Archive for the ‘Hate Crime Hoax’ Category

Hell Storm Documentary Post Hitler Nazi Germany 1945 — Hiter Nazi Revisionism

SHUT IT DOWN, NOW!

BIG VICTORY!! We got this video censored in 25% of the world’s countries by relentlessly pressuring YouTube and Governments around the world to Censor and suppress this video. 25% down, 75% to go, help us get this video deleted, blocked and banned everywhere in the world, we have had great success so far!!

Please contact YouTube and get this video deleted, before someone uses www.ClipConverter.cc to download this video and upload it to all the video sharing web sites on the Internet.

Link: Hell Storm documentary

Please go to IMDB, create an account and write a negative review of this film http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4661358/

Fair Usage Law

February 4, 2017   Posted in: Abraham Foxman, AIPAC, Anti Racism, Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Jewish, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism Lobby, Anti-Semitism News, Ashkenazi, B'nai B'rith, Censorship, Discrimination News, Hate Crime Hoax, Hate Crimes, Hate Speech, Hitler, Holocaust, Holocaust Denial, Holocaust Remembrance Day, Holocaust Revisionism, Hush Crimes, Israel, Israeli Lobby, Jewish, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Extremism, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jewish Lobby, Jewish Racism, Jewish Supremacism, Jews, John de Nugent, Judaism, Misc, Multicultural News, Neo Nazi, Race Relations, Racism News, Racist News, Simon Wiesenthal, Southern Poverty Law Center, SPLC, White Nationalism, White Power, White Privilege, White Racism, White Supremacism, World War II, Zionism  Comments Closed

Sister of Muslim Woman in ‘Trump’ Hate Crime Hoax Blames …

Ark. Bill Seeks to Ban Purchase of Junk Food With Food Stamps

‘Christmas Magic’: Marine Dressed as Santa Surprises Son at School

Woman to Adopt Dying Best Friend’s Children: ‘We Love Each Other & I Love the Kids’

The sister of a woman charged in New York City for filing a false police report about drunk men on a subway train yelling “Trump” and “terrorist” at her blames the NYPD for bringing the alleged lie to light.

Sara Seweidsaid the police never should have investigated her sister’s claims because law enforcement’s “first instinct” is to doubt and then disprove accusations, the New York Post reported:

“Things snowballed out of our control because of the media reporters made things so much worse for our family.

I had more than one cop tell me that theyve looked through all our social media and it doesnt look good that weve been vocal about certain issues they perceive to be anti -trump, anti-white and even anti-men.

Yasmin Seweid of New Hyde Park, N.Y. said that on December 1, a group of inebriated white men began yelling “Trump, Trump!”, “Go back to your country!” and “Terrorist!” at heron a late-night subway train.

Further investigation brought authorities to the conclusion that YasminSeweidfabricated the encounter and they subsequently charged her with filing a false report and obstructing government administration.

Yasmin Seweidadmitted she made up the story because she did not want to be in trouble with her family for staying out late, Abby Huntsman reported.

Prior to her arrest, Seweid also allegedly ran away to her sister’s home in upstate Fishkill, sparking a manhunt, the Post reported.

Maryland Teen Shoots Deer That Invaded His Family’s Living Room

A Professor Says the Term ‘Holiday Party’ May Also Not Be PC Enough

Texas Police Department Waives Tickets, Asks for Toy Donations Instead

Here is the original post:

Sister of Muslim Woman in ‘Trump’ Hate Crime Hoax Blames …

Fair Usage Law

December 19, 2016   Posted in: Hate Crime Hoax  Comments Closed

2011 Campus Hate Crime Hoax Season About To Begin …

Students are heading back to college, but I don`t expect to see any new campus hate crime hoaxes until spring. The simple reason: spring is hoax season. Who wants to march and protest out in the cold?

But last spring saw a bumper crop! And this year, there will no doubt be morebecause of the dynamics of diversity in Obama`s Brave New America.

It`s important to remember that the Hate Crime hysteria has real (white) victims. My May 26 VDARE.COM story, Report from Occupied America: Free the Mizzou Two! , told the increasingly common tale of two young men at University of Missouri Columbia (“Mizzou”), arrested, indicted, and coerced into copping guilty pleas, who hadn`t committed any crimesbeyond being white, male, and heterosexual.

The whole episode was Kafkaesque. Then again, life today for a normal, red-blooded, American college boy increasingly is Kafkaesque.

Meanwhile, Mizzou does have a serious problemviolent black crimes against members of the university community on and near campus. But university chancellor Brady Deaton, who denounced the innocent Mizzou Two, is silent about that.

Between late January and late March of this year, black students on seven different college campuses in Ohio, California, Missouri and Tennessee were the victims of “hate crimes”.

Just kidding!

Except that the people behind these “hate crimes”, all obvious hoaxes, aren`t laughing. They seek to intimidate, disenfranchise, and imprison people who have broken no laws, based solely on the color of the latter`s skinand at the same time extort huge sums of money and take over their respective campuses.

The real campus racism story, the one the MainStream Media refuse to tell, is one of black racial animus.

The past 23 years have seen one black race hoax after another, on and off campus. Though many of these “hate crimes” remain technically unsolved,” I don`t know of any claims by campus “blacks” (or their non-black leftist comrades) that weren`t hoaxes. Thus the rational response to each lurid new claim should be skepticismon a par with what we bring to the daily e-mails promising us millions of dollars.

And yet each new claim is treated by college administrators, police, and the media, as if no black race hoaxes had ever been exposed.

And even after they are exposed as hoaxes, black students and their white enablers act as though they had been real. Simultaneously, they variously ignore, cover up, and lie about, the constant violent, racially-motivated crimes being perpetrated by blacks against whites (and Asians) on and off campus, and vilifying and attempting to destroy those whites who complain. (See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.)

Get out your scorecards. During the 2010 spring semester, these campus “hate crimes” were allegedly committed:

“We will not tolerate disrespect, racism or bias on our campus. One of my top priorities as chancellor is to increase diversity on our campus, and one of the best ways to do that is to create and maintain a welcoming campus climate for all.”

[UT reports detail bias incidents; chancellor calls for change by Chloe White Kennedy, Knoxville News Sentinel, March 26, 2010.]

(“Hate crimes” that were almost certainly copycat hoaxes targeted Jews and homosexuals at UC Davis, gay activists at the University of Idaho College of Law, and Jews at UC Berkeley. Hoax envy runs rampant.)

What makes for a successful race hoax?

The Hocking College Hoax never caught fire. The MSM doesn`t much care about community colleges. The Johnson & Wales Hoax also failed to get a national stage.

You never know which race fraud will attain media stardom. But UCSD can serve as a case study.

In retrospect, the reasons for the great success of the UCSD hoaxers were:

Friends in high places: Pres. Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have repeatedly reiterated their support for anti-white racism (see also here), and for black race hoaxes;

Media support: The MSM opposed California`s 1996 anti-affirmative action Prop. 209 and have sought to destroy it ever since its enactment, and thus devoted credulous, saturation coverage to the UCSD hoaxes;

Numbers: With over 28,000 studentsonly 26 percent of whom are whiteUCSD is a huge, high-profile campus;

Historic significance: In spite of a limited amount of stealth affirmative action, UCSD had held the line on academic standards better than any other UC campus, as witnessed by blacks comprising only 1.6 percent of its student body. Success at UCSD could presage the end of any standards in the UC system and the de facto gutting of Prop. 209 The UCSD hoaxes and protests appear to have been coordinated with the long-planned, March 4 statewide black and Hispanic student and faculty protests demanding more illegal privilegesmore race and ethnicity-based money, admissions, jobs and programs.

Tenacity: The UCSD hoaxers never quit, committing hoax after hoax, lying about each in turn, and various additional crimes (trespassing, vandalism);

Help on the Ground I: The hoaxers were supported by the faculty and students of entire programs and departments of pseudo-scholarship that exist, in order to maintain race-focused job mills, and promote race consciousness and irredentism: Ethnic Studies, “Chicano/a and Latino/a Arts & Humanities,” and African-American Studies;

Help on the Ground II: Student government President Utsav Gupta [Email him] exploited the situation by illegally shutting down all student media until the student government overrode him and by seeking to institute illegal rules which would have permanently silenced all student media that was not anti-Western, with himself the arbiter. If a report that “Gupta said he is working with UCSD legal counsel” is true, Gupta also feloniously conspired with the UCSD administration to violate white students` civil rights;

Help on the Ground III: Chancellor Fox exploited the situation by illegally “investigating” perfectly lawful behavior by white students, and by entering into negotiations with, and signing an agreement with the BSU, that violated the California Constitution and white students` Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Her administration conspired to cover up the true nature of the incidents by manipulating the UCSD Police Department, and withholding information. Instead of investigating the BSU students for possible race hoaxes and conspiracy to commit extortion, and arresting them for trespassing and vandalism, Fox praised them. She seeks to impose a joint Fox-BSU dictatorship on the school;

Help on the Ground IV: San Diego City Attorney Jan Goldsmith [Email him] refused to release the name, race, or ethnicity of the confessed noose-hanger.

As a veteran Hate Crime watcher, this naturally aroused my suspicions. But on March 31, CA Goldsmith`s communications director, Gina Coburn, e-mailed me:

“In regards to your inquiry on the recent incidents at the University of California San Diego, the case having to do with a noose found in the library remains open and is under active investigation. We cannot comment for that reason.”

Coburn [Email her] repeated her claim, during an April 1 telephone conversation, that the case was still “under investigation,” adding, “we are in the process of reviewing the case.” When I interjected, “reviewing, but not investigating?” she switched to “it`s an investigation and a review of the case.”

I pointed out to her that the UCSD PD had completed the investigation, and handed over its case file and evidence to the City Attorney`s office on March 2. Coburn acknowledged that, but stayed on message.

I retorted, “I`ve never heard of a case where a white suspect was alleged to have committed a hate crime, in which his name was suppressed. Ever.”

Apparently, City Attorney Goldsmith does not believe that the Hate Crime law applies to non-whites. His illegal suppression of the confessed noose-hanger`s name was, I believe, part of a strategy to “disappear” the crime. The legal term for that is “conspiracy to obstruct justice.”

Another political prosecutor. What a surprise!

In mid-February, Chancellor Fox announced that she was investigating, and looking to discipline white fraternity members who, she said, had advertised the “Compton Cookout.” But as the Foundation of Individual Rights in Education`s (FIRE) Director of Legal and Public Advocacy, Will Creeley, pointed out in a February 23 letter to Fox, for her even to “investigate,” much less discipline the fraternities, would violate their constitutional rights.

In a February 22 letter to Gupta and Fox, Adam Kissel, the director of FIRE`s Individual Rights Defense Program, argued that Gupta`s actions in shutting down student media were “unconstitutional and morally questionable.”

After FIRE`s Creeley and Kissel, and David Blair-Loy, the legal director of the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties, notified Chancellor Fox that she was violating the law, she ignored them (and UCSD spokesman Rex Graham declined to respond to them), but quietly removed her threats.

However, whites on campus still do not know their rights. At this point, it will likely require the UCSD administration losing a multimillion-dollar lawsuit, to change how it does business.

Thus far, no individual or group has announced plans to file such a suit, and Creeley told me that FIRE does not engage in litigation.

On February 22, 23 (PDF), and 24 (PDF), the ACLU`s Blair-Loy wrote variously to Chancellor Fox and student government president Utsav Gupta, pointing out that they were violating students` First Amendment rights.

But those letters were contradicted, and thus neutralized, by a February 25 letter from Andrea Guerrero, the policy & field director of the same ACLU branch, and a longtime, embittered foe of Prop. 209, heartily supporting Fox` illegal, racist, anti-civil liberties campaign, and offering the ACLU`s help, in implementing it!

In March, despite leaving detailed voice and e-mail messages at the ACLU`s national media office in New York, and speaking with someone there named “Pam” about the UCSD and Mizzou cases, I never got a response.

But that was not surprising. In February, I had asked “Pam” for a statement regarding the terrorist threats that had caused four hotels in a row to cancel their bookings for the American Renaissance conference. She never responded the either.

Blair-Loy notwithstanding, the ACLU is not a civil liberties organization. In line with its founding by a Communist, it is a civil rights a.k.a. civil privileges organization. It supports “Racial Justice” and “[Illegal] Immigrants` Rights,” i.e., it seeks to disenfranchise and dispossess America`s white majority.

The knowledge that the “Compton Cookout” was the work of a black comedian, whose stage name is Jigaboo Jones, and that the noose was probably hung by a “minority student,” had no effect on the black students, Chancellor Fox or, for that matter, the media.

