Archive for the ‘Jewish American Heritage Month’ Category

American State Trials Volume 10 (1918) by John D. Lawson, LL.D. (Leo Frank Trial for the murder of Mary Phagan)

For more information about the Leo Frank Case, please visit world foremost Leo Frank research library:

American State Trials Volume 10 (1918) by John D. Lawson, LL.D.

Beginning on page 182, an interpretation of the Leo M. Frank case is featured and then followed by an abridged version of the 1913 Leo Frank trial testimony (July 28, 1913 to August 26, 1913) for the murder of little Mary Phagan on April 26th 1913 (If you would like to read the unabridged version of the Leo Frank trial testimony, visit:

After the abridged trial testimony, the closing arguments of Hugh M. Dorsey, Reuben Rose Arnold, Mr. Frank Arthur Hooper and Luther Zeigler Rosser are featured, followed by the chronology of appeals (1913 to 1915), the commutation of Leo Frank’s death sentence to life in prison on June 21, 1915 by the corrupt Governor John M. Slaton, the July 17, 1915 prison “shanking” of Leo Frank with a seven inch butcher knife and finally a very detailed description of events leading to the lynching from the evening of August 16 to morning of August 17, 1915.

What makes this nationally followed and sensational murder trial so unlikely, is it would be the first time in U.S. history, in a Black-White racially segregated South, the testimony of two African-Americans, Jim Conley and Newt Lee, would become an important and integral part of the collective testimony and evidence presented to an all white Jury, which would help successfully convict a White man (Leo Frank) on August 25th 1913. And though African-American Minola McKnight would deny her affidavit, State’s Exhibit B, the denial would not be believed when all things were considered and thus Minola would be a 3rd African-American whose evidence would help build the case against Leo Frank.

Though, ultimately the most important witness testimony at the trial did not come from Jim Conley or Newt Lee, but from a Goldylocks 14 year old White girl named Monteen Stover, she broke Leo Frank’s alibi wide open that he [Leo Frank] was in his second floor office every minute from noon to 12:35.

What made matters ironic is Monteen Stover tended to be a character defense witness for Leo Frank against numerous allegations from former employees of the closed-down pencil factory, girls who testified Leo Frank had lascivious, pedophile and sexual predatory tendencies.

Monteen Stover testified to Leo Frank not being in either his inner or outer second floor office between 12:05 and 12:10 on April 26th 1913 (she said she looked in both places). Monteen Stover said when she had arrived, she looked around for Leo Frank and waited in his second floor office for 5 minutes, so she could collect her weekly pay that was due to her. When she couldn’t find Leo Frank, she looked down the hall from Leo Frank’s second floor office, directly at the door to the metal room, describing it as being closed shut.

The Leo Frank Virtual Murder Confession

It was on August 18th 1913, Leo Frank would counter the testimony given by Monteen Stover (about Leo Frank not being in his office from 12:05 to 12:10), with a mind bogging blunder and inescapably damaging admission to the Jury. Leo Frank testified he may have “unconsciously” gone to the bathroom to use the toilet or to urinate during this lapse of time revealed by Monteen Stover. This testimony was so grossly incriminating because in order to get to the bathroom, one has to physically walk into and through the second floor metal room where the bathroom is located. Frank’s statement about his “unconscious” bathroom visit amounted to a virtual murder confession and became a “grand slam home run” for the the prosecution team that had “all the bases loaded” at the 9th inning of the trial.

The State’s prosecution team led by Hugh Dorsey spent nearly a month (29 days) in total, during the longest criminal trial in Southern history, building it’s entire case and successfully convincing the Judge and Jury, that Leo M. Frank murdered Mary Phagan in the second floor metal room between 12:05 and 12:10 on Confederate Memorial Day, April 26th 1913.

The trial was a total shutout and victory for the prosecution, within less than 4 hours of deliberation, the Jury had arrived at it’s unanimous decision of guilty without a recommendation of mercy (they essentially unanimously voted for the execution of Leo Frank by hanging).

After two embarrassing years of failed appeals at the State and Federal Court Systems, Leo Frank had one last hope, and appealed to the corrupt Governor of Georgia.

When Georgian Governor John M. Slaton, a legal partner and part owner of the law firm hired by Leo Frank to represent him at the trial, commuted Leo Franks death sentence to life in prison on June 21st 1915, there was public outrage at the perceived gross conflict of interest that had disqualified John M. Slaton from offering Leo Frank clemency.

Southerners raged indignantly, rightfully claiming the Governor had commuted the death sentence of his own client Leo Frank and that John Slaton completely disregarded the sworn trial testimony of Newt Lee, Harry Scott, Monteen Stover, Jim Conley, Leo Frank and dishonored the entire U.S. legal system.

Immediately after the commutation of Leo Frank, a demonstration of 1,200 people marched on John Slaton’s home, and had the armed national guard not been called in to disperse the crowd, their was fear John Slaton would have been lynched and the inside of his mansion torched to the ground.

On July 17, 1915, an inmate shanked Leo Frank with a 7 inch butcher knife. Leo Frank barely survived and his wounds were slow to heal in the hot Georgia summer.

A well organized lynch party came together in critical mass immediately after the Leo Frank commutation of June 21, 1915, it was a group that called itself “The Knights of Mary Phagan” formed by the elite “good ole boys”, Georgia’s most prominent members of society and the upper crust of Marrieta citizenry.

Two months after the commutation, the lynch party launched one of the most audacious prison breaks in US history, in an unprecidented commando style raid, they seized and abducted Frank from the prison on August 16, 1915 at 11PM, without firing a single gun shot.

The lynch party of several dozen men drove Leo Frank 175 miles all through the night in a tail gating party style conga line of slow rolling model-T fords at 18 miles an hour. The caravan of lynchers delivered Leo Frank to Frey’s Gin, the place he was to be hanged, it was a location in the relative vicinity of where Mary had once lived and was buried.

A 3/4″ manila rope was prepped into a hang mans noose with 13 knots, it was thrown over a sturdy oak tree branch the thickness of a mans thy, Leo Frank was hoