other Nazi-occupied countries are unknown. Even Holocaust experts who inflate German JW statistics guestimate that only 600-800 non-German JWs from Nazi-occupied countries were ever sent to concentration camps. Mortality figures are not known.

Thus, only 2600-2800 Jehovah’s Witnesses were ever sent to Nazi concentration camps. Death statistics are not known, but can be reasonably estimated to be in the 500-700 range. The grand total for 1933-1945 is about HALF the DAILY AVERAGE of Jewish deaths — 1370 every single day for the 12 year Nazi period.

During this same 1933-1945 time period, there were more Jehovah’s Witnesses arrested and jailed in the United States than in Germany. In fact, just during 1941-45, approximately 4500 American Jehovah’s Witnesses men “elected” to go to prison rather than serve in the U.S. Military and help stop Nazis atrocities against their fellow JWs.

Approximately 3000 of those 4500 American JWs were even offered “conscientious objector” status, in which they were offered “non-combatant” work as a substitute for military service, but 99% of those 3000 American JWs refused to help out even that much.

It is an insult to memorialize the small handful of anti-societal, trouble-seeking Jehovah’s Witnesses alongside the 6,000,000+ Jewish Holocaust victims given that Jehovah’s Witnesses view the Jewish people much as did the Nazis.

The WatchTower Cult preaches its own version of “replacement theology”, which teaches that YHWH rejected the Jews as His “chosen people”, and replaced the Jewish people with today’s “Jehovah’s Witnesses”. The WatchTower Cult teaches that modern-day Jews are YHWH’s enemies, and that all of the YHWH’s promises of restoration for the Jewish people now belong to the followers of the WatchTower Cult.

In fact, the title “Jehovah’s Witnesses” was originally applied to the Jewish people by the Prophet Isaiah, and that scripture is even memorialized on the wall inside the front entrance of the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C.

The WatchTower Cult, in calling its own members — “Jehovah’s Witnesses” — is attempting to steal that designation away from the Jewish people. This is the very reason that for the past three decades that the WatchTower Cult has had a corporate department dedicated to making certain that every single Holocaust rememberance of any size or type — newspaper article, book, speech, museum, etc — anywhere in the world, publicize the fact that the WatchTower Cult’s own “Jehovah’s Witnesses” were equally persecuted alongside “natural” Jews. This is the WatchTower Cult’s way of claiming that “Satan” and his human supporters hate “Jehovah’s Witnesses” as much or more than they hate natural Jews — thus attempting to prevent the Jewish people from laying claim to any spiritual significance that might be interpreted from the Holocaust experience.

In 1933, after the Nazis first started arresting some German JWs, the WatchTower Cult issued a public proclamation of appeasement which condemned an imagined partnership between “Jewish Big Business” and the governments of the United States and Great Britain which supposedly oppressed and exploited other countries, including Germany. The WatchTower Cult’s proclamation condemned the Americans and the British as “the most oppressive empire on earth”.

A conciliatory letter also was sent to Hitler, which highlighted those areas in which the WatchTower Cult supported the new Nazi government. The letter even claimed that the U.S. Government had imprisoned the leaders of the WatchTower Cult during WW1 because they refused to print anti-German propaganda.

During the early years of World War 2, when Germany and Japan were having much success on the battlefields, the WatchTower Cult started teaching that the Bible prophesied that the Axis Powers would defeat and rule over the United States, Britain, and other Allies.

In the United States, JWs went to the homes of families of American service men and women and told those parents, siblings, and spouses that Germany was prophesied to win the war, and that in fighting against Hitler, American and British soldiers were fighting against God’s will.

A Jehovah’s Witness named Taylor was arrested after going to two homes of dead servicemen and telling their families that their sons had died while opposing God’s will. Don’t believe this? Read 1943 U.S. Supreme Court case TAYLOR v. MISSISSIPPI.

Remember the actual historical context the next time you read some liberal newspaper or book’s account about how some poor innocent Jehovah’s Witness was beaten during WW2 for doing nothing except preaching the Bible door-to-door.

While it is true that a small number of German and other European JWs suffered greatly during the early stages of the Holocaust, it is also true that during the latter stages of the Holocaust that imprisoned JWs became exemplary Nazi collaborators highly valued by the Nazis.

Over the decades, the WatchTower Cult itself has published numerous biographical stories in which imprisoned JWs are praised for having been given positions of authority and responsibility within the various Nazi concentration camps. Various Nazi officials are quoted praising those JWs for not only their work, but their work ethic and supportive
attitudes.

In fact, one of Heinrich Himmler’s deputies once even suggested to Himmler that after Germany won the war that conquered non-Germanic christian nations be forced to convert to the Jehovah’s Witness religion, so as to maintain a controlling religious element in those people’s lives which would pose no threat to Nazi political control.

Fair Usage Law

July 25, 2011   Posted in: Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News  Comments Closed

Hating on Congressman Weiner

It is now clear that Weiner DID marry a lesbian. No man who is happily married would have done what he done. The marriage was a means for Huma to cover her lesbianism & continue her affair with Hillary “Goddam” Clinton

Weiner Married a Lesbian

Huma M. Abedin (born 1976) is an aide to United States Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton who served as traveling chief of staff and “body woman” during Clinton’s campaign for the Democratic nomination in the 2008 presidential election.23 Abedin was born in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Her Indian born father was a Muslim and Middle Eastern scholar who died when she was 17 years old, and her Pakistani born mother is a professor in Saudi Arabia. At the age of two, her family relocated to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Abedin returned to the United States to attend George Washington University. Huma Abedin began working as an intern for the White House in 1996 and landed an assignment with the First Lady. During the campaign for the 2008 South Carolina presidential primary, an anonymous e-mail was distributed which claimed that, “Hillary Clinton was having a lesbian affair with Huma Abedin, her beautiful aide,” according to an article detailing campaign smears that was published in the Times of London. She has since risen to the role of Hillary Clinton’s right-hand woman. She currently works for Clinton at the State Department. She married New York Representative Anthony Weiner on Saturday, July 10, 2010. Former President Bill Clinton presided at the wedding which took place at the Oheka Castle in Huntington on Long Island.

He’s 45 and first marriage…She’s about 35 but don’t know if she was married or not….Met when she was Hillary’s personal aide…Weiner LOVES the Clintons.

Fair Usage Law

July 25, 2011   Posted in: Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News  Comments Closed

Anti-Semitism.Net: Our Favorite Web Site of the Day

www.arlenschumer.com

ARLEN SCHUMER is one of the foremost historians of comic book art, named by Comic Book Artist magazine as “one of the more articulate and enthusiastic advocates of comic book art in America” (www.arlenschumer.com/index.php/comic_history); ABC-TV’s 2020 called him “one of the country’s preeminent authorities on comics and culture” (www.youtube.com/watch?v=_e634FDTBaI). He is also one of comic book art’s most idiosyncratic practitioners, creating award-winning illustrations for the advertising and editorial markets (www.workbook.com/portfolios/arlen). His coffee table art book, The Silver Age of Comic Book Art, published by Collectors Press (www.amazon.com/Silver-Age-Comic-Book Art/dp/1888054867/ref=dp_return_2/102-3932749-3481757?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books), was the winner of The Independent Book Publishers Award for Best Popular Culture Book of 2004.