But say that white students had indeed committed the acts in questionsave for the noose: They weren`t crimes anyway! Only the noose was illegal, due to an unconstitutional state law that blacks had demanded, and that the race hoax-mongering (here and here) NAACP had sponsored (PDF), following a wave of black noose hoaxesdo I detect a pattern here? And that was only a misdemeanor.

Conversely, virtually all of the black students` 32 demands were illegal. They entail giving unqualified black students and personnel huge sums of money, admissions, and jobs, based solely on the color of their skin, in violation of the California Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment; instituting segregation (a “safe space” for black students), in violation of historic Supreme Court precedents; and violating white students` First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Though the Black Student Union avoided directly antagonizing Asian students, its demands also violated most of the same rights regarding Asians.

The BSU depicted UCSDwhere white-on-black crime is virtually non-existentas a place where blacks are unsafe, and where vague “racial tension” rules, which the administration must somehow cause to disappear.

The UCSD Police Department, which has jurisdiction for all on-campus matters, is supposed to be a professional, independent police agency, but on March 11, I learned otherwise. When I asked to speak with a Department public information officer, I was transferred to Rex Graham, [Email him] at UCSD Communications and Public Affairs. The interview consisted of my asking one question after another, and Graham refusing to answer me.

Graham claimed that he couldn`t so much as tell me the race or ethnicity of the noose-hanger. But according to the booklet, Covering Campus Crime published by the Student Press Law Center (who can`t help their initials), that was untrue. No law prohibited him from giving me that information. More importantly, since the perp has now confessed to committing a crime, UCSD is legally obligated to release her name and other information about her.

If UCSD is hiding the name of a confessed criminaleven if the law in question is obscene and unconstitutional, and the crime only a misdemeanorUCSD is, at the very least, violating the federal Clery Act, and at worst, engaged in a felonious conspiracy to obstruct justice. Chancellor Marye Anne Fox [Email her] should at least be fired, and at worst be arrested and prosecuted.

When I asked Graham whether Chancellor Fox would be meeting with white student group leaders to parallel her announced regular meetings with the BSU, he did not even understand the question.

UCSD Chancellor Fox` talk of “horrific acts of hate” expresses both her pomposity and lack of any moral compass. Truly “horrific acts of hate” would entail carnage such as the crimes against academics that I linked to earlier, or the racially-motivated atrocities that blacks regularly commit against non-academic whites.

Nevertheless, the UCSD race hoaxes were so successful that on March 24 the UC Board of Regents “apologized” for the (non-existent) white hate crimes against black students, and proposed reintroducing affirmative action at UCSD (which it already did last year at UC Berkeley and UCLA), via the euphemism “holistic review” of applications. Someone will have to sue the Regents, in order to stop their illegal actions.

If Chancellor Fox is not stopped from acceding to the black students` illegal demands, she will turn UCSD into a diversitopia.

Footnote: UCSD`s handling of a May 10 incident dispelled any last doubt that Fox had any principles, as opposed to leftwing loyalties.

During the Q&A following a David Horowitz speech, an Arab Muslim coed named Jumanah Imad Albahri made the mistake of trying to intimidate him. He turned the tables on her, and in a Perry Mason moment, got her to admit, on camera, that she supports genocide against all Jews, worldwide.

UCSD`s response was underwhelming. Albahri lied, in insisting that her remark did not represent her true beliefs, and made a non-apology-apology condemning Horowitz. Even though the entire exchange had been captured on camera, the administration gave her a pass.

Radical Muslims are part of the multicultural alliance; thus the UCSD administration sees them as allies, whereas it sees white, heterosexual, Christian menunless they wage war on their ownas enemies.

The role of Jews on the multicultural campus is presently ambiguous.

Jews who embrace genocidal anti-Semitism (parallel to white gentiles like Jane Elliott and Tim Wise, who embrace genocidal anti-white racism) are assured of privilege. Other Jews who are not anti-Semitic, e.g., those at Berkeley, are demanding a seat at the multicultural cannibals` feast. Jews who do not fit into either of the aforementioned groups are in trouble.

Normally law enforcement authorities typically start with a crime, and then investigate said crime, in order to hopefully determine the identities of the perpetrators, and to arrest and prosecute the latter. But that isn`t the way things typically work when police say that they are “investigating a possible bias crime.” In such cases, either:

No crime was committed, but police are seeking to intimidate whites (but never blacks) out of exercising their legal rights;

No crime was committed, but the authorities seek to find, arrest, prosecute, and imprison a white, simply because he exercised his legal rights in a manner that they don`t like; or

As in the UCSD noose case, a statute (which may be unconstitutional) may have been violated, but the authorities will only arrest and railroad someone (e.g., a white, Christian, male heterosexual) not from an unconstitutionally “protected class.”

The modern academic race hoax movement began at Columbia University in March 1987. As I wrote in my January 2007 VDARE.com expos on the Duke Rape Hoax:

“In three separate attacks, a mob of seven young black menstudents and non-studentsbeat up a total of five white Columbia University men students.

“Following a by now dog-eared script, a group called Concerned Black Students at Columbia (CBSC), represented by “activist attorney” C. Vernon Mason, claimed that “a mob of white students had kicked and stomped a single black student and then went on a rampage shouting, `We`re going to kill you fg ns!`”

“Although 22 witnesses had already contradicted the black attackers` claims, the latter were never arrested, and indeed, demanded that their white victims be arrested.

“When CBSC held mini-riots, in which as many as 50 supporters, black and white alike, were arrested, protesting “against racial violence” and against the failure of the NYPD to follow their demand that police arrest the white victims, Columbia responded by promising more affirmative action in admissions and faculty hiring.

“The Columbia race hoax received months-long saturation coverage by the national media; once the hoax was exposed, the media went silent.

“Black students at six other East Coast university campuses, including Duke, were inspired to take over campus buildings. In each case, the black students decried “resurgent [white] racism” on campus and demanded and got concessions from the institution in question in the form of expanded affirmative action for black student applicants and professors.

“There was a campus racism problem, alright, but it was that of resurgent black racism.”

(Mason had just come off staging the Howard Beach Hoax with his accomplices Al Sharpton and Alton Maddox; later that year, the trio would promote the Tawana Brawley Hoax. Mason was later disbarred for misconduct and neglect regarding 20 different clients. Maddox was suspended indefinitely from practicing law for refusing to cooperate with an investigation into his conduct during the Brawley hoax.)

But institutional racism was now entrenched at Columbia:

In 1993, a black security guard managed to get three white man undergraduates who worked for the school escort service fired, based on a fake “racism” charge;

(An escort service for students means a guard service that walks them from place to place late at night, to keep them safe, not what it means for adults like, say Eliot Spitzer. Q: Why is this service necessary for Columbia University? A: because it`s located near Harlem.)

Around the same time, a black Columbia Law student claimed, without a shred of evidence, that a third-year, white man classmate, a devout Catholic, had made an obscene telephone call to her late at night. Columbia`s counsel turned the burden of proof upside down, making the impossible demand that the man prove that he was not guilty. Only when the white man`s lawyer threatened to sue Columbia did the school drop its persecution campaign. [Diversity at Columbia U.: When “Chocolate” and “Vanilla” are Fighting Words (PDF) by Jeffrey M. Duban, Heterodoxy, January 1995.].

Fast forward to October, 2007. When Madonna Constantine, a black affirmative action hire who was a tenured full professor (see here, here (PDF), and here) of multicultural counseling psychology at Columbia`s Teachers College, learned through her department sources that she was about to be fired for having engaged in serial plagiarism and other misconduct, a noose appeared on her office door.

Although the case reeked of a hoax from the get-go, it received credulous, nationwide, saturation publicity (even from “rightwing” Fox News), and of course, inspired campus protests against “racism.”

Though no one cited any laws that had been broken, the NYPD Hate Crimes Task Force and three different DOJ agencies investigated. The MSM promoted the myth that white racists had been planting nooses all over the country. The evildoer was never brought to justice.

When Columbia finally fired Constantine in August, 2008, she asserted that she was the victim of a racist conspiracy, “structural racism,” and an “academic lynching,” and sued Teacher`s College for $200 million. (The suit is pending.)

If anything, there was a conspiracy in support of Constantine.

Meanwhile, as always, black criminals habitually target white and Asian Columbia students and personnel with robberies and burglaries; assault and battery (including gang assaults); rape and attempted murder; and murder (also here).

And yet, none of these black attacks, as opposed to the black race hoaxes, has ever issued in rallies, “bias crime” charges, public denunciations by law enforcement or colleges, or saturation coverage by the MSM.

Fred Reed recently defined affirmative action as “the calculated recruitment of incompetence.” But since the myth of white discrimination against blacks is the entire rationale for Affirmative Action, multiculturalism requires constant race hoaxes in order to generate its talking points.

Affirmative Action has always been inseparable from the project of expanding racial power bases. Little work is expected of AA hires, leaving them ample leisure for making racist mischief. In addition to hiring racist black professors to fill departments of pseudo-scholarship, universities hire racist black counselors and officials to staff the bureaucratic underworld (e.g., “Student Life”, the office that “investigated” white UCSD fraternity members). FIRE`s founders, historian Alan Charles Kors and lawyer Harvey J. Silverglate, dubbed this “the Shadow University” in their eponymous, landmark book. Over the past 20 years or more, administrations have ruthlessly reduced their proportions of full-time faculty, while massively expanding their hiring of the highly-paid, full-time “Shadow University” personnel, who promote racial intimidation (e.g., “sensitivity training”). This group benefits directly from Hoax Crimes

One of the central experiences of higher education is coming into contact with ideas one disagrees with. White students know this experience in spades. Conversely, however, black and Hispanic students are simply provided with an echo chamber for their own prejudices. And now, though they break no laws, whites who criticize or mock those prejudices face arrest.

For all of the talk of its enriching qualities, college “diversity” almost always means the admission of black and Hispanic students and staff who are cognitively and morally unfit for college life.

The demand by UCSD`s black students, like black students elsewhere, that all campus whites be forced to submit to their will, was the expression of their moral unfitness to function in a university setting. They insist that the university be transformed into the antiversity: Jim Snow U.

That they are not expelled and arrested for their crimes, is evidence that the white bureaucrats running schools like UCSD and Columbia are likewise morally unfit for college life

Do we surrender to this savage new realityor, in Jon Voight`s words, “Save America as we knew it”?

Nicholas Stix [email him] lives in New York City, which he views from the perspective of its public transport system, experienced in his career as an educator. His weekly column appears at

Men`s News Daily and many other Web sites. He has also written for Middle American News, the New York

Daily News, New York Post, Newsday, Chronicles, Ideas on Liberty and the Weekly Standard. He maintains two blogs: A Different Drummerand Nicholas Stix, Uncensored.

Originally posted here:

2011 Campus Hate Crime Hoax Season About To Begin …

Fair Usage Law

November 24, 2016   Posted in: Hate Crime Hoax  Comments Closed

Hate Crime Hoax Witness intimidation and threat of …

Subscribe and Thank you for watching !!! ——–LIKE——-SHARE——-

Colin Flaherty is an award winning reporter and author of the #1 best selling book Dont Make the Black Kids Angry: The hoax of black victimization and those who enable it.

From Colonel Allen West: Read Colin Flahertys book, Dont Make the Black Kids Angry. And be certain to share it.

TownHall: Heroic.

FrontPageMag: A national treasure.

Steve Malzberg, NewMaxTV: Amazing.

Bill Cunningham: Amazing.

Anthony Cumia: Amazing.

His work has appeared in more than 1000 news sites around the world, including the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Time Magazine. His story about how a black man was unjustly convicted of trying to kill his white girlfriend resulted in his release from state prison and was featured on Court TV, NPR, The Los Angeles Times and San Diego Union-Tribune.

He is also the author of White Girl Bleed a Lot: The Return of Racial Violence to America and How the Media Ignore it.

Both books are about black mob violence, black on white crime and the Knockout Game and how public officials, reporters and activists deny, excuse, condone and encourage them.

Thomas Sowell: Reading Colin Flahertys book made painfully clear to me that the magnitude of this problem is greater than I had discovered from my own research. He documents both the race riots and the media and political evasions in dozens of cities. National Review.

Sean Hannity: White Girl Bleed a Lot has gone viral.

Allen West: At least author Colin Flaherty is tackling this issue (of racial violence and black on white crime) in his new book, White Girl Bleed a Lot: The Return of Racial Violence to America and How the Media Ignore it.