His first book, Visions From The Twilight Zone, published by Chronicle Books in 1991 (www.amazon.com/Visions-Twilight-Zone-Arlen-Schumer/dp/0877017255), was based on the classic TV series, treating its images like art photography and its words like poetry. He based a multimedia presentation on the book, which he still tours around the country, along with his other mini-marathon/VisuaLecture, The Five Themes of The Twilight Zone, www.arlenschumer.com/index.php/lectures. His latest presentation, The Twilight Zone Forever, www.arlenschumer.com/index.php/twilight_zone, commemorated the 50th Anniversary of the series, October 2, 2009 at The New York Times’ TimesCenter in NYC. Interviewing Schumer for a TZ radio special airing Christmas 2010, London’s BBC said his works about the series (www.paleycenter.org/the-twilight-zone-forever/) were “…a cut above the rest: passion and erudition.”

www.youtube.com/results?search_query=arlen+schumer&aq=f

www.dripbook.com/arlenschumer/style/art-direction/

www.workbook.com/blog/1556

www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=717019460

Fair Usage Law

July 25, 2011   Posted in: Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, Discrimination News, Jewish, Jews, Judaism, Multicultural News, Zionism  Comments Closed

Patriot Act: Keeping Lone Wolves from the Door

http://reason.com/archives/2009/10/05/should-the-patriot-act-keep-lo

Keeping Lone Wolves from the Door
Why Congress should not renew the PATRIOT Act’s “lone wolf” provision

Julian Sanchez | October 5, 2009

The USA PATRIOT Act, a vast expansion of the American intelligence community’s search and surveillance powers, was passed in haste in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks. Now a new administration may finally have given Congress the leisure to repent. Last month, lawmakers on both sides of Capitol Hill held hearings to consider three important surveillance provisions slated to “sunset” at the end of the year. The Obama administration has requested that all three be renewed, but also announced its willingness to consider “modifications to provide additional protection for the privacy of law abiding Americans.” Some prominent Democrats see the coming legislative tussle over whether and how to renew those provisions as an opportunity to finally halt the runaway expansion of executive snooping authority, from National Security Letters to secret “sneak-and-peek” searches.

Competing reform proposals have been offered up by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis). While Feingold’s bill is by far the more sweeping; like Leahy’s it provides for the renewal of roving wiretap authority and expansive powers to acquire business records and other “tangible things,” albeit with extensive modifications to strengthen oversight. But unlike Leahy’s bill, Feingold’s wisely allows the PATRIOT Act’s so-called “lone wolf” authority to expire entirely.

The extraordinary tools available to investigators under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), passed over 30 years ago in response to revelations of endemic executive abuse of spying powers, were originally designed to cover only “agents of foreign powers.” The PATRIOT Act’s “lone wolf” provision severed that necessary link for the first time, authorizing FISA spying within the United States on any “non-U.S. person” who “engages in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor,” and allowing the statute’s definition of an “agent of a foreign power” to apply to suspects who, well, aren’t. Justice Department officials say they’ve never used that power, but they’d like to keep it the arsenal just in case.

As with so many of the post-9/11 intelligence reforms, the lone wolf provision has its genesis in the misguided assumption that every intelligence failure is evidence that investigators need more power. In the aftermath of the attacks, it was initially alleged that FBI investigators who had wanted to obtain a warrant to search the belongings of so-called “20th hijacker” Zacarias Moussaoui were unable to do so because FISA lacked a “lone wolf” provision. But a blistering 2003 report from the Senate Judiciary Committee tells a very different story. It notes that on 9/11, investigators were able to obtain a conventional warrant using the exact same evidence that had previously been considered insufficient. Worse, the Committee found that supervisors at FBI Headquarters had failed to link related reports from different field offices, or to pass those reports on to the lawyers tasked with determining when a FISA warrant should be sought. Officials in charge, the Senate discovered, fundamentally misunderstood such crucial legal standards as “probable cause” and falsely believed that they could not seek a FISA order unless a target could specifically be tied to a particular, already-recognized terror group.

“In performing this fairly straightforward task,” the report concludes, “FBI headquarters personnel failed miserably.” They didn’t need new “lone wolf” powers; they needed to understand the powers they already had. Nevertheless, new powers were what they were granted, in an ill-considered reform that undermines the vital distinction American law has traditionally observed between domestic national security concerns and foreign intelligence.

Courts have generally been extraordinarily deferential to the executive in the realm of foreign intelligence, and have suggested that the Fourth Amendment’s protections against warrantless searches apply only weakly, if at all, in this context. But when it comes to domestic national security investigations, a unanimous Supreme Court has ruled that the usual restrictions remain largely intact. The court clearly saw the involvement of a “foreign power” as providing the distinction between the world of the criminal law’s Fourth Amendment protections and the hazy arena where the executive enjoys far greater latitude. The “lone wolf” provision recklessly blurs that line, defying the common sense meaning of an “agent of a foreign power,” and giving investigations that belong in the first world a dubious statutory foothold in the second.

To be sure, FISA’s definition of “international terrorism” still requires some foreign “nexus” before a suspected lone wolf can be targeted, but the statute provides only the vague guidance that its aims or methods “transcend” national boundaries. Justice Department officials have suggested that the definition would cover a suspect who “self-radicalizes by means of information and training provided by a variety of international terrorist groups via the Internet,” making a Web browser the distinction between a domestic threat and an international one. Activities “in preparation” for terrorism, according to the legislative history, may include the provision of “personnel, training, funding, or other means” for an attack.

While it’s difficult to be an unwitting “member” of a terror group, nothing in the law requires that the contribution a lone wolf makes to terror activities be a knowing one. And while definitions of an “agent of a foreign power” applicable to citizens explicitly prohibit investigations conducted wholly on the basis of protected First Amendment activities, PATRIOT appears to permit “lone wolves” to be targeted merely on the basis of advocacy. Finally, while the criminal law requires “preparation” for terrorism to include a “substantial step” in the direction of carrying out an attack, the Justice Department has suggested that FISA’s definition does not. Thus, not only may lone wolf suspects be monitored despite the absence of ties to a terror group, they may not even need to be engaged in criminal conduct.

Though the standard of proof needed to target a person under FISA is clearly lower than under criminal law, the surveillance powers it affords are substantially broader. Title III, the statute covering criminal wiretaps, requires evidence of a “nexus” between suspected criminal activity and each location or communications facility monitored. Even then, agents are only supposed to record conversations that are pertinent to the investigation. Once someone is designated an “agent of a foreign power,” by contrast, FISA permits broad monitoring coupled with “minimization”-the purging of irrelevant communication, such as the conversations of innocent housemates-“hours, days, or weeks after collection.” Though targets of Title III surveillance are typically informed of the eavesdropping eventually, after the investigation has finished, FISA targets usually are not, enhancing the secrecy of intelligence practices, but removing a powerful check against abuses.