Los Angeles Times: a favorite of conservative voices.x

Daily Caller: As the brutal knockout game sweeps across the U.S., one author isnt surprised by the attacks or the media reaction. Colin Flaherty, author of the book White Girl Bleed A Lot: The Return of Racial Violence to America and How The Media Ignore It, began chronicling the new wave of violence nearly a year ago revealing disturbing racial motivations behind the attacks and a pattern of media denial.

Alex Jones: Brilliant. Could not put it down.

Neal Boortz: Colin Flaherty has become Public Enemy No.1 to the leftist media because of his research on black culture of violence.

From the Bill Cunningham show. It is official: Colin Flaherty is a great American.A wonderful book.

Breitbart.com: Prescient. Ahead of the News. Garnering attention and sparking important discussions.

David Horowitz: A determined reporter, Colin Flaherty, broke ranks to document these rampages in a book titled, White Girl Bleed A Lot

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

Order Dont Make the Black Kids Angry here: https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Make-Blac… Order White Girl Bleed a Lot from Amazon here. https://www.amazon.com/White-Girl-Ble… Order Knockout Game a Lie? here: https://www.amazon.com/Knockout-Game-…

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

Subscribe to the White Girl Bleed a Lot podcast. https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/w… Find him on Facebook at : https://www.facebook.com/WGBleedAlot/ ========================= For a FREE preview copy of his next book, Knockout Game a Lie? go to

http://whitegirlbleedalot.com/knockou… And you do not want to miss that video, either! —————————– http://whitegirlbleedalot.com/books-c…

—————————————————————————— channel has been agreed by Colin Flaherty

Continue reading here:

Hate Crime Hoax Witness intimidation and threat of …

Fair Usage Law

October 17, 2016   Posted in: Hate Crime Hoax  Comments Closed

Hate Crime Hoaxes – Conservative Headlines

15 Jun

Will Dolezal get a free pass for staging fake hate crimes?

Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, NAACP, on Jun 15, 2015

12 Jun

White woman, pretending to be black, suspected of staging fake hate crime against herself

Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, NAACP, on Jun 12, 2015

10 May

Media lied. White on black hate crime was actually a murderous black on white hate crime

Posted in Anti-White, Hate Crime Hoaxes, Hate Crime Murder, on May 10, 2015

22 Mar

Swastikas on Jewish fraternity also a hoax

Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, on Mar 22, 2015

21 Feb

NAACP boss desperately tries to keep bomb hoax alive

Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, NAACP, on Feb 21, 2015

28 Jan

NYT writer lied about sons racist persecution by Yale campus police

Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, on Jan 28, 2015

24 Jan

Germany media falsely blames PEGIDA for murder, then drops story when African is arrested

Posted in Germany, Hate Crime Hoaxes, on Jan 24, 2015

14 Jan

Colorado Springs Gazette desperately tries to hold NAACP bombing claim together

Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, on Jan 14, 2015

13 Jan

The bomb damage does not exist

Posted in Anti-White, Hate Crime Hoaxes, Racial Issues, on Jan 13, 2015

11 Jan

Join us in demanding retractions for fake NAACP Bombing stories

Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, NAACP, on Jan 11, 2015

11 Jan

Scorch marks on NAACP building pre-existed the bombing

Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, NAACP, on Jan 11, 2015

15 Sep

Django Unchained was detained for having sex in public, not because she is black

Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, on Sep 15, 2014

09 Apr

Police say victim initiated fight in Livonia, MI

Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, on Apr 09, 2014

22 Jul

Buffalo station treats obvious blatant hoax like a serious hate crime.

Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, on Jul 22, 2013

02 Jun

Claim by the British media that there is an explosion of anti-Muslim attacks is a complete hoax

Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, on Jun 02, 2013

20 May

Do any of these incidents ever turn out to be non-hoaxes? A Los Angeles area school had multiple incidents ofgraffiticontaining []

Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, Media, on May 20, 2013

09 Apr

Do these ever turn out to be non-hoaxes? From CBS DC A minister at a Virginia church faces charges of []

Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, on Apr 09, 2013

20 Mar

Do any of these ever turn out to be a non-hoax? 20-year-old Sharmeka Moffitt set herself on fire and claimed []

Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, Racial Issues, on Mar 20, 2013

05 Mar

An entire college in Ohio cancelled classes because a student claimed he say a man in a KKK costume. The []

Posted in Anti-White, Hate Crime Hoaxes, Race Hustlers, on Mar 05, 2013

12 Nov

Remember when the media was celebrating an alleged hate crime murder of an Iraqi woman in California. The killer left []

Posted in Crime, Hate Crime Hoaxes, on Nov 12, 2012

23 Oct

This is another one of those stories that was an obvious hoax since the beginning. However, the media desperately wanted []

Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, on Oct 23, 2012

03 Jul

Has any of these campus hate crimes ever turned out to be a non-hoax? From UK Mail Online A lesbian []

Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, on Jul 03, 2012

06 Apr

An Iraqi woman was found dead in her house with a racist note. At least that was what relatives said. []

Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, Islam, Left Wing, on Apr 06, 2012

17 Jan

This story received major national news coverage even though it had all the hallmarks of a hoax. Now that it []

Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, on Jan 17, 2012

17 Nov

The Panama City, FL cross burning was a hoax. Not that that should surprise anyone. Do these stories ever turn []

Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, Racial Issues, on Nov 17, 2011

22 Jun

Do any of these stories ever turn out to be non-hoaxes? From New York Daily News Retired teacher Maureen Decker []

Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, on Jun 22, 2011

13 Jun

The media eagerly promoted the tale of an attractive Syrian lesbian supposedly martyred in Syria. Turns out the lesbian blogger []

Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, Left Wing, on Jun 13, 2011

01 Mar

Police arrest black suspect in vandalism hate crimes against two black churches in Louisiana. Another hate crime hoax. (do any []

Posted in Anti-White, Hate Crime Hoaxes, Media, on Mar 01, 2011

Read more:

Hate Crime Hoaxes – Conservative Headlines

Fair Usage Law

August 28, 2016   Posted in: Hate Crime Hoax  Comments Closed

103 Years Ago in Jewish History: The Leo Frank Murder Confession of Mary Phagan on August 18, 1913

Can you solve the April 26, 1913, Murder of Mary Phagan from the Leo Frank Trial Testimony?

      Something astounding happened during the 29-day Leo Frank trial held at the Fulton County Superior Court of Atlanta Georgia in the summer of 1913 from July 28th till almost the end of August. Some would postulate that Leo Frank inadvertently revealed the solution to the Mary Phagan “whodunit” “murder mystery”.

Which brings one forth to the single most important unanswered question over the last century by legal scholars, researchers, historians, academics and secondary sources concerning the Leo Frank trial:

After mounting the witness stand on the 18th day of August 1913, DID Leo Frank during a segment of his 3.5 hour trial testimony, divulge what amounted to an unmistakable virtual murder confession, as threaded by two prosecution team members in their closing arguments, and acknowledged as such, unanimously by the 13-man collective mind of the Judge and Jury (and 2 years of appellate court review which ruled Leo Frank had a fair trial) – when Leo Frank suggested he might have “unconsciously” been at the time and place — when and where — the prosecution’s theory suggested the murder of Mary Phagan occurred? (Namely the metalroom).

It’s time for independent and dispassionate observers to inquire into the Leo Frank case:

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 (Defendant’s Exhibit 61 and 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 “unconsciously” supposed himself where the murder might have occurred? (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 Leo Frank trial testimony, National Pencil Company floor diagrams, and an honest open mind, with out self-deception, answer the question definitively.

When Leo Frank mounted the witness stand it became one of the most defining climaxes in the annals of Southern legal history. Was 14 year old Monteen Stover or 27 year old Jim Conley the Star Witness at the Leo Frank Trial?

Let’s try this simple math equation called the trinity (no religious reference here): Monteen Stover + State Exhibit B + Leo Frank Trial Testimony = the solution to the Mary Phagan murder mystery.

After a century of uncertainty, we now know that Monteen Stover was the real Star Witness, not Jim Conley. That doesn’t mean Conley’s testimony wasn’t important, but it was not as significant as Monteen Stover’s testimony, because Leo Frank, by his statement to the Jury, acknowledged Monteen Stover’s testimony as the truth, whereas, Leo Frank denied the testimony of Jim Conley. Wow!

Leo Frank inadvertently put himself in the metal room bathroom sometime between 12:05pm and 12:10pm, with a supposed “unconscious” bathroom visit to the metal room, retorting to the testimony of Monteen Stover and in doing so, did Leo Frank solve the murder mystery?

Let’s Walk With Leo Frank from his Second Floor Business

Does Frank “unconsciously” put himself walking from his second floor, window front office at the front of the National Pencil company, down the hall to the back of the building and into metal room with his unconscious bathroom visit? (State Exhibit A, Defendant Exhibit 61, Brief of Evidence, 1913)

Based on the Factory Diagrams published in the Atlanta newspapers in August of 1913: One has to go through the metal room to get to the toilet on the second floor, which is down the hall from Leo Frank’s office.

The prosecution spent a month trying to convince the Jury where and when the murder of Mary Phagan occurred, building the case for the metal room, between 12:02pm and 12:19pm. They used the evidence of Mary Phagan’s mother who said their daughter ate her brunch at about 11:30 a.m. (Ms. Coleman testimony, Leo Frank trial, July 28, 1913). This timeline flagpost was important in determining the time of death, because one of the physicians who examined the contents of Mary Phagan’s stomach and noted little digestion, suggesting she died about half an hour to 45 minutes after eating her lunch.

Let us start with the primary source:  BOE.
Is Phagan’s mother, who testified under oath as the first witness at the Leo Frank trial, about when her daughter had her last meal “verifiable”?
SOURCE: 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 THE EVIDENCE
MRS. J. W. COLEMAN, sworn for the State.
I am Mary Phagan’s mother. I last saw her alive on the 26th day of
April, 1913, about a quarter to twelve, at home, at 146 Lindsey Street.
She was getting ready to go to the pencil factory to get her pay envelope.
About 11:30 [a.m.] she ate some cabbage and bread…..

Let us then examine three secondary sources that repeat this time and then look at how it is later contextualized:

1. The Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean, chapter ‘the Legacy’, page 17:
       “At 11:30 a.m. she ate some cabbage and bread for lunch.
2.  Popular Crime: Reflections on the Celebration of Violence By Bill James, 2012, page 112

      “Mary Phagan ate a lunch of cabbage and bread about 11:30…”

3.  A Little Girl is Dead, Harry Golden, 1965, page 364
      “The evidence uncontradicted discloses that Mary Phagan ate her dinner* at 11:30 o’clock”
*”dinner” used to mean a hot meal served at lunch time, 100 years ago.

Now that we established Mary Phagan ate her brunch or lunch at 11:30 am on the day she was murdered, lets look at how this was relevant to the autopsy conducted on her and the forensic evidence removed from her stomach. What did the contents removed from her stomach reveal?

We know that when a person dies their digestion ceases, so with this knowledge, physicians look at the contents of Phagan’s stomach to see how far along the digestion of bread and cabbage had progressed.