All of these significant differences make sense in the context of spying aimed at a member of an international terrorist conspiracy. But the lone wolf provision effectively aims a Howitzer at a gnat, allowing souped-up tools designed for Al Qaeda and the KGB to be used against people more reasonably seen as criminal suspects-and in the process, against any Americans who happen to have interactions with them.
Julian Sanchez is a research fellow at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor of Reason.

Fair Usage Law

July 19, 2011   Posted in: Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News  Comments Closed

Happy Birthday Nelson Mandela, Celebrate Nelson Mandela Day

Only with the Jew media would rehabilitate a bomb-throwing communist terrorist into a “civil rights activist.”

http://www.archive.org/details/RivoniaUnmasked

Contrary to popular belief, Nelson Mandela was not a “prophet of peace” nor was he imprisoned for 27 years for “fighting against apartheid.” In fact, Mandela was a communist terrorist who bombed assorted facilities and buildings and killed people, along with other black and Jewish intellectuals of the day. The Rivonia trial was not about “apartheid” it was about murders committed at the hands of Nelson Mandela and others.

From an Amazon.com review:

This book carefully documents the evidence from the Rivonia Trial. Rivonia was a suburb of Johannesburg where the ten defendants secretly met and hid on a farm. Ethnically they were 3 Jews, 2 Indians and the rest black. Nelson Mandela had masqueraded as a cook and gardener.

The trial began in December 1963 and the verdicts were rendered in July 1964. The trial outlines the conspiracy to violently overthrow the South African government.

It proves how the revolutionaries planned and implemented campaigns of sabotage, intimidation, torture, guerrilla warfare, violence, disruption of transportation and communications, insurrection and revolution against the government with the assistance of the Communists and other radicals. They planned to manufacture or purchase explosives such as 48,000 land mines each containing 5 pounds of dynamite, 210,000 hand grenades each containing 1/4 pd of dynamite as well as petrol bombs,syringe bombs, thermite bombs, 1,500 timing devices for bombs, as well as Molotov cocktails.

Their requirements included 144 tons of ammonium nitrate,21.6 tons of aluminum powder and 15 tons of black powder. They prepared for a nucleus army of 7,000 soldiers. Many to be trained abroad in Communist countries. The campaign was based on the model of successes previously achieved in Algeria and Cuba. More than ten documents written in Nelson Mandela’s handwriting were submitted as evidence. They contained notes on basic and advanced military training and warfare as well as Communist doctrine. Although Mandela denied being a Communist he admitted that the aims and objectives of the ANC and Communist Party were identical. He even spoke of retaliation against non supportive blacks such as murder and cutting off their noses.

The planners were convicted and sentenced to life in prison.

The lesson that may be learned from this is that governments when threatened such as in this case must move harshly. Had these terrorists been convicted of treason and executed things might have turned out differently.

http://www.archive.org/details/RivoniaUnmasked

Fair Usage Law

July 19, 2011   Posted in: Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, Jewish, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism, Multicultural News, Race Relations, Racism News, Racist News, White Nationalism, White Supremacism, Zionism  Comments Closed

The Anti-Semitic Murder of B’nai B’rith President Leo Frank

The Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean, Publisher: New Horizon Press; 1st edition (September 15, 1989).

The book, ‘The Murder of Little Mary Phagan’ authored by Mary Phagan Kean, the great grand niece of little Mary Phagan (1899 to 1913) is probably the most even-handed book written about the subject and its aftermath in the last one hundred years.
This exceptional book ‘The Murder of Little Mary Phagan’ details the most infamously sensational and contentious early 20th century rape and strangulation cold case investigation that began at 3:30 AM on April 27, 1913 when the Night Watchman Newt Lee called the police and reported the murder. 56 hours later on April 28, 1913 at 11:30 AM, Leo Frank was arrested, it would be his last day of freedom. The cold case would be solved when detectives discovered one of the employees who worked at the factory named Monteen stover. While interviewing Monteen Stover the police found out she went to the factory on April 26, 1913, to get her pay and waited in Leo Frank’s empty office from 12:05 to 12:10 PM. Without Leo Frank knowing the police had questioned Monteen Stover, Detectives John R. Black and Harry Scott, approached Leo Frank in his cell and asked him if he had been in his office every minute from noon to 12:35PM and Leo Frank responded an affirmative ‘Yes’. The alibi of Leo Frank had just been cracked wide open.

Mary Phagan Kean offers a unique analysis of the 29 day capital murder trial which began on July 28 and led to the August 25, 1913 murder conviction of Leo Max Frank, followed by its affirmation by presiding Judge, the Honorable Leonard Strickland Roan on August 26, 1913, who sentenced Leo Frank to death by hanging at the suggestion of the Jury.
The book also discusses Leo Frank’s subsequent post-conviction appeals from 1913 to 1915, and his death sentence commutation by the corrupt Governor John M. Slaton on June 21, 1915.
Leo Frank would have his throat slashed on July 17, 1915 by a fellow inmate named William Creen and on August 16, 1915, Leo Frank was abducted from prison in a military commando style raid by the elite of georgia and lynched at sunrise on August 17, 1913.

Nearly 70 years after the lynching of Leo Frank, pressure from the ADL of B’nai B’rith and other Jewish organizations resulted in a highly political posthumous pardon without exoneration for Leo Frank in 1986. The Leo Frank case continues to capture the imagination of the public more than 100 years after his conviction.

Brief Biography of Leo Frank

Leo Frank was born in Cuero (also known as Paris), Texas on April 17, 1884. His family moved 3 months later to Brooklyn, NY, where Leo Frank was raised and educated at local public schools. After doing college prep work at the Pratt Institute, Leo Frank matriculated into the Ivy League Cornell University in Ithaca, NY. Leo Frank began studying Mechanical Engineering during his first semester in fall of 1902.

1905

During the summerbreak of 1905, between his Junior and Senior year in college, Leo Frank went with his wealthy uncle Moses Frank on a sojourn overseas and spent the summer travelling around Europe.

1906

In the fall of 1905 Leo Frank began his senior year of college. After graduating in June, 1906, with a degree in Mechanical Engineering, Leo Frank bounced around from job to job, until he visited Atlanta, Georgia, in 1907 and met again with his rich uncle Moses Frank to discuss a potentially lucrative business venture. After visiting Atlanta, Leo Frank made a very serious life decision and decided he wanted to participate in his wealthy uncles venture and he would again go on a sojourn overseas to make it happen in December 1907. Leo Frank traveled to the German Empire where he studied pencil manufacturing. After his 9 month apprenticeship, Leo Frank returned to NYC, on August 1, 1908 on the USS Amerika and then briefly stopping at his home in Brooklyn to visit his family for 1 week. Leo Frank then made a permanent move to Atlanta, Georgia, in August, 1908, starting a new life in the Heart of the South, starting work at the National Pencil Company on August 10th, 1908.