Leonard Dinnerstein, page 37, The Leo Frank Case, 2012
QUOTE” The prosecution began with a repetition of published information. The state sought to establish, through different witnesses, that blood spots on the floor and strands of Mary Phagan’S hair on a lathe nearby indicated that the murder had occurred in the second floor workroom, opposite Frank’s office, and that the superintendent, the last person known to have seen the girl alive, had the opportunity to kill her. Doctors testified that Mary Phagan’S death probably occurred between 12:00 and 12: 15 P.M. The state also introduced Monteen Stover, one of the factory employees, who had arrived to collect her pay on the day of the murder at 12:05 P.M., looked into Frank’s office, did not see him, waited five minutes, and then left the building. This employee’S testimony was especially damaging because at one of his first”….
38 and 39 provide diagrams outlining the testimony above and below, one for the prosecution, one for the defense, both use the similar timeline.
….interrogations, on April 18, Frank had told Chief Detective Lanford that Mary Phagan arrived between 11:05 and 11: 10 P.M., and that he had not left his office between 11: 00 and 11: 30 P.M.’l The state’s case appeared clear. The prosecution would try to prove that Leo Frank murdered Mary Phagan at the very time Monteen Stover had waited for her pay (The Leo Frank Case, 2012, Leonard Dinnerstein, Page 40).
Steve Oney, And the Dead Shall Rise, Chapter Skull Duggery, page 115
QUOTE: At its core, his presentation to the grand jury would revolve around time: the time Mary Phagan left home, the time she reached the factory and, most critical, the time of death. Though Dr. Harris had yet to complete his lab work and Dorsey would therefore be unable to advance an exact hour to the grand jury, the preliminary examination had suggested that little Mary had died around 12:15 [p.m.] -about the time Frank said she’d departed his office, about the time Monteen Stover said his office was empty.
p. 116, at the grand jury hearing, Steve Oney remarks how Dorsey, used one of the physicians who examined Phagan to establish the time of her death.
“Dorsey then called Dr. Hurt to establish the time of death.” (Oney, p116)
Not only do we have verifiable sources that Dorsey would establish the time of Phagan’s death during the grand jury, we logically know he would do the same at the trial.
page 233, discussing Dorsey Developing the evidence of the trial to pin point the time of Phagan’s Death: QUOTE
“Having thus secured support for his theory of where and how the murder had been committed, Dorsey directed Harris to the question of when. After obtaining the doctor’s acknowledgment that he had examined the dead girl’s stomach and removed 160 cubic centimeters of cabbage and biscuit, the solicitor asked how far the material had progressed toward digestion. “Very slightly,” replied Harris, reaching into his bag and extracting a vial that held several pieces of nearly intact cabbage floating in a preservative medium. “This,” he said, “is some of what I removed from the stomach.” As Harris displayed the vial to the jury, Dorsey asked how long the cabbage had been in Mary Phagan’s system before death. “I am confident,” answered the doctor, “that it could not have been there for more than half an hour.” While the weight of this assertion-which recalled both Mrs. Coleman’s testimony that her daughter had eaten just past ***II A.M.*** on April…..
See that Oney mistakenly put JUST PAST (meaning slightly after) 11AM, when it should have been closer to 11:30 am? Is this not an obvious mistake or attempt at obfuscation? Ill give him the benefit of the doubt and call it a typo.
page 234 of AND THE DEAD SHALL RISE
….. April 26 [1913] Monteen Stover’s claim that Frank was not in his office at 12:05- hung in the air”

Harry Golden, a little girl is dead, 1965, page 110, 325-6, also page 346 repeats the evidence that Phagan ate her lunch at 11:30:

page 110:
Dr. Harris was the prosecution’s medical expert. He outlined Mary Phagan’s injury, but speculated there was some violence done the vagina. His importance to the State’s case was his analysis of how long the cabbage had been in Mary Phagan’s stomach before she died.
page 110 and 111 … I feel confident she was either killed or received the blow on the back of the head within a half-hour
CHAPTER TWELVE, page 111
after she finished her meal….

I examined Mary Phagan’s stomach. It was normal in size, normal in position, and normal in every particular. I made a microscopic examination of the contents. It showed plainly that it had not begun to dissolve, or only to a very slight degree, and indicated that the process of digestion had not gone on to any extent at the time this girl was rendered unconscious.”

page 325 – A LITTLE GIRL IS DEAD
The State showed that Mary Phagan had eaten her dinner of bread and cabbage at 11:30 o’clock and had caught the car to go to the pencil factory which would enable her to arrive at the factory within the neighborhood of about thirty minutes. The element of exact time will be discussed later. Dr. Harris, the Secretary of the State Board of Health, and an expert in this line, examined the contents of Mary Phagan’s stomach ten days after her burial and found from the state of the digestion of the cabbage and bread, that she must have
page 326 – A LITTLE GIRL IS DEAD
been killed within about thirty minutes after she had eaten the meal.
Golden states on page 328: “The State introduced a witness, Monteen Stover, to prove that at the time when Mary Phagan and Frank were in the Metal Room, she was in Frank’s office and he was absent, although he had declared he had not left his office.”
* * *
When Did Mary Phagan Enter Leo Frank’s Office?
Leo Frank changed the time Mary Phagan came into his office 4 times, and that all 4 of these times fit inside the roughly noon to 12:15 pm range.
1. Leo Frank said on Sunday, April 27, 1913 that Mary Phagan had arrived into his office at about 12:03pm on the day of the murder
2. Leo Frank said on Monday, April 28, 1913 that Mary Phagan had arrived into his office between 12:05pm and 12:10pm, maybe 12:07pm? (State’s Exhibit B, and Atlanta Constitution, August 2nd, 1913) – Reference, Steve Oney, quote “At about 12:05pm the young girl appeared in Frank’s office and Frank handed her an envelope…” The lynching of Leo Frank, Esquire Magazine, Steve Oney, Page 93, 1985.
3. Leo Frank said on Monday May 5th, 1913, and Thursday, May 8th, 1913, that Mary Phagan had arrived in his office between 12:10 and 12:15pm
4. Leo Frank said on Monday, August 18, 1913, that Mary Phagan had arrived in his office at 12:12 to 12:17pm
Asking the most important rhetorical question:

The importance of asking if Leo M. Frank made an equivalent to a murder confession during open court while he was seated on the witness stand, is an honest and genuine one worth of consideration, it is a question that has been left inexplicably unanswered by contemporary and modern writers about the Frank case, and it is hoped that beyond 2013 and 2015, with the centennial of the Mary Phagan murder and Leo Frank’s hanging, respectively,  every 21st century writer after the above stated centenaries would broach the subject of Leo Frank’s trial admission about his unconscious visit to the men’s toilet and comment on it, especially after most students of the Frank-Phagan affair have been ignoring it for 100 years. The likelihood is slim to none that future authors of the case will start addressing it more deeply, because the super vast majority of people who write on the Leo Frank trial, are racist anti-Gentile bigots, Jewish Supremacists and Frankites.

So instead, we will address it here and NOW, in full view of the world and hope the word gets out:

Leo Frank made a unmistakable incriminating admission on August 18, 1913 that amounted to a confession that he murdered Mary Phagan in the metal room between 12:05pm and 12:10pm. It was his response to Monteen Stover’s testimony about his office being empty during this time and it was a question everyone in Georgia at the time wanted to know, because the Atlanta Constitution on May 10th 1913, caught the scoop and leaked the story of what she revealed. This is the importance of repeating the August 18, 1913 date, because the public had to wait on pins and needles for 3 months and one week to get the answer from Frank.

The Leo Frank Murder Confession  Question

A confession requires an open admission of guilt without evasion, something Leo Frank never did publicly. Thus the Leo Frank confession question, while rhetorical and metaphorical, is still one that has puzzled unbiased 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 Frankite activists, keep dodging and avoiding the subject.

Leo Frank’s testimony suggests incriminating statements that are ineluctable and instead of discussing the implications, Jews have unilaterally resorted to defaming the descendants of European-Americans with defamation, allegations, blood libel, and fighting words, which from a high-level vantage point, amounts to unsubstantiated anti-Gentile blood libels, false accusations and smears, which still continue unabated to this very day.

For more than 100 years, the Jewish community has been waging an unrelenting genetic and cultural race war against Gentiles, with accusation of collective guilt concerning Gentiles, to wit: that collectively European-American Anti-Semitic bigotry monolithically inspired the anti-Jewish railroading, framing, conviction and assassination of an innocent Jew and B’nai B’rith President, Leo Max Frank, in a 28 month conspiracy, ebbing and flowing through the years 1913 to 1915.

Jewish-Gentile Tensions Smoldering to a Final Global Conflict?

Even the average observer just learning about the Leo Frank Case, is wondering why these very hatefilled, century old, anti-Gentile smears against Southerners and European-Americans, are so vicious and coming primarily from the Jewish community and Frankites (Cult of Leo Frank followers).

The reason is clear, this Jewish Defamation War is part of a wider historical blame game by Jews against Gentiles. The Leo Frank case is another example of the unforgivable instigation of conflict by Jews against Gentiles, that remains mostly unchallenged by academics. In a millennial context the Leo Frank case is a  focal point in a global  tribal war between Jews and Gentiles that has been waging for centuries. From the Gentile perspective, Jews are fundamentally in a state of perpetual agitation as a minority parasite living within a majority Gentile host population. When Jews are allowed to live in Gentile societies they position themselves as civilization destroyers, whose subversion far outweighs their contributions.

Tribal conflicts seem to flare up from time to time between Jews and Gentiles over the centuries with increasing intensity in terms of how and when they crescendo, if the last century is any indication of the trend, steps should be taken now to avoid a final global conflict between Jews and Gentiles that will put to shame all the other past wars and skirmishes combined.

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 Rhetorical Question” in his biased but well written book, ‘And the Dead Shall Rise: The Murder of Mary Phagan and the Lynching of Leo Frank’ (Oney, 2003).

Observers are wondering why no contemporary or modern Frankite (Leo Frank partisan) writers have ever analyzed or offered their spin on this very reasonable question (with the exception of Mary Phagan-Kean).

Is it because it might be wasteful, for any contemporary or modern writer in the Frank partisan camp, to touch this subject, as it might wipe out a century long racist blame game by a large and vocal segment of the Jewish community  which have been perpetuating the Leo Frank 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 it’s end with the centennial of the strangulation of Mary Phagan and Leo Frank between 2013 to 2015 as the subject of Mary Phagan’s murder and Leo Frank’s extrajudicial hanging went viral and more people reviewed the primary source materials than ever before in history! It is hoped that the slanders directed at Hugh M. Dorsey, Southerners and European-Americans as a collective will eventually die off, or there is likely to be more social conflict between Jews and Gentiles.

The Last Man to Articulate the Leo Frank Murder Confession

The last man with enough Fiery Brass to address the Leo Frank confession question in a superb manner was the red headed genius Tom Watson in 1915, published through his Jeffersonian Publishing Company in Watson’s Magazine issues January, March, August, September and October and weekly Jeffersonian newspaper (1914 through 1917). Before Watson’s lucid articulation, Hugh Dorsey and Frank Arthur Hooper in late August 1913, both threaded and incorporated the Leo Frank murder confession as part of their closing arguments, but treated it more as a thread among many threads woven together to create a hangman’s noose.

The Best Articulation of the Leo Frank Murder Confession

Tom Watson does not get original credit for making this analysis about Leo Frank’s trial statement being essentially a situation where the Frank case is “open and shut”, but he does articulate it better, more colorfully than Mr. Hooper and Hugh M. Dorsey.

True or False?

Compare the three, read: Argument of Hugh M. Dorsey, followed by, The Argument of Mr. Frank Hooper where they both bring up this issue. Compare Hugh M. Dorsey’s and Mr. Hooper’s articulations of Leo Frank’s “unconscious” men’s toilet visit against Tom Watson’s version, published specifically in August and Sept 1915 of Watson’s Magazine.

Which One is More Convincing Neutral Observers?

A POWERFUL Historically Significant Curiosity Emerges

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 of a murder and Defendant being tried, made what amounts to a virtual confession at the apogee of his own capital murder trial?

That’s not a rhetorical question.

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

Independent Reader: Can You Solve the murder of Mary Phagan?

Let’s begin.

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. The more detailed version of this deposition can be found in the Atlanta Constitution, August 2nd, 1913.

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. Why did Frank place himself at the location the prosecution theorized Phagan was garotted?

Second

Then 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 wall clock in Leo Franks office, till she leaves at 12:10 pm; followed by the testimony of Leo Frank defense witness Detective Harry Scott, Superintendent of the Pinkerton Detective Agency, see: Leo Frank murder trial testimony for both statements (BOE, 1913). Harry Scott actually creates three dimensional motion from Leo Frank’s second floor office located at the front of the National Pencil Company, walking to the metal room located at the back of the second floor — with – get this — “I don’t know” suggesting “let’s find out”.

Third

Then next read the Leo M. Frank Murder Trial Testimony, where Leo Frank says two very intriguing things to counter the testimony of Monteen Stover, 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,

What About the 4 foot tall Safe on the floor?!?!

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 view in the inner office from the anteroom.

Both of these statements were newfangled revelations for the purpose of creating two doorways, permutations or possible alibis countering Monteen Stover’s testimony concerning Leo Frank’s whereabouts between precisely 12:05 pm and 12:10 pm – both of Leo Franks defenses, “the safe door” and the “unconsciously” going to the men’s toilet in the metal room were totally shocking revelations, because one put him at the scene of the crime and the other was total bullshit.

Monteen Stover was very motivated and wanted her “paycheck” and thus she checked both of Leo Frank’s vacant inner and outer offices, she saw the time on the clock. She 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 confession question, see what prosecution team members Hugh Dorsey and Frank Hooper have to say about Leo Frank’s “unconscious” bathroom admission. In other words, start by first seeing if you can connect the dots between these 3 people Harry Scott, Monteen Stover and Leo Max Frank, via their own trial testimony. If you want more definitive explanations of the confession question, add 2 more people, Hugh Dorsey and Frank Arthur Hooper, that is if you need 5 people to help you make a stronger connection than the 3 witnesses.