1910

In 1910, Leo Frank married into a wealthy and established German Jewish family (Selig-Cohen) and became actively involved with Jewish philanthropy and society. Leo Frank was a rising star he was elected B’nai B’rith President of Atlanta in 1912 by the 500 member lodge. By 1913, with nearly 5 years of experience, Leo Frank had reached the pinnacle of his career at the National Pencil Company, as superintendent, accountant, and part owner.

1913

The National Pencil Co. factory was located on 37 to 41 South Forsyth Street, it was there Thirteen year old Mary Phagan, an employee of Leo Frank had begun working in the early Spring of 1912, a little more than a year before her murder. Mary Phagan worked just down the hall from Leo Frank’s office on the 2nd floor where she participated in the final and finishing production stages of the pencil manufacturing process. Mary Phagan worked in the “metal room”, in a section called the tipping department, her job was inserting erasers into the empty brass metal bands that were attached to the end of the pencils on a nulling machine.

The metal department, where Mary Phagan worked contained within it the only bathroom and also the girls dressing room on the second floor. It was these places where the blood and hair of Mary Phagan would be found on Monday morning at 7AM on April 28, 1913, by early bird employees starting the work week. Word of Mary Phagans death had already reached all of Atlanta when a newspaper “Extra” was released on Sunday, April 27, 1913, after the normal paper.
Once the word got out about the discovery of real forensic evidence, word traveled fast, employees of the whole factory who were already in emotional hysterics would flock to the metal room, gawking at these unusual blood stains on the floor and the tress of 6 to 8 hairs with dry blood on them broken off and stuck on the handle of the lathe machine of Robert P. Barret.
A white powder known as haskolene was found suspiciously smeared and rubbed into the fresh blood stains on the metal room floor found in front of the girls dressing room, it appeared to be an attempt to cover up the evidence, but the blood bled through the whitepowder turning the red blood stain variations of white, pink and dark blood red. The blood stain also had a star burst pattern that occurs when the back of someones bloody head is dropped on the floor.

The half-baked and half-assed “clean-up job” appeared to be a failed attempt to cover up the blood stains near where the murder victim it was later revealed was dropped as she was being moved from the scene of the crime in the metal room bathroom down 2 floors to the spot adjacent to the basement furnace.

Little Mary Phagan’s Life (1899 to 1913):

The 55 hour work week Mary Phagan performed at the pencil factory for about 7.5 cents an hour, was her small way of helping support her five siblings, and widowed mother (who remarried a cotton mill worker named Mr. John W. Coleman in 1912). Mary’s step father knew Mary Phagan and her family quite well for 4 years and he identified the hair found on the lathe machine as belonging to Mary Phagan, as did several employees.

The week before Phagan’s murder, a shortage of brass supplies at the factory had led to a reduction in her work hours and she was temporarily laid off until the material and supplies could be replenished. Her wages for the shortened work week came to $1.20 or just 7.5 cents an hour for the 16 hours she had worked the previous Friday (11 hours), and Monday (5 hours) prior to her being murdered on Saturday, April 26, 1913.

On April 26, 1913, a State Holiday, celebrated locally as Confederate Memorial Day, Mary came to the factory to claim her pay before going to see the Confederate memorial day parade with some of her friends and neighbor / co-worker George W. Epps in the location of Elkins-Watson place at 2pm.

Mary Phagan never arrived at 2:00PM as promised, George W. Epps stuck around for 2 hours and then left at 4:00PM.
Later in the evening George Epps ran over to Mary Phagan’s home, which was right around the corner, to find out why Mary Phagan never showed up at the designated time. Mary Phagan’s family was already in a state of distress and panic over her being missing, but they also thought she might have gone to stay with a relative. Mary Phagan’s father, Mr. Coleman, had looked for Mary at the Bijou theater, and discovered the Handsome Mr. Darley, Foreman, at the National Pencil Company with another guy, and each one them was with a young girl from the pencil factory. Mr. Darley was married, but the young girl he was squiring was not his wife.

April 26, 1913, Noon

When Mary Phagan arrived at the factory at minutes after noon (12:02PM), Marys pay was allegedly issued to her by Leo Frank and according to the pre-trial investigation and later the testimony at the 1913 Trial, Leo Frank was the last person to admit seeing Mary Phagan alive in a virtually empty factory. On Saturday, April 26, 1913, there were 4 people in the factory at the time of Phagans arrival, when the normal number was more than 100+. It was the reason among others why Leo Frank became a suspect so early on when all things were considered.

George Epps made a deposition providing troubling testimony to the police, stating that Mary had told him in confidence, that Leo Frank scared her and often made lascivious, inappropriate sexual innuendos and insinuations toward her, that Leo Frank was “after her” in local parlance. According to Epps, Mary Phagan told him that Leo Frank would run up in front of her when she was trying to leave work and during the work day would stare at her and wink.

George Epps would after the Leo Frank murder trial get kidnapped by Frank cronies, be threatened with violence and forced to recant his testimony by signing a false affidavit under duress. George Epps later signed a true affidavit about the intimate details of his abduction and being kidnapped to Alabama. The true affidavit described in details the dishonest trickery that unraveled when he was kidnapped and forced under duress to sign a pre-written affidavit.

April 27, 1913

In the early hours of Sunday, April 27, 1913, at around 3:24 AM in the morning, the Negro night watch (“night witch”) Newt Lee made a phone call to the police. Newt Lee found Mary Phagans mangled body on a dirt mound near a furnace in the rear of the basement at 3:20 AM, with what looked like a strip or part of her bloody pettycoat wrapped around her head. Police reported there was evidence she had been dragged by her arms from the elevator 140 feet face down, before being dumped next to the furnace. Phagan’s face was so scratched up, punctured and covered with filth at first the police were unsure if it were a white or black girl.

The autopsy would reveal she had been hit on the face around the eye with a fist, there was also damage to the back of her head that was likely caused when it hit the handle of the lathe on the second floor in the metal room and broke off her hair. The underwear of Mary Phagan was torn open, she had been violently raped, her face beaten black-and-blue, and strangled with a 7 foot cord. One doctor testified under oath to several types of specific kinds of sexual violence and vaginal damage that occurred, suggesting some kind of rape either penile or by fingers.

Leo M. Frank

The police after viewing the body of Mary Phagan made several failed attempts at reaching Leo Frank on the phone in the early hours of April 27, 1913, but they did not have problems reaching other people. It would not be until the early morning after sunrise the police finally reaching him on the phone, they went directly to the home of Leo Frank at around 7am in the morning.
When the detectives arrived at his home, the door was answered by Mrs. Lucille Selig Frank, the police asked to speak with Mr. Frank. Like typical seasoned detectives, without telling Leo Frank what it was about, they observed him and asked him to come to the factory with them, suspicion fell on Leo Frank because he appeared to be extremely nervous, trembling, rubbing his hands, and pale. Police noticed Leo Frank appeared to be badly hung over, bumbling, jimjamming and agitated. Leo Frank also gave overly detailed and meticulous answers on very minor points, his voice was hoarse. Leo Frank fumbled, butterfingered and struggled with minor tasks like fixing his collar and tie. Moreover, Leo kept saying he hadn’t had breakfast and kept asking for a cup of coffee trying to delay the the process of being taken to the Pencil Manufacturing Plant he was Superintendent.
The police asked Leo Frank if he had known Mary Phaganand Leo Frank denied knowing a Mary Phagan saying he would need to check the accounting books he managed to be sure.

The Mary Phagan denial would become an important point at the trial, because Mary Phagan had worked for a year on the same floor as Leo Frank, her work station was only a few feet away next to the bathroom, where Leo Frank visited each day more than once. Other employees testified Frank knew Mary on a first name basis, others said they saw him behave in that gray area between politeness and sexual harassment toward her. Mary Phagan had also collected more than 50 pay envelopes from Leo Frank during her 1 year of employment and logged more than an impressive 2,750 hours of work at the factory from Spring 1912 to Monday, April 21, 1913.

Leo Frank flat out got caught in a lie about whether or not he knew Mary Phagan, which damaged his credibility and left people wondering why he was trying to pretend not to know her.

Frame the Nightwatchman Newt Lee

On Sunday, April 27, 1913, Leo Frank said Newt Lee’s time card was punched correctly, but on Monday April 28, 1913, Leo Frank said Newt Lee did not punch his time card at 3 disparate intervals, creating 3 intervals of 1 hour of unaccounted for time for Newt Lee. Leo Frank told the police to check his body and house, the police found no Marks on his body, and his home and laundry showed no blood stains. When the police searched Newt Lee’s home without a warrant, at the bottom of a laundry barrel they found a bloody shirt. The shirt had blood stains high up on the armpits in the front and back in a way the police immediately thought it was a plant, plus, the shirt was minty clean and did not have the distinctive negro funk on it hey recalled.
It was these three variables the fresh shirt, with oddly placed blood smears and no funky smell, that gave it away the shirt was a plant.

It was as if Leo Frank was trying to implicate Newt Lee, the murder notes with “night witch”, the time card contradiction and the planted shirt, turned full suspicion on Leo Frank.

Leo Frank’s last full day of freedom was Monday, April 28, 1913, because on Tuesday April 29, 1913, at 11:30PM Leo Frank was arrested.

After arresting and questioning the black janitor James “Jim” Conley, who it was later discoverd was present at work on the infamous Confederate Saturday, the police eventually cracked James “Jim” Conley with the 3rd degree and after 3 half-truth affidavits, they finally got James “Jim” Conley to admit he was an accomplice after the fact to the strangulation murder. They got the details out of him about how the body was transported to the basement and what Leo Frank was saying and doing that day.
James Conley admitted he was asked by Leo Frank to move the body of Mary Phagan to the basement and ghost wrote four dictated “death notes” (only 2 were discovered) which were scattered next to the head of Mary Phagan by Leo Frank once she was dumped in the basement and James Conley left the building.

The murder notes were a very contrived attempt to make it appear as if Mary Phagan had written the “death notes” after she went to the bathroom and was sexually assaulted by a negro. The “death notes” where unmistakeably clear in their attempt to pin the crime and point guilt to the “long tall slim negro” night watchman Newt Lee (“night witch”).

The “death notes” left many people asking themselves when or ever in history of the 13.7 Billion Year Old Cosmos has a black man committed a rape, robbery and murder, and then stuck around to write literature, four murder notes, only 2 were found, as if they were being written by the victim in the middle of the rape by night time security guard and then addressing the notes to her mother describing what happened.

The Trial

There was some conflicting testimony about what Leo Frank said concerning a question Mary Phagan asked him at 12:03 PM, “Has the metal come in?”. A Pinkerton detective and defense witness hired by the National Pencil Company contradicted Leo Frank about the answer Mary had given to the question.

The trial would make history, because it would be the first time in the United States of America, where the testimony of two black man (Jim Conley & Newt Lee) would lead to the conviction and death sentence of a white man (Leo Frank) by an all White jury in the white racially consciousness and racially segregated South. However, the star witness was not Black, but White.

Star Witness Monteen Stover and the (2nd) Leo Frank Murder Confession

Though the Star witness was neither Newt Lee or Jim Conley, but a 14 year old White girl named Monteen Stover who cracked wide open Leo Frank’s alibi. Monteen Stover had come to the factory to collect her pay envelope minutes after Mary Phagan had arrived, but she did not bump into Mary Phagan walking down the stairs and Leo Frank was not in either his inner or outer office, nor was Leo Frank aware that Monteen Stover had arrived and waited for him in his second floor office for five minutes fully between 12:05 to 12:10 PM. Frank would counter the testimony of Monteen Stover stating, he might have “unconsciously” gone to the bathroom in the metalroom during this time.

Frank had entrapped himself beyond escape, because the only bathroom on the second floor was located within the metal room, it was the metal room where the murder evidence was found and the prosecution had successfully built a 29 day case that Leo Frank had murdered Mary Phagan there in the metal room between 12:05 and 12:10. To make matters worse, Leo Frank had made a statement, known as State’s Exhibit B, where he said Mary Phagan had arrived into his office between 12:05PM and 12:10PM, but Frank’s office was empty and he claimed he was inside the metal room’s bathroom. Leo Frank had made a virtual murder confession at his own trial, it was the first time in US history.

Be sure to read the final closing statements of State’s prosecution team leader, the Solicitor General Hugh Dorsey and Assistant Solicitor Frank Hooper in American State Trials Volume X 1918, for their unique take on the Leo Frank murder confession. One should also read the really long winded closing arguments of Hugh Dorsey published separately outside of American State Trials Volume X 1918, known as ‘The Argument of Hugh M. Dorsey’.

Tom Watson

Many would argue the best post trial analysis of the Leo Frank murder confession is articulated by the genius & anti-semite Tom Watson in his five booklets on the Leo Frank trial in Watson’s Magazine, January, March, August, September and October of 1915.

Appeals 1913 to 1915

Numerous frivolous, ultra cheesy and half-baked appeal attempts were made by the Leo Frank Legal Defense Team to the Georgia Superior Court, Georgia Supreme Court, US Federal District Court and United States Supreme Court, all appeals were denied after careful review, with lengthy decisions written and rendered (see LeoFrank.org).

Commutation June 21, 1915

The departing Governor of Georgia, John M. Slaton (who also happened to be a senior legal partner and part owner of the same law firm which represented Leo Frank at the trial), decided to commute the death sentence of his client, Leo Frank, to life in prison on June 21, 1915, just days before the end of his last term as Governor. It was an act of political suicide, but it didn’t matter, as he was leaving office anyway and was likely rewarded in other ways.