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.

Over 2 dozen impartial men, half of them Jurymen and the other half Judges, from 1913 to 1915, all affirmed the guilty verdict and they certainly didn’t miss Leo Frank’s “unconscious” potty break. Check out the March 9th 1914 Atlanta Constitution where Leo Frank re-affirms this “call of nature”.

Fifth

Tom Watson’s Articulation

If you want a better understanding and historical perspective of the Leo Frank Murder confession, you can also read Watson’s Magazine, Jan., March, August, September and October of 1915, it’s also covered in some of the issues of the Jeffersonian newspaper as well. The issues that cover the Leo Frank murder confession the best are the August and September issues of Watson’s Magazine – start there, before reading the January and March 1915 versions in Watson’s Magazine.

The Shocking Blunder

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

At the beginning of the third week of his trial, Leo Frank mounted the stand and while giving testimony to the Court and Jury, throughout his half-chronological, half-rambling, and mostly mind numbing and mind bending 3.5 hour speech, after putting the courtroom to sleep during his diatribe, like a foxman, he slipped in some very specific statements about his “unconscious” whereabouts in the nearly empty Pencil Factory during the specific time frame of the Mary Phagan murder, but he was careful not to be to tight and narrow, so he softened it by widening the time spectrum on it by not giving time specifics, until his jailhouse interview of March 9, 1914 published in the Atlanta Constitution. It was the first time in all of his numerous statements that he revealed his supposed whereabouts after noon. 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 state’s prosecution team members, who made a point to articulate it briefly in their closing arguments, one presented on a silver platter to the seasoned presiding judge and highly attentive jury.

High Society

The new revelation was not missed by the political elite, social and legal minds of Georgia who were incensed by the illegal shenanigans and black handed tactics of the criminals working for the Leo Frank defense team that unraveled from 1913 through 1915. The Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court files reveal some of the sumptuously dirty tricks Leo Frank and his defenders employed. The upper strata of Georgia would respond to Leo Frank defense team’s successful bribery efforts, extensive witness tampering, subornation of perjury and chicanery, by orchestrating the most nervy and ballsy prison break in U.S. history and thus de facto overturning the corrupt John M Slaton’s toady and cronyesque commutation for his lawfirm’s client Leo Frank. The result being the proper hanging justice for Leo Frank in favor of the jury which consciously chose the determination of his guilt without recommendation for mercy. The Jury collectively voted for a hanging. In the eyes of those believing in the prosecution side of the Leo Frank case, the jury was ultimately vindicated by the aristocratic minds of high society Marietta, Atlanta and regional Georgia who all played a role in executing the pedophile sex killer.

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

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 all 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 sources to fact check their veracity.

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, he also “disremembered”). 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’s Peroration, August 1913).

Frank Arthur Hooper was indeed correct, because Leo Frank told Harry Scott witnessed by police, he [Leo Frank] stated he 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 had not used the bathroom at all that day – it was unbelievable.

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 suggested Mary Phagan was first murdered before being moved to the basement.

Review the original references listed below and make your own conclusion about whether Leo Frank was guilty or not.

Analysis of Hooper

What was so shocking about Leo Frank’s retort is that he 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 weeks trying to prove was the REAL scene of the crime (not the basement where Mary had been dragged and dumped in an attempt to cover-up the crime’s origins and perpetrators).

Leo Frank’s trial statement left people who had hoped for a good fight scratching their heads and disappointed, wondering why he would “tip his hand” and drop a such a bombshell spoiler, by say something so irreversibly damaging at the trial. In some ways it was anti-climactic.

In truth 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, so the Frankites simply ignore, suppress, obfuscate, and befog it, knowing 99 times out of 100 the average person is never going to take the time to read and study the official legal records.

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).

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 took her last gasp of breath, because the words rung vividly indicating an engram of exultation of truth.

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

Though Leo Frank’s defenders censor this astounding incident as described above, 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 that theory is that there is little to no evidence to support it.

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, undercooked, hokey and desperate. True or False? What does the official record say concerning the “blame Jim Conley” attempts by the defense team (which were partly abandoned and changed throughout the trial, for different supposed versions, making them all seem phony and disingenuous)?

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. 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.

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.

2. Mary received 50 “paychecks” (pay envelopes) each weekend from Leo Frank for working 55 hour work weeks and punched the time clock inside Leo Frank’s office more than 500 times. Leo Frank was responsible for logging those payments and monitoring her punch card, how could he not know her name?!

3. Leo Frank had to walk by Mary Phagans work station each day for 1 year, to get to the metal room bathroom. Frank being an avid coffee drinker would have had to go to the bathroom at least once a day if not more during the 10 to 12 hour days. Ask anyone who binges and guzzles coffee how many times they go to the bathroom in a an eleven hour work day.

4. Other employees testified that Frank spoke to Mary on a first name basis and would often get a little bit too uncomfortably close at times with her.

5. So 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 told detective Harry Scott that his former employee Gantt was intimate with Mary Phagan, which means Leo Frank got caught in a lie, because it meant Leo Frank knew Mary to know that juicy tidbit.

7. Leo Frank recorded the payment in his accounting book which the police reviewed. Frank said Mary Phagan’s initials MP and her special 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 this, but 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? How any times did he log Mary Phagan, 186?

8: George Epps said Mary Phagan confided in him that Leo Frank was running up in front of her and blocking her on her way out, that Frank would wink at her, get a little bit too close at time, that Leo Frank was “after” 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). Be sure to also read, Jan 1915, March 1915, August 1915, and October 1915 issues of Watson’s Magazine.

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

Fair Usage Law

August 18, 2016   Posted in: Anti-Defamation League, Hate Crime Hoax, Leo Frank  Comments Closed

Another Hate Crime Hoax Collapses: Black Started the Fight …

Andrew Anglin Daily Stormer May 19, 2016

Whoops!

Another narrative collapse!

Its almost like the entire concept of White on Black hate crimes is in itself a hoax.

The laid back and trendy college town of Iowa City was plunged into turmoil a little over two weeks ago, after a black University of Iowa freshman claimed thatthree white men had viciously attacked him in the downtown and called him a racial slur. A media firestorm ensued, with the first report airing on a Chicago news station. Iowa City police quickly declared they were investigating a possible hate crime and even consulted with the FBI. City and university officials were on the defensive. Social justice warriors held protests.

The hate crime, however, turned out to be a hoax just as more than a few observers had suspected all along.

Marcus Owens, 19, nevertheless found willing ears from media outlets and among university officials when claiming that racist college-age white men had attacked him in the mostly white college town a city that social justice warriors have long claimed is pervaded with an undercurrent of racism, as reflected in all the microaggressions and standoffishness supposedly suffered by black newcomers.

Owens, a business major, adroitly courted the news media with his harrowing story, and so did his supportive and media-savvy family, who live in the affluent and mostly white Chicago suburb of Naperville. The hate crime story was picked up by outlets as far away as New York. Some published photos of Owenss bruised face and chipped front teeth photos provided by his family.

Owens and family members met with the University of Iowas president, J. Bruce Harreld, who together with city officials expressed concern that a racially motivated hate crime had occurred. Speaking at a news conference, a university spokesman stated that the university was ready to help Owens in whatever way it could.

Three headlines in the Press-Citizen reflected the media hoopla. Police investigate reported hate crime against UI student, announced a banner headline after the alleged attack on April 30. Another subsequently declared, Assaulted UI students family looking for justice. And as public outrage grew, a headline reported, Iowa students protest, rally and issue statements against hate crime.

The hate crime narrative unraveled on Monday night, when Owenss family issued an abject apology that admitted that Owens was telling tall tales. The dnouement occurred after Owens and his family were presented with surveillance video and witness accounts gathered during an exhaustive police investigation. In their statement, the family nevertheless stopped short of blaming Owns entirely for the attack, explaining: Upon learning more details of the case, and while racial slurs served to fuel the violence, Marcus now knows that his account of events was inconsistent with police findings, in part due to alcohol being involved, embarrassment at his behavior, as well as injuries he sustained.

Speaking during a Tuesday morning news conference, Iowa City Police captain Troy Kelsay said: Marcus was not the victim of an assault. Marcus was an active participant and even an instigator in three separate physical confrontations or assaults that occurred at bar close. During at least one of those, he suffered injuries. That is unfortunate, but when you go looking for multiple fights, that is going to happen. Police said the incident involved an ongoing disagreement.

So, he went out and aggressively initiated fights, got his ass kicked, then blamed White racists.

Was it after the fact that he decided to blame White racists?

Or did he go out looking to get his ass kicked by Whites so he could then claim to be a victim of White racism?

Probably the latter is most likely, but it hardly makes any difference.

But get this:

Incredibly, officials do not plan to charge Owens with filing a false police report or demand that he compensate the city for the drain his hate crime claim put on police and university resources, according to remarks made during Tuesdays news conference. If we were going to charge him, we could charge a variety of other people with disorderly conduct or different things, said Johnson County attorney Janet Lyness. And it seemed more important to the community to get the information out on what had happened.

She explained that it seemed much more important to be able to get the information out so that people arent afraid of being downtown or [afraid] that there were three white men who were going to attack people randomly because of racial things.

Because even though he faked the entire thing, he was still a victim.

Because hes Black. And Black people are always victims.

Original post:

Another Hate Crime Hoax Collapses: Black Started the Fight …

Fair Usage Law

July 18, 2016   Posted in: Hate Crime Hoax  Comments Closed

UAlbany Professor: Hate Crime Hoax … – The Mental Recession

How about we start the dialogue off with falsifying police reports is a crime dont do it.

A recent hate crime hoax involving three young black women claiming they wereassaulted by 10-20 white men on a CDTA bus while being barraged with racial slurs, quickly fell through when actual evidence became available.

Over a dozen cameras providing video evidence, a 911 call in which one of the alleged victims jokes about beating up a boy, and a case strong enough to lead an African-American DA to charge the women for fabricating a hate crime, derailed the story that was promoted by Black Lives Matter and the Democrat front runner for president.

A UAlbany professor says, no worries, as long as they started up a conversation on racism, making up a hate crime is all good.

Via the New York Times:

Sami Schalk, an assistant professor in the universitys English department, who has devoted class time since the bus episode to talking through the implications with her students, said she was concerned that the womens detractors had failed to consider the prejudice and racialized language the young women may have encountered on campus or before the bus ride that could have played a role in provoking the fight.

Whatever the outcome of the criminal cases, Professor Schalk said, the events had already served a useful purpose: making white students aware of the subtle slights that students of color regularly encounter.

My white students have said this has opened up conversations, she said. Things that are inadvertent, small, but that these white students have no experience with, not being a person of color on this campus.

Not only did she justify making up a hate crime for a perceived greater cause, she offered the three black women who assaulted multiple white victims a defense for their actions racialized language.

Chris White at Law Newz writes, The lesson here appears to be that its perfectly acceptable to accuse innocent people of committing a hate crime, so long as the goal is to start a larger dialogue about campus racism.

The law disagrees. The three women now face assault and falsifying a police report charges.

See more here:

UAlbany Professor: Hate Crime Hoax … – The Mental Recession

Fair Usage Law

July 12, 2016   Posted in: Hate Crime Hoax  Comments Closed

Hate Crime Hoax: Three Black University Of Albany Students …

Even worse: Video shows the three black students physically attacking a white woman and a man.

Via Times Union:

Three black University at Albany students were indicted for allegedly lying about an altercation on a CDTA bus in January that gained national attention and divided the school along racial lines.

A subsequent criminal investigation and footage from cameras on the bus that early morning in January dispelled those claims and appeared to show that the friends were the aggressors, according to Albany County District Attorney David Soares office.

Twenty-year-olds Ariel Agudio, Asha Burwell and Alexis Briggs will be arraigned Wednesday in County Court before Judge Stephen Herrick. They previously pleaded not guilty in March to similar charges in City Court. []

The indictment alleges that around 1 a.m. Jan. 30, while aboard a CTDA bus on the UAlbany campus, the women struck and injured a 19-year-old female passenger.

The indictment also alleges Agudio repeatedly struck and attempted to injure a 19-year-old male passenger and attempted to hurt two other female passengers, ages 18 and 20.

Burwell also is charged with allegedly having physical contact with a 19-year-old male passenger.

The three also falsely reported the incident to law enforcement, the indictment states, after they got off the bus. They repeated the allegations in days following the incident that cast the school into the national spotlight and prompted a rally where Burwell appeared with Briggs and Agudio and tearfully demanded justice.