1915

The genius anti-semite Tom Watson through his popular Jeffersonian publishing company in 1914 and 1915, mocked Leo Frank calling him a Jewish sodomite and wrote five separate scathing reviews about the Leo Frank Case in January, March, August, September and October of 1915 issues of Watson’s Magazine (These 5 issues are available on Archive.org). They are deliciously sarcastic and filled with energy, seasoned wit and juicy venom.

Leo Frank Shanking, July 17, 1915

One month after the commutation of Leo Frank, he had his neck slashed in prison by a fellow violent inmate named William Creen, who used a 7 inch butcher knife on Leo’s tender throat. Leo Frank barely survived the attack, two inmate doctors came to his help, the wound was a bit slow to heal in the hot humid summer of 1915.

Almost 2 months later, after Leo Frank received controversial clemency against the wishes of the Jury that sentenced him to death, a well organized group of about 25 to 35 men, many of which were from Georgia’s highest strata of politics, law and society, organized themselves into the ‘Knights of Mary Phagan’. This newly formed group of Georgia’s elites, sought to fulfill the conviction of the Jury and death sentence judgement preserved and prescribed by Judge Leonard Strickland Roan. These elite men of the Knights of Mary Phagan wanted to deliver righteous retribution in the form of “Southern Style Vigilante Justice”.
After much careful planning, Leo Frank was kidnapped from the minimum security Milledgeville prison he was housed on the evening of August 16, 1915, driven all through the night and then lynched in the early hours of August 17, 1915, from an oak tree near the town where Mary Phagan had formerly lived.

Post Lynching, August 17, 1915

Franks dangling body became a public spectacle, photographs were taken and the pictures of Leo Franks lifeless suspended body, gently twirling in the breeze became popular post cards and memorabilia in the South, selling out almost instantly.

How the Most Definitive Book on the Leo Frank Case was Born

The book ‘The Murder of Little Mary Phagan’ is written by the namesake of the murder victim, Mary Phagan’s great niece named Mary Phagan Kean. When Mary Phagan Kean was 13 years old, she discovered her given name was no mere coincidence. When people heard Mary Phagan Keans name they started asking her questions about whether she was related to the famous little Mary Phagan who had been murdered long ago by Leo Frank on Confederate Memorial Day, Saturday, April 26, 1913.
Mary Phagan Kean would learn a startling secret when she asked her family if she was a blood relative connected to the Mary Phagan who was murdered. When her family revealed the truth about her blood relation, Mary Phagan Kean immediately became insatiably curious about the investigation, trial and aftermath.

Instantly becoming a life long student of the case at age 13, Mary Phagan-Kean has devoted every free moment in her entire life studying volumes of research and documents, reading every surviving document surrounding the torture, rape and strangulation of her great grand aunt, 13 year old Mary Phagan (1899 to 1913) and the biography of Leo Max Frank (1884 to 1915).

B’nai B’rith

Leo Frank was the President of the 500 member Atlanta Chapter of B’nai B’rith. As a result of the conviction in this national scandal which evolved into a sensational trial, it would become the critical mass of “Anti-semitism” catalyzing the formation of two American groups: the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith in October, 1913, or ADL (www.adl.org) for short, and spark the revival of the defunct nativist and ethnic nationalist Ku Klux Klan (KKK) in 1915 as a White Nationalist immunal response to what they perceived as an infection of the United States as a host body.

Half-Truths

Jewish Scholars which overwhelmingly wrote the lion share of all the written books, articles, web sites, scripts and texts about the subject of Leo Frank and Mary Phagan almost unanimously allege the investigation, trial, and conviction where part of a widespread Antisemitic conspiracy, a text book case of railroading and framing an innocent Jewish Man because of anti-Jewish racism and religious hatred. Leo Frank partisan books often leave out most of the relevant facts, evidence and testimony in the Leo Frank case dishonestly spinning the facts convenient to creating doubt about Leo Franks guilt.

1980’s

Pressure from the powerful Jewish community, Jewish groups and ADL (Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith) with an affidavit from a lonely, broke and senile octogenarian, the former office boy of Leo Frank who worked for him for 3 weeks in April 1913, a man named Alonzo Mann, resulted in the highly political 1986 Georgian pardon of Leo Frank (without exoneration).
There was only one problem, Alonzo Mann had died in March of 1985 and no one could question him. The politically corrupt board forgave Leo Frank, but kept his guilt intact and thus did not disturb the verdict of the Jury.

On March 11, 1986, a pardon without exoneration of guilt was issued by the board:

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.

A number of fictionalized media dramatizations have been made about the trial in the form of plays, musicals, miniseries, docudramas, video blogs, songs, treatments and Broadway plays all created by Jews making a mockery of the life of Mary Phagan who is used as nothing more than a plot antagonist. Attempts are made idealize and rehabilitate Leo Frank as an innocent Jewish victim of evil Antisemitism, transforming him from a pedophile murderer into a holy religious martyr.

The blood libel against the Leo Frank prosecution and people who think Leo Frank guilt continues to this day by the Jewish community, though sometimes it is often couched. The Jewish community won’t dare ever mention the “unconscious” bathroom murder confession Leo Frank made on the witness stand when he was giving his statement at the trial on August 18, 1913. The statement Leo Frank made to counter Monteen Stover’s testimony is always left out of most books.

Leo Frank is the only person in US history to make a virtual murder confession at his own trial, shocking, but true. See Hugh M. Dorsey, Frank Arthur Hooper and Tom Watson’s interpretation of the Leo Frank murder confession. Also see State’s Exhibit A, B, J, Monteen Stover’s Testimony, Harry Scott’s Testimony and the Testimony of Leo Frank.

The 4.7MB adobe PDF version of the book is available here for download. Please download this book and read it.

“Definitive account of one of the most famous crimes of the century.”–American Jewish Outlook

“Riveting and captivating!” — Ira Stein

“The most evenhanded account of the most sensational trial of the 20th century.” — Matt Cohen

“The best book written on the Leo Frank case since 1915” – MC

The book was published in English on September 25, 1989

For more information on the Leo Frank Case, visit: www.LeoFrank.org
More excellent books and reading on the subject include:

0. The Leo Frank Case (Mary Phagan) Inside Story of Georgia’s Greatest Murder Mystery 1913 – The first neutral book written on the subject in 1913. Very interesting read available on: www.Archive.org and www.LeoFrank.org.

1. The Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean (Available here on www.Archive.org). Written by Mary Phagan Kean, the great grand niece of Mary Phagan. A neutral account of the events surrounding the trial of Leo Frank and considered the most balanced, fair and accurate work on the Leo Frank case. The Murder of Little Mary Phagan is well worth reading and it is a refreshing change from the endless number of Leo Frank partisan media, articles and books turning the Leo Frank case into a mellow dramatic, Jewish, neurotic, race obsessed and hollyweird tabloid controversy. The Murder of Little Mary Phagan is required reading.

2. American State Trials, volume X (1918) by John Lawson (Available here on www.Archive.org and www.LeoFrank.org) Tends to be biased or lean in favor of Leo Frank and his legal defense team, this document provides an abridged version of the Brief of Evidence, leaving out some important things said at the trial and the details of some of the evidence when it republishes parts of the official trial testimony. Be sure to read the closing arguments of Luther Zeigler Rosser, Reuben Rose Arnold, Frank Arthur Hooper and Hugh Manson Dorsey. What this book possesses is something that no other book does, it has the abridged closing arguments of State’s prosecution team members Hugh M. Dorsey and Frank Arthur Hooper, be sure to read their interpretation of the Gobsmacking, August 18, 1913, Leo Frank murder confession when Leo Frank to counter Monteen Stover’s testimony, says that he might have had the safe door open or “unconsciously” gone to the bathroom in the metal room. Be sure to familiarize yourself with Monteen Stover’s testimony and the official 1913 Brief of Evidence. For the best interpretation of the mind boggling Leo Frank murder confession, one better than both Hugh Dorsey and Frank Arthur Hooper, then definitely read the Anti-Semite Tom Watson’s five works on the Leo Frank trial in his Watson’s Magazine issues: Jan, March, August, September and October of 1915. Putting aside Watson’s vile Anti-Semitism, his works on the Leo Frank case are delicious, full of wit, sarcasm, energy and venom (Required Reading).

For a more complete version of the Leo M. Frank trial testimony, read the official 1913 murder trial brief of evidence (available on archive.org) and you can see what was left out in American State Trials Volume X 1918.

3. Argument of Hugh M. Dorsey in the Trial of Leo Frank (Available here on LeoFrank.org.). Some but not all of the 9 hours of arguments given to the Jury at the end of the Leo Frank trial. Only 18 Libraries in the world have copies of this books. It can be found here on archive.org thanks to LeoFrank.org. This is an excellent book and required reading to see how Dorsey in sales vernacular ‘closed’ a Jury of 12 men and Judge Roan. Make sure you read the section on the Leo Frank murder confession in this book and compare it to the one in American State Trials Volume X 1918, see the differences in the final closing arguments.

4. Leo M. Frank, Plaintiff in Error, vs. State of Georgia, Defendant in Error. In Error from Fulton Superior Court at the July Term 1913, Brief of Evidence. Extremely rare, only 1 copy exists, and it is at the Georgia State Archive. This document is available now on www.Archive.org and LeoFrank.org.

5.,6.,7., The Atlanta Constitution, The Atlanta Journal, The Atlanta Georgian (Hearst’s Tabloid Yellow Journalism), April 28th to August 27th 1913.

8. Tom Watson’s Jeffersonian and Watson’s Magazine: Watson’s Magazine, January 1915, Watson’s Magazine, March 1915; Watson’s Magazine, August 1915, Watson’s Magazine, September 1915, and Watson’s Magazine, October of 1915. (Available here on www.Archive.org and www.leofrank.org). Tom Watson’s best work on the Leo M. Frank case was published in September 1915. Watson’s five works written collectively on the Leo M. Frank topic, provide logical arguments confirming the guilt of Leo M. Frank with superb reasoning.

These five works are absolutely required reading for anyone interested in the Leo M. Frank Case. Tom Watson’s magazine publications surged from 30,000 to 100,000 copies, when it was announced he would be writing on the Leo Frank case. These magazines are extremely rare and very difficult to find. However they have been scanned and are available on both www.Archive.org and www.LeoFrank.org.

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., Digital Source: www.Archive.org

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., Digital Source: www.Archive.org

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., Digital Source: www.Archive.org

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., Digital Source: www.Archive.org

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., Digital Source: www.Archive.org
The most comprehensive research archive of Leo M. Frank Case information and documents, visit: www.LeoFrank.org

Fair Usage Law

July 10, 2011   Posted in: Anti Racism, Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, B'nai B'rith, Christian, Discrimination News, Holocaust, Israel, Jerusalem, Jewish, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism, Leo Frank, Multicultural News, Race Relations, Racism News, Racist News, White Nationalism, White Supremacism, Zionism  Comments Closed

The Most Anti-Semitic Book of 2011: Debating the Holocaust: A New Look At Both Sides

Review

DEBATING THE HOLOCAUST A NEW LOOK AT BOTH SIDES By Thomas Dalton, Ph.D THE CONTROVERSY THAT WON’T GO AWAY NOW, THE TRUTH BEHIND THE HOLOCAUST DENIAL DEBATE There was no budget. There was no plan. There was no extermination order from Hitler. Preeminent Holocaust expert Raul Hilberg said: {What began in 1941 was a process of destruction not planned in advance, not organized centrally by any agency. There was no blueprint and there was no budget for destructive measures. [These measures] were taken step by step, one step at a time. Thus came about not so much a plan being carried out, but an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy.} Is this really a comprehensible explanation? Key camps have all but vanished. So too the human remains. Material evidence is astonishingly absent. The alleged gassing procedure has serious, unanswered questions. And the famous six million number has an amazing history. Revisionists claim that the public has been seriously misled by traditional historians. Are they right? IF WE COULD BE MISTAKEN ABOUT THE HOLOCAUST,WHAT ELSE COULD WE BE WRONG ABOUT? –World War Two Books

Product Description

For the past few decades there has been raging a kind of subterranean debate, one of monumental importance. It is a debate about the Holocaust — not whether or not it “happened” (this is a meaningless claim), but rather, HOW it happened, through what MEANS, and to what EXTENT. On the one hand we have the traditional, orthodox view: the six million Jewish casualties, the gas chambers, the cremation ovens and mass graves. On the other hand there is a small, renegade band of writers and researchers who refuse to accept large parts of this story. These revisionists, as they call themselves, present counter-evidence and ask tough questions. Among the issues they raise are these: (1) there is no trace of a ‘Hitler order’ to exterminate the Jews; (2) key witnesses have either falsified or greatly exaggerated important aspects of their stories; (3) major death camps — Belzec, Chelmno, Sobibor, and Treblinka — have all but vanished; (4) we find little evidence of disturbed earth for mass graves; (5) we find few remains of the millions of alleged victims — neither bones nor ash; (6) mass-gassing with Zyklon-B would be nearly impossible without ventilators and ceiling holes; (7) mass-gassing with diesel engine exhaust is practically impossible, given the low level of carbon monoxide; (8) wartime air photos of Auschwitz show none of the alleged mass-burnings or cremations; (9) the ‘6 million’ number has no basis in fact, and actually traces back decades before the war; (10) trends in Jewish world population strongly suggest less than 6 million lost; and (11) the present number of “survivors” — currently over 1 million — implies few wartime deaths. The revisionists arrive a different account. Hitler, they say, wanted to expel the Jews, not kill them. The ghettos and concentration camps served primarily for ethnic cleansing and forced labor, not mass murder. The Zyklon gas chambers did in fact exist, but were used for delousing and sanitary purposes. And most important, the Jewish death toll was much lower than commonly assumed — on the order of 500,000. In this book, for the FIRST TIME EVER, the reader can now judge for himself. Arguments and counter-arguments for both sides are presented, and all relevant facts are laid out in a clear and concise manner. The entire debate is presented in a scholarly and non-polemical fashion. Citations are marked, and facts are checked. READ, and JUDGE FOR YOURSELF.