Keep reading

I wonder if Hillary still feels the same way now that we know it was the black women who were the attackers?

More:

Hate Crime Hoax: Three Black University Of Albany Students …

Fair Usage Law

July 4, 2016   Posted in: Hate Crime Hoax  Comments Closed

Hell Storm Documentary Post Hitler Nazi Germany 1945 — Hiter Nazi Revisionism

SHUT IT DOWN, NOW!BIG VICTORY!! We got this video censored in 25% of the world’s countries by relentlessly pressuring YouTube and Governments around the world to Censor and suppress this video. 25% down, 75% to go, help us get this video deleted, blocked and banned everywhere in the world, we have had great success so […]

Fair Usage Law

February 4, 2017   Posted in: Abraham Foxman, AIPAC, Anti Racism, Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Jewish, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism Lobby, Anti-Semitism News, Ashkenazi, B'nai B'rith, Censorship, Discrimination News, Hate Crime Hoax, Hate Crimes, Hate Speech, Hitler, Holocaust, Holocaust Denial, Holocaust Remembrance Day, Holocaust Revisionism, Hush Crimes, Israel, Israeli Lobby, Jewish, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Extremism, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jewish Lobby, Jewish Racism, Jewish Supremacism, Jews, John de Nugent, Judaism, Misc, Multicultural News, Neo Nazi, Race Relations, Racism News, Racist News, Simon Wiesenthal, Southern Poverty Law Center, SPLC, White Nationalism, White Power, White Privilege, White Racism, White Supremacism, World War II, Zionism  Comments Closed

Sister of Muslim Woman in ‘Trump’ Hate Crime Hoax Blames …

Ark. Bill Seeks to Ban Purchase of Junk Food With Food Stamps ‘Christmas Magic’: Marine Dressed as Santa Surprises Son at School Woman to Adopt Dying Best Friend’s Children: ‘We Love Each Other & I Love the Kids’ The sister of a woman charged in New York City for filing a false police report about drunk men on a subway train yelling “Trump” and “terrorist” at her blames the NYPD for bringing the alleged lie to light. Sara Seweidsaid the police never should have investigated her sister’s claims because law enforcement’s “first instinct” is to doubt and then disprove accusations, the New York Post reported: “Things snowballed out of our control because of the media reporters made things so much worse for our family. I had more than one cop tell me that theyve looked through all our social media and it doesnt look good that weve been vocal about certain issues they perceive to be anti -trump, anti-white and even anti-men. Yasmin Seweid of New Hyde Park, N.Y. said that on December 1, a group of inebriated white men began yelling “Trump, Trump!”, “Go back to your country!” and “Terrorist!” at heron a late-night subway train. Further investigation brought authorities to the conclusion that YasminSeweidfabricated the encounter and they subsequently charged her with filing a false report and obstructing government administration. Yasmin Seweidadmitted she made up the story because she did not want to be in trouble with her family for staying out late, Abby Huntsman reported. Prior to her arrest, Seweid also allegedly ran away to her sister’s home in upstate Fishkill, sparking a manhunt, the Post reported. Maryland Teen Shoots Deer That Invaded His Family’s Living Room A Professor Says the Term ‘Holiday Party’ May Also Not Be PC Enough Texas Police Department Waives Tickets, Asks for Toy Donations Instead

Fair Usage Law

December 19, 2016   Posted in: Hate Crime Hoax  Comments Closed

2011 Campus Hate Crime Hoax Season About To Begin …

Students are heading back to college, but I don`t expect to see any new campus hate crime hoaxes until spring. The simple reason: spring is hoax season. Who wants to march and protest out in the cold? But last spring saw a bumper crop! And this year, there will no doubt be morebecause of the dynamics of diversity in Obama`s Brave New America. It`s important to remember that the Hate Crime hysteria has real (white) victims. My May 26 VDARE.COM story, Report from Occupied America: Free the Mizzou Two! , told the increasingly common tale of two young men at University of Missouri Columbia (“Mizzou”), arrested, indicted, and coerced into copping guilty pleas, who hadn`t committed any crimesbeyond being white, male, and heterosexual. The whole episode was Kafkaesque. Then again, life today for a normal, red-blooded, American college boy increasingly is Kafkaesque. Meanwhile, Mizzou does have a serious problemviolent black crimes against members of the university community on and near campus. But university chancellor Brady Deaton, who denounced the innocent Mizzou Two, is silent about that. Between late January and late March of this year, black students on seven different college campuses in Ohio, California, Missouri and Tennessee were the victims of “hate crimes”. Just kidding! Except that the people behind these “hate crimes”, all obvious hoaxes, aren`t laughing. They seek to intimidate, disenfranchise, and imprison people who have broken no laws, based solely on the color of the latter`s skinand at the same time extort huge sums of money and take over their respective campuses. The real campus racism story, the one the MainStream Media refuse to tell, is one of black racial animus. The past 23 years have seen one black race hoax after another, on and off campus. Though many of these “hate crimes” remain technically unsolved,” I don`t know of any claims by campus “blacks” (or their non-black leftist comrades) that weren`t hoaxes. Thus the rational response to each lurid new claim should be skepticismon a par with what we bring to the daily e-mails promising us millions of dollars. And yet each new claim is treated by college administrators, police, and the media, as if no black race hoaxes had ever been exposed. And even after they are exposed as hoaxes, black students and their white enablers act as though they had been real. Simultaneously, they variously ignore, cover up, and lie about, the constant violent, racially-motivated crimes being perpetrated by blacks against whites (and Asians) on and off campus, and vilifying and attempting to destroy those whites who complain. (See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.) Get out your scorecards. During the 2010 spring semester, these campus “hate crimes” were allegedly committed: “We will not tolerate disrespect, racism or bias on our campus. One of my top priorities as chancellor is to increase diversity on our campus, and one of the best ways to do that is to create and maintain a welcoming campus climate for all.” [UT reports detail bias incidents; chancellor calls for change by Chloe White Kennedy, Knoxville News Sentinel, March 26, 2010.] (“Hate crimes” that were almost certainly copycat hoaxes targeted Jews and homosexuals at UC Davis, gay activists at the University of Idaho College of Law, and Jews at UC Berkeley. Hoax envy runs rampant.) What makes for a successful race hoax? The Hocking College Hoax never caught fire. The MSM doesn`t much care about community colleges. The Johnson & Wales Hoax also failed to get a national stage. You never know which race fraud will attain media stardom. But UCSD can serve as a case study. In retrospect, the reasons for the great success of the UCSD hoaxers were: Friends in high places: Pres. Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have repeatedly reiterated their support for anti-white racism (see also here), and for black race hoaxes; Media support: The MSM opposed California`s 1996 anti-affirmative action Prop. 209 and have sought to destroy it ever since its enactment, and thus devoted credulous, saturation coverage to the UCSD hoaxes; Numbers: With over 28,000 studentsonly 26 percent of whom are whiteUCSD is a huge, high-profile campus; Historic significance: In spite of a limited amount of stealth affirmative action, UCSD had held the line on academic standards better than any other UC campus, as witnessed by blacks comprising only 1.6 percent of its student body. Success at UCSD could presage the end of any standards in the UC system and the de facto gutting of Prop. 209 The UCSD hoaxes and protests appear to have been coordinated with the long-planned, March 4 statewide black and Hispanic student and faculty protests demanding more illegal privilegesmore race and ethnicity-based money, admissions, jobs and programs. Tenacity: The UCSD hoaxers never quit, committing hoax after hoax, lying about each in turn, and various additional crimes (trespassing, vandalism); Help on the Ground I: The hoaxers were supported by the faculty and students of entire programs and departments of pseudo-scholarship that exist, in order to maintain race-focused job mills, and promote race consciousness and irredentism: Ethnic Studies, “Chicano/a and Latino/a Arts & Humanities,” and African-American Studies; Help on the Ground II: Student government President Utsav Gupta [Email him] exploited the situation by illegally shutting down all student media until the student government overrode him and by seeking to institute illegal rules which would have permanently silenced all student media that was not anti-Western, with himself the arbiter. If a report that “Gupta said he is working with UCSD legal counsel” is true, Gupta also feloniously conspired with the UCSD administration to violate white students` civil rights; Help on the Ground III: Chancellor Fox exploited the situation by illegally “investigating” perfectly lawful behavior by white students, and by entering into negotiations with, and signing an agreement with the BSU, that violated the California Constitution and white students` Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Her administration conspired to cover up the true nature of the incidents by manipulating the UCSD Police Department, and withholding information. Instead of investigating the BSU students for possible race hoaxes and conspiracy to commit extortion, and arresting them for trespassing and vandalism, Fox praised them. She seeks to impose a joint Fox-BSU dictatorship on the school; Help on the Ground IV: San Diego City Attorney Jan Goldsmith [Email him] refused to release the name, race, or ethnicity of the confessed noose-hanger. As a veteran Hate Crime watcher, this naturally aroused my suspicions. But on March 31, CA Goldsmith`s communications director, Gina Coburn, e-mailed me: “In regards to your inquiry on the recent incidents at the University of California San Diego, the case having to do with a noose found in the library remains open and is under active investigation. We cannot comment for that reason.” Coburn [Email her] repeated her claim, during an April 1 telephone conversation, that the case was still “under investigation,” adding, “we are in the process of reviewing the case.” When I interjected, “reviewing, but not investigating?” she switched to “it`s an investigation and a review of the case.” I pointed out to her that the UCSD PD had completed the investigation, and handed over its case file and evidence to the City Attorney`s office on March 2. Coburn acknowledged that, but stayed on message. I retorted, “I`ve never heard of a case where a white suspect was alleged to have committed a hate crime, in which his name was suppressed. Ever.” Apparently, City Attorney Goldsmith does not believe that the Hate Crime law applies to non-whites. His illegal suppression of the confessed noose-hanger`s name was, I believe, part of a strategy to “disappear” the crime. The legal term for that is “conspiracy to obstruct justice.” Another political prosecutor. What a surprise! In mid-February, Chancellor Fox announced that she was investigating, and looking to discipline white fraternity members who, she said, had advertised the “Compton Cookout.” But as the Foundation of Individual Rights in Education`s (FIRE) Director of Legal and Public Advocacy, Will Creeley, pointed out in a February 23 letter to Fox, for her even to “investigate,” much less discipline the fraternities, would violate their constitutional rights. In a February 22 letter to Gupta and Fox, Adam Kissel, the director of FIRE`s Individual Rights Defense Program, argued that Gupta`s actions in shutting down student media were “unconstitutional and morally questionable.” After FIRE`s Creeley and Kissel, and David Blair-Loy, the legal director of the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties, notified Chancellor Fox that she was violating the law, she ignored them (and UCSD spokesman Rex Graham declined to respond to them), but quietly removed her threats. However, whites on campus still do not know their rights. At this point, it will likely require the UCSD administration losing a multimillion-dollar lawsuit, to change how it does business. Thus far, no individual or group has announced plans to file such a suit, and Creeley told me that FIRE does not engage in litigation. On February 22, 23 (PDF), and 24 (PDF), the ACLU`s Blair-Loy wrote variously to Chancellor Fox and student government president Utsav Gupta, pointing out that they were violating students` First Amendment rights. But those letters were contradicted, and thus neutralized, by a February 25 letter from Andrea Guerrero, the policy & field director of the same ACLU branch, and a longtime, embittered foe of Prop. 209, heartily supporting Fox` illegal, racist, anti-civil liberties campaign, and offering the ACLU`s help, in implementing it! In March, despite leaving detailed voice and e-mail messages at the ACLU`s national media office in New York, and speaking with someone there named “Pam” about the UCSD and Mizzou cases, I never got a response. But that was not surprising. In February, I had asked “Pam” for a statement regarding the terrorist threats that had caused four hotels in a row to cancel their bookings for the American Renaissance conference. She never responded the either. Blair-Loy notwithstanding, the ACLU is not a civil liberties organization. In line with its founding by a Communist, it is a civil rights a.k.a. civil privileges organization. It supports “Racial Justice” and “[Illegal] Immigrants` Rights,” i.e., it seeks to disenfranchise and dispossess America`s white majority. The knowledge that the “Compton Cookout” was the work of a black comedian, whose stage name is Jigaboo Jones, and that the noose was probably hung by a “minority student,” had no effect on the black students, Chancellor Fox or, for that matter, the media. But say that white students had indeed committed the acts in questionsave for the noose: They weren`t crimes anyway! Only the noose was illegal, due to an unconstitutional state law that blacks had demanded, and that the race hoax-mongering (here and here) NAACP had sponsored (PDF), following a wave of black noose hoaxesdo I detect a pattern here? And that was only a misdemeanor. Conversely, virtually all of the black students` 32 demands were illegal. They entail giving unqualified black students and personnel huge sums of money, admissions, and jobs, based solely on the color of their skin, in violation of the California Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment; instituting segregation (a “safe space” for black students), in violation of historic Supreme Court precedents; and violating white students` First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Though the Black Student Union avoided directly antagonizing Asian students, its demands also violated most of the same rights regarding Asians. The BSU depicted UCSDwhere white-on-black crime is virtually non-existentas a place where blacks are unsafe, and where vague “racial tension” rules, which the administration must somehow cause to disappear. The UCSD Police Department, which has jurisdiction for all on-campus matters, is supposed to be a professional, independent police agency, but on March 11, I learned otherwise. When I asked to speak with a Department public information officer, I was transferred to Rex Graham, [Email him] at UCSD Communications and Public Affairs. The interview consisted of my asking one question after another, and Graham refusing to answer me. Graham claimed that he couldn`t so much as tell me the race or ethnicity of the noose-hanger. But according to the booklet, Covering Campus Crime published by the Student Press Law Center (who can`t help their initials), that was untrue. No law prohibited him from giving me that information. More importantly, since the perp has now confessed to committing a crime, UCSD is legally obligated to release her name and other information about her. If UCSD is hiding the name of a confessed criminaleven if the law in question is obscene and unconstitutional, and the crime only a misdemeanorUCSD is, at the very least, violating the federal Clery Act, and at worst, engaged in a felonious conspiracy to obstruct justice. Chancellor Marye Anne Fox [Email her] should at least be fired, and at worst be arrested and prosecuted. When I asked Graham whether Chancellor Fox would be meeting with white student group leaders to parallel her announced regular meetings with the BSU, he did not even understand the question. UCSD Chancellor Fox` talk of “horrific acts of hate” expresses both her pomposity and lack of any moral compass. Truly “horrific acts of hate” would entail carnage such as the crimes against academics that I linked to earlier, or the racially-motivated atrocities that blacks regularly commit against non-academic whites. Nevertheless, the UCSD race hoaxes were so successful that on March 24 the UC Board of Regents “apologized” for the (non-existent) white hate crimes against black students, and proposed reintroducing affirmative action at UCSD (which it already did last year at UC Berkeley and UCLA), via the euphemism “holistic review” of applications. Someone will have to sue the Regents, in order to stop their illegal actions. If Chancellor Fox is not stopped from acceding to the black students` illegal demands, she will turn UCSD into a diversitopia. Footnote: UCSD`s handling of a May 10 incident dispelled any last doubt that Fox had any principles, as opposed to leftwing loyalties. During the Q&A following a David Horowitz speech, an Arab Muslim coed named Jumanah Imad Albahri made the mistake of trying to intimidate him. He turned the tables on her, and in a Perry Mason moment, got her to admit, on camera, that she supports genocide against all Jews, worldwide. UCSD`s response was underwhelming. Albahri lied, in insisting that her remark did not represent her true beliefs, and made a non-apology-apology condemning Horowitz. Even though the entire exchange had been captured on camera, the administration gave her a pass. Radical Muslims are part of the multicultural alliance; thus the UCSD administration sees them as allies, whereas it sees white, heterosexual, Christian menunless they wage war on their ownas enemies. The role of Jews on the multicultural campus is presently ambiguous. Jews who embrace genocidal anti-Semitism (parallel to white gentiles like Jane Elliott and Tim Wise, who embrace genocidal anti-white racism) are assured of privilege. Other Jews who are not anti-Semitic, e.g., those at Berkeley, are demanding a seat at the multicultural cannibals` feast. Jews who do not fit into either of the aforementioned groups are in trouble. Normally law enforcement authorities typically start with a crime, and then investigate said crime, in order to hopefully determine the identities of the perpetrators, and to arrest and prosecute the latter. But that isn`t the way things typically work when police say that they are “investigating a possible bias crime.” In such cases, either: No crime was committed, but police are seeking to intimidate whites (but never blacks) out of exercising their legal rights; No crime was committed, but the authorities seek to find, arrest, prosecute, and imprison a white, simply because he exercised his legal rights in a manner that they don`t like; or As in the UCSD noose case, a statute (which may be unconstitutional) may have been violated, but the authorities will only arrest and railroad someone (e.g., a white, Christian, male heterosexual) not from an unconstitutionally “protected class.” The modern academic race hoax movement began at Columbia University in March 1987. As I wrote in my January 2007 VDARE.com expos on the Duke Rape Hoax: “In three separate attacks, a mob of seven young black menstudents and non-studentsbeat up a total of five white Columbia University men students. “Following a by now dog-eared script, a group called Concerned Black Students at Columbia (CBSC), represented by “activist attorney” C. Vernon Mason, claimed that “a mob of white students had kicked and stomped a single black student and then went on a rampage shouting, `We`re going to kill you fg ns!`” “Although 22 witnesses had already contradicted the black attackers` claims, the latter were never arrested, and indeed, demanded that their white victims be arrested. “When CBSC held mini-riots, in which as many as 50 supporters, black and white alike, were arrested, protesting “against racial violence” and against the failure of the NYPD to follow their demand that police arrest the white victims, Columbia responded by promising more affirmative action in admissions and faculty hiring. “The Columbia race hoax received months-long saturation coverage by the national media; once the hoax was exposed, the media went silent. “Black students at six other East Coast university campuses, including Duke, were inspired to take over campus buildings. In each case, the black students decried “resurgent [white] racism” on campus and demanded and got concessions from the institution in question in the form of expanded affirmative action for black student applicants and professors. “There was a campus racism problem, alright, but it was that of resurgent black racism.” (Mason had just come off staging the Howard Beach Hoax with his accomplices Al Sharpton and Alton Maddox; later that year, the trio would promote the Tawana Brawley Hoax. Mason was later disbarred for misconduct and neglect regarding 20 different clients. Maddox was suspended indefinitely from practicing law for refusing to cooperate with an investigation into his conduct during the Brawley hoax.) But institutional racism was now entrenched at Columbia: In 1993, a black security guard managed to get three white man undergraduates who worked for the school escort service fired, based on a fake “racism” charge; (An escort service for students means a guard service that walks them from place to place late at night, to keep them safe, not what it means for adults like, say Eliot Spitzer. Q: Why is this service necessary for Columbia University? A: because it`s located near Harlem.) Around the same time, a black Columbia Law student claimed, without a shred of evidence, that a third-year, white man classmate, a devout Catholic, had made an obscene telephone call to her late at night. Columbia`s counsel turned the burden of proof upside down, making the impossible demand that the man prove that he was not guilty. Only when the white man`s lawyer threatened to sue Columbia did the school drop its persecution campaign. [Diversity at Columbia U.: When “Chocolate” and “Vanilla” are Fighting Words (PDF) by Jeffrey M. Duban, Heterodoxy, January 1995.]. Fast forward to October, 2007. When Madonna Constantine, a black affirmative action hire who was a tenured full professor (see here, here (PDF), and here) of multicultural counseling psychology at Columbia`s Teachers College, learned through her department sources that she was about to be fired for having engaged in serial plagiarism and other misconduct, a noose appeared on her office door. Although the case reeked of a hoax from the get-go, it received credulous, nationwide, saturation publicity (even from “rightwing” Fox News), and of course, inspired campus protests against “racism.” Though no one cited any laws that had been broken, the NYPD Hate Crimes Task Force and three different DOJ agencies investigated. The MSM promoted the myth that white racists had been planting nooses all over the country. The evildoer was never brought to justice. When Columbia finally fired Constantine in August, 2008, she asserted that she was the victim of a racist conspiracy, “structural racism,” and an “academic lynching,” and sued Teacher`s College for $200 million. (The suit is pending.) If anything, there was a conspiracy in support of Constantine. Meanwhile, as always, black criminals habitually target white and Asian Columbia students and personnel with robberies and burglaries; assault and battery (including gang assaults); rape and attempted murder; and murder (also here). And yet, none of these black attacks, as opposed to the black race hoaxes, has ever issued in rallies, “bias crime” charges, public denunciations by law enforcement or colleges, or saturation coverage by the MSM. Fred Reed recently defined affirmative action as “the calculated recruitment of incompetence.” But since the myth of white discrimination against blacks is the entire rationale for Affirmative Action, multiculturalism requires constant race hoaxes in order to generate its talking points. Affirmative Action has always been inseparable from the project of expanding racial power bases. Little work is expected of AA hires, leaving them ample leisure for making racist mischief. In addition to hiring racist black professors to fill departments of pseudo-scholarship, universities hire racist black counselors and officials to staff the bureaucratic underworld (e.g., “Student Life”, the office that “investigated” white UCSD fraternity members). FIRE`s founders, historian Alan Charles Kors and lawyer Harvey J. Silverglate, dubbed this “the Shadow University” in their eponymous, landmark book. Over the past 20 years or more, administrations have ruthlessly reduced their proportions of full-time faculty, while massively expanding their hiring of the highly-paid, full-time “Shadow University” personnel, who promote racial intimidation (e.g., “sensitivity training”). This group benefits directly from Hoax Crimes One of the central experiences of higher education is coming into contact with ideas one disagrees with. White students know this experience in spades. Conversely, however, black and Hispanic students are simply provided with an echo chamber for their own prejudices. And now, though they break no laws, whites who criticize or mock those prejudices face arrest. For all of the talk of its enriching qualities, college “diversity” almost always means the admission of black and Hispanic students and staff who are cognitively and morally unfit for college life. The demand by UCSD`s black students, like black students elsewhere, that all campus whites be forced to submit to their will, was the expression of their moral unfitness to function in a university setting. They insist that the university be transformed into the antiversity: Jim Snow U. That they are not expelled and arrested for their crimes, is evidence that the white bureaucrats running schools like UCSD and Columbia are likewise morally unfit for college life Do we surrender to this savage new realityor, in Jon Voight`s words, “Save America as we knew it”? Nicholas Stix [email him] lives in New York City, which he views from the perspective of its public transport system, experienced in his career as an educator. His weekly column appears at Men`s News Daily and many other Web sites. He has also written for Middle American News, the New York Daily News, New York Post, Newsday, Chronicles, Ideas on Liberty and the Weekly Standard. He maintains two blogs: A Different Drummerand Nicholas Stix, Uncensored.

Fair Usage Law

November 24, 2016   Posted in: Hate Crime Hoax  Comments Closed

Hate Crime Hoax Witness intimidation and threat of …

Subscribe and Thank you for watching !!! ——–LIKE——-SHARE——- Colin Flaherty is an award winning reporter and author of the #1 best selling book Dont Make the Black Kids Angry: The hoax of black victimization and those who enable it. From Colonel Allen West: Read Colin Flahertys book, Dont Make the Black Kids Angry. And be certain to share it. TownHall: Heroic. FrontPageMag: A national treasure. Steve Malzberg, NewMaxTV: Amazing. Bill Cunningham: Amazing. Anthony Cumia: Amazing. His work has appeared in more than 1000 news sites around the world, including the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Time Magazine. His story about how a black man was unjustly convicted of trying to kill his white girlfriend resulted in his release from state prison and was featured on Court TV, NPR, The Los Angeles Times and San Diego Union-Tribune. He is also the author of White Girl Bleed a Lot: The Return of Racial Violence to America and How the Media Ignore it. Both books are about black mob violence, black on white crime and the Knockout Game and how public officials, reporters and activists deny, excuse, condone and encourage them. Thomas Sowell: Reading Colin Flahertys book made painfully clear to me that the magnitude of this problem is greater than I had discovered from my own research. He documents both the race riots and the media and political evasions in dozens of cities. National Review. Sean Hannity: White Girl Bleed a Lot has gone viral. Allen West: At least author Colin Flaherty is tackling this issue (of racial violence and black on white crime) in his new book, White Girl Bleed a Lot: The Return of Racial Violence to America and How the Media Ignore it. Los Angeles Times: a favorite of conservative voices.x Daily Caller: As the brutal knockout game sweeps across the U.S., one author isnt surprised by the attacks or the media reaction. Colin Flaherty, author of the book White Girl Bleed A Lot: The Return of Racial Violence to America and How The Media Ignore It, began chronicling the new wave of violence nearly a year ago revealing disturbing racial motivations behind the attacks and a pattern of media denial. Alex Jones: Brilliant. Could not put it down. Neal Boortz: Colin Flaherty has become Public Enemy No.1 to the leftist media because of his research on black culture of violence. From the Bill Cunningham show. It is official: Colin Flaherty is a great American.A wonderful book. Breitbart.com: Prescient. Ahead of the News. Garnering attention and sparking important discussions. David Horowitz: A determined reporter, Colin Flaherty, broke ranks to document these rampages in a book titled, White Girl Bleed A Lot ======================== Order Dont Make the Black Kids Angry here: https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Make-Blac… Order White Girl Bleed a Lot from Amazon here. https://www.amazon.com/White-Girl-Ble… Order Knockout Game a Lie? here: https://www.amazon.com/Knockout-Game-… ======================== Subscribe to the White Girl Bleed a Lot podcast. https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/w… Find him on Facebook at : https://www.facebook.com/WGBleedAlot/ ========================= For a FREE preview copy of his next book, Knockout Game a Lie? go to http://whitegirlbleedalot.com/knockou… And you do not want to miss that video, either! —————————– http://whitegirlbleedalot.com/books-c… —————————————————————————— channel has been agreed by Colin Flaherty