About the Author

My goal is to remedy this shortcoming. I intend to present an objective, impartial look at this debate. I will discuss the latest and strongest arguments on both sides, examine the replies, and offer an unbiased assessment. This is a challenging task, to say the least, but I believe that I am reasonably well suited for it. Unlike the vast majority of writers on the Holocaust, I am not Jewish either by religion or ethnicity; nor are any of my family members. I am not of German descent. No one in my immediate family suffered or died in World War II. I am neither Muslim nor fundamentalist Christian, so I have no religious bias. My background is as a scholar and academic, having taught humanities at a prominent American university for several years now. I have a long-standing interest in World War II, and in the present conflict in the Middle East. In the end, whether I have succeeded in offering an objective analysis of this debate will be for the reader to judge.

Fair Usage Law

July 10, 2011   Posted in: Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, Ashkenazi, Holocaust, Holocaust Denial, Holocaust Revisionism, Jewish, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism  Comments Closed

This Day in Jewish History, August 18, 1913, the Leo Frank Murder Trial Confession. “Patron Father” of the ADL of B’nai B’rith.

Once in a Lifetime Something very unusual happened during the 29-day Leo Frank trial which was conducted within the courtroom of the Fulton County Superior Courthouse in the Summer of 1913. It was during that famous July term session of 1913, some would postulate that Leo Frank inadvertently revealed the solution to the contentious and […]

Fair Usage Law

August 18, 2011   Posted in: Anti Racism, Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, Ashkenazi, B'nai B'rith, Christian, Discrimination News, Holocaust, Holocaust Denial, Holocaust Revisionism, Israel, Jerusalem, Jewish, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism, Leo Frank, Multicultural News, Race Relations, Racism News, Racist News, White Nationalism, White Supremacism, Zionism  Comments Closed

This Day in Jewish History: August 17, 1915, the Mob Lynching of Leo M. Frank for the Bludgeoning, Rape and Strangulation of little Mary Anne Phagan (1899 to 1913)

Photo Archived at the Library of Congress. Leo Frank was Lynched at 7:17 AM, August 17, 1915, this photo was taken later that morning after word got out about what happened and people flocked to Frey’s gin creating a critical mass of spectators.A Very Rare Photo of Leo Frank More Than an Hour After the […]

Fair Usage Law

August 17, 2011   Posted in: Anti Racism, Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, Ashkenazi, B'nai B'rith, Christian, Discrimination News, Holocaust, Holocaust Denial, Holocaust Revisionism, Israel, Jerusalem, Jewish, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism, Leo Frank, Multicultural News, Race Relations, Racism News, Racist News, White Nationalism, White Supremacism, Zionism  Comments Closed

JW Revisionism of Holocaust

In the latter 1960s, the WatchTower Society commissioned an exact and comprehensive history of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Germany, which was to include exact and precise statistics for the Holocaust period, which were to be extracted from not only government archives, but, more importantly, from the WatchTower Cult’s own METICULOUS RECORDS in Germany and other European […]

Fair Usage Law

July 25, 2011   Posted in: Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News  Comments Closed

Hating on Congressman Weiner

It is now clear that Weiner DID marry a lesbian. No man who is happily married would have done what he done. The marriage was a means for Huma to cover her lesbianism & continue her affair with Hillary “Goddam” ClintonWeiner Married a LesbianHuma M. Abedin (born 1976) is an aide to United States Secretary […]

Fair Usage Law

July 25, 2011   Posted in: Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News  Comments Closed

Anti-Semitism.Net: Our Favorite Web Site of the Day

www.arlenschumer.comARLEN SCHUMER is one of the foremost historians of comic book art, named by Comic Book Artist magazine as “one of the more articulate and enthusiastic advocates of comic book art in America” (www.arlenschumer.com/index.php/comic_history); ABC-TV’s 2020 called him “one of the country’s preeminent authorities on comics and culture” (www.youtube.com/watch?v=_e634FDTBaI). He is also one of comic […]

Fair Usage Law

July 25, 2011   Posted in: Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, Discrimination News, Jewish, Jews, Judaism, Multicultural News, Zionism  Comments Closed

Patriot Act: Keeping Lone Wolves from the Door

http://reason.com/archives/2009/10/05/should-the-patriot-act-keep-loKeeping Lone Wolves from the DoorWhy Congress should not renew the PATRIOT Act’s “lone wolf” provisionJulian Sanchez | October 5, 2009The USA PATRIOT Act, a vast expansion of the American intelligence community’s search and surveillance powers, was passed in haste in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks. Now a new administration may finally have […]

Fair Usage Law

July 19, 2011   Posted in: Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News  Comments Closed

Happy Birthday Nelson Mandela, Celebrate Nelson Mandela Day

Only with the Jew media would rehabilitate a bomb-throwing communist terrorist into a “civil rights activist.”http://www.archive.org/details/RivoniaUnmaskedContrary to popular belief, Nelson Mandela was not a “prophet of peace” nor was he imprisoned for 27 years for “fighting against apartheid.” In fact, Mandela was a communist terrorist who bombed assorted facilities and buildings and killed people, along […]

Fair Usage Law

July 19, 2011   Posted in: Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, Jewish, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism, Multicultural News, Race Relations, Racism News, Racist News, White Nationalism, White Supremacism, Zionism  Comments Closed

The Anti-Semitic Murder of B’nai B’rith President Leo Frank

The Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean, Publisher: New Horizon Press; 1st edition (September 15, 1989). The book, ‘The Murder of Little Mary Phagan’ authored by Mary Phagan Kean, the great grand niece of little Mary Phagan (1899 to 1913) is probably the most even-handed book written about the subject and its […]

Fair Usage Law

July 10, 2011   Posted in: Anti Racism, Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, B'nai B'rith, Christian, Discrimination News, Holocaust, Israel, Jerusalem, Jewish, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism, Leo Frank, Multicultural News, Race Relations, Racism News, Racist News, White Nationalism, White Supremacism, Zionism  Comments Closed

The Most Anti-Semitic Book of 2011: Debating the Holocaust: A New Look At Both Sides

ReviewDEBATING THE HOLOCAUST A NEW LOOK AT BOTH SIDES By Thomas Dalton, Ph.D THE CONTROVERSY THAT WON’T GO AWAY NOW, THE TRUTH BEHIND THE HOLOCAUST DENIAL DEBATE There was no budget. There was no plan. There was no extermination order from Hitler. Preeminent Holocaust expert Raul Hilberg said: {What began in 1941 was a process […]

Fair Usage Law

July 10, 2011   Posted in: Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, Ashkenazi, Holocaust, Holocaust Denial, Holocaust Revisionism, Jewish, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism  Comments Closed


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."