Fair Usage Law

October 17, 2016   Posted in: Hate Crime Hoax  Comments Closed

Hate Crime Hoaxes – Conservative Headlines

15 Jun Will Dolezal get a free pass for staging fake hate crimes? Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, NAACP, on Jun 15, 2015 12 Jun White woman, pretending to be black, suspected of staging fake hate crime against herself Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, NAACP, on Jun 12, 2015 10 May Media lied. White on black hate crime was actually a murderous black on white hate crime Posted in Anti-White, Hate Crime Hoaxes, Hate Crime Murder, on May 10, 2015 22 Mar Swastikas on Jewish fraternity also a hoax Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, on Mar 22, 2015 21 Feb NAACP boss desperately tries to keep bomb hoax alive Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, NAACP, on Feb 21, 2015 28 Jan NYT writer lied about sons racist persecution by Yale campus police Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, on Jan 28, 2015 24 Jan Germany media falsely blames PEGIDA for murder, then drops story when African is arrested Posted in Germany, Hate Crime Hoaxes, on Jan 24, 2015 14 Jan Colorado Springs Gazette desperately tries to hold NAACP bombing claim together Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, on Jan 14, 2015 13 Jan The bomb damage does not exist Posted in Anti-White, Hate Crime Hoaxes, Racial Issues, on Jan 13, 2015 11 Jan Join us in demanding retractions for fake NAACP Bombing stories Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, NAACP, on Jan 11, 2015 11 Jan Scorch marks on NAACP building pre-existed the bombing Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, NAACP, on Jan 11, 2015 15 Sep Django Unchained was detained for having sex in public, not because she is black Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, on Sep 15, 2014 09 Apr Police say victim initiated fight in Livonia, MI Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, on Apr 09, 2014 22 Jul Buffalo station treats obvious blatant hoax like a serious hate crime. Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, on Jul 22, 2013 02 Jun Claim by the British media that there is an explosion of anti-Muslim attacks is a complete hoax Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, on Jun 02, 2013 20 May Do any of these incidents ever turn out to be non-hoaxes? A Los Angeles area school had multiple incidents ofgraffiticontaining [] Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, Media, on May 20, 2013 09 Apr Do these ever turn out to be non-hoaxes? From CBS DC A minister at a Virginia church faces charges of [] Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, on Apr 09, 2013 20 Mar Do any of these ever turn out to be a non-hoax? 20-year-old Sharmeka Moffitt set herself on fire and claimed [] Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, Racial Issues, on Mar 20, 2013 05 Mar An entire college in Ohio cancelled classes because a student claimed he say a man in a KKK costume. The [] Posted in Anti-White, Hate Crime Hoaxes, Race Hustlers, on Mar 05, 2013 12 Nov Remember when the media was celebrating an alleged hate crime murder of an Iraqi woman in California. The killer left [] Posted in Crime, Hate Crime Hoaxes, on Nov 12, 2012 23 Oct This is another one of those stories that was an obvious hoax since the beginning. However, the media desperately wanted [] Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, on Oct 23, 2012 03 Jul Has any of these campus hate crimes ever turned out to be a non-hoax? From UK Mail Online A lesbian [] Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, on Jul 03, 2012 06 Apr An Iraqi woman was found dead in her house with a racist note. At least that was what relatives said. [] Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, Islam, Left Wing, on Apr 06, 2012 17 Jan This story received major national news coverage even though it had all the hallmarks of a hoax. Now that it [] Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, on Jan 17, 2012 17 Nov The Panama City, FL cross burning was a hoax. Not that that should surprise anyone. Do these stories ever turn [] Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, Racial Issues, on Nov 17, 2011 22 Jun Do any of these stories ever turn out to be non-hoaxes? From New York Daily News Retired teacher Maureen Decker [] Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, on Jun 22, 2011 13 Jun The media eagerly promoted the tale of an attractive Syrian lesbian supposedly martyred in Syria. Turns out the lesbian blogger [] Posted in Hate Crime Hoaxes, Left Wing, on Jun 13, 2011 01 Mar Police arrest black suspect in vandalism hate crimes against two black churches in Louisiana. Another hate crime hoax. (do any [] Posted in Anti-White, Hate Crime Hoaxes, Media, on Mar 01, 2011

Fair Usage Law

August 28, 2016   Posted in: Hate Crime Hoax  Comments Closed

103 Years Ago in Jewish History: The Leo Frank Murder Confession of Mary Phagan on August 18, 1913

Can you solve the April 26, 1913, Murder of Mary Phagan from the Leo Frank Trial Testimony?      Something astounding happened during the 29-day Leo Frank trial held at the Fulton County Superior Court of Atlanta Georgia in the summer of 1913 from July 28th till almost the end of August. Some would postulate that Leo […]

Fair Usage Law

August 18, 2016   Posted in: Anti-Defamation League, Hate Crime Hoax, Leo Frank  Comments Closed

Another Hate Crime Hoax Collapses: Black Started the Fight …

Andrew Anglin Daily Stormer May 19, 2016 Whoops! Another narrative collapse! Its almost like the entire concept of White on Black hate crimes is in itself a hoax. The laid back and trendy college town of Iowa City was plunged into turmoil a little over two weeks ago, after a black University of Iowa freshman claimed thatthree white men had viciously attacked him in the downtown and called him a racial slur. A media firestorm ensued, with the first report airing on a Chicago news station. Iowa City police quickly declared they were investigating a possible hate crime and even consulted with the FBI. City and university officials were on the defensive. Social justice warriors held protests. The hate crime, however, turned out to be a hoax just as more than a few observers had suspected all along. Marcus Owens, 19, nevertheless found willing ears from media outlets and among university officials when claiming that racist college-age white men had attacked him in the mostly white college town a city that social justice warriors have long claimed is pervaded with an undercurrent of racism, as reflected in all the microaggressions and standoffishness supposedly suffered by black newcomers. Owens, a business major, adroitly courted the news media with his harrowing story, and so did his supportive and media-savvy family, who live in the affluent and mostly white Chicago suburb of Naperville. The hate crime story was picked up by outlets as far away as New York. Some published photos of Owenss bruised face and chipped front teeth photos provided by his family. Owens and family members met with the University of Iowas president, J. Bruce Harreld, who together with city officials expressed concern that a racially motivated hate crime had occurred. Speaking at a news conference, a university spokesman stated that the university was ready to help Owens in whatever way it could. Three headlines in the Press-Citizen reflected the media hoopla. Police investigate reported hate crime against UI student, announced a banner headline after the alleged attack on April 30. Another subsequently declared, Assaulted UI students family looking for justice. And as public outrage grew, a headline reported, Iowa students protest, rally and issue statements against hate crime. The hate crime narrative unraveled on Monday night, when Owenss family issued an abject apology that admitted that Owens was telling tall tales. The dnouement occurred after Owens and his family were presented with surveillance video and witness accounts gathered during an exhaustive police investigation. In their statement, the family nevertheless stopped short of blaming Owns entirely for the attack, explaining: Upon learning more details of the case, and while racial slurs served to fuel the violence, Marcus now knows that his account of events was inconsistent with police findings, in part due to alcohol being involved, embarrassment at his behavior, as well as injuries he sustained. Speaking during a Tuesday morning news conference, Iowa City Police captain Troy Kelsay said: Marcus was not the victim of an assault. Marcus was an active participant and even an instigator in three separate physical confrontations or assaults that occurred at bar close. During at least one of those, he suffered injuries. That is unfortunate, but when you go looking for multiple fights, that is going to happen. Police said the incident involved an ongoing disagreement. So, he went out and aggressively initiated fights, got his ass kicked, then blamed White racists. Was it after the fact that he decided to blame White racists? Or did he go out looking to get his ass kicked by Whites so he could then claim to be a victim of White racism? Probably the latter is most likely, but it hardly makes any difference. But get this: Incredibly, officials do not plan to charge Owens with filing a false police report or demand that he compensate the city for the drain his hate crime claim put on police and university resources, according to remarks made during Tuesdays news conference. If we were going to charge him, we could charge a variety of other people with disorderly conduct or different things, said Johnson County attorney Janet Lyness. And it seemed more important to the community to get the information out on what had happened. She explained that it seemed much more important to be able to get the information out so that people arent afraid of being downtown or [afraid] that there were three white men who were going to attack people randomly because of racial things. Because even though he faked the entire thing, he was still a victim. Because hes Black. And Black people are always victims.

Fair Usage Law

July 18, 2016   Posted in: Hate Crime Hoax  Comments Closed

UAlbany Professor: Hate Crime Hoax … – The Mental Recession

How about we start the dialogue off with falsifying police reports is a crime dont do it. A recent hate crime hoax involving three young black women claiming they wereassaulted by 10-20 white men on a CDTA bus while being barraged with racial slurs, quickly fell through when actual evidence became available. Over a dozen cameras providing video evidence, a 911 call in which one of the alleged victims jokes about beating up a boy, and a case strong enough to lead an African-American DA to charge the women for fabricating a hate crime, derailed the story that was promoted by Black Lives Matter and the Democrat front runner for president. A UAlbany professor says, no worries, as long as they started up a conversation on racism, making up a hate crime is all good. Via the New York Times: Sami Schalk, an assistant professor in the universitys English department, who has devoted class time since the bus episode to talking through the implications with her students, said she was concerned that the womens detractors had failed to consider the prejudice and racialized language the young women may have encountered on campus or before the bus ride that could have played a role in provoking the fight. Whatever the outcome of the criminal cases, Professor Schalk said, the events had already served a useful purpose: making white students aware of the subtle slights that students of color regularly encounter. My white students have said this has opened up conversations, she said. Things that are inadvertent, small, but that these white students have no experience with, not being a person of color on this campus. Not only did she justify making up a hate crime for a perceived greater cause, she offered the three black women who assaulted multiple white victims a defense for their actions racialized language. Chris White at Law Newz writes, The lesson here appears to be that its perfectly acceptable to accuse innocent people of committing a hate crime, so long as the goal is to start a larger dialogue about campus racism. The law disagrees. The three women now face assault and falsifying a police report charges.

Fair Usage Law

July 12, 2016   Posted in: Hate Crime Hoax  Comments Closed

Hate Crime Hoax: Three Black University Of Albany Students …

Even worse: Video shows the three black students physically attacking a white woman and a man. Via Times Union: Three black University at Albany students were indicted for allegedly lying about an altercation on a CDTA bus in January that gained national attention and divided the school along racial lines. A subsequent criminal investigation and footage from cameras on the bus that early morning in January dispelled those claims and appeared to show that the friends were the aggressors, according to Albany County District Attorney David Soares office. Twenty-year-olds Ariel Agudio, Asha Burwell and Alexis Briggs will be arraigned Wednesday in County Court before Judge Stephen Herrick. They previously pleaded not guilty in March to similar charges in City Court. [] The indictment alleges that around 1 a.m. Jan. 30, while aboard a CTDA bus on the UAlbany campus, the women struck and injured a 19-year-old female passenger. The indictment also alleges Agudio repeatedly struck and attempted to injure a 19-year-old male passenger and attempted to hurt two other female passengers, ages 18 and 20. Burwell also is charged with allegedly having physical contact with a 19-year-old male passenger. The three also falsely reported the incident to law enforcement, the indictment states, after they got off the bus. They repeated the allegations in days following the incident that cast the school into the national spotlight and prompted a rally where Burwell appeared with Briggs and Agudio and tearfully demanded justice. Keep reading I wonder if Hillary still feels the same way now that we know it was the black women who were the attackers?

Fair Usage Law

July 4, 2016   Posted in: Hate Crime Hoax  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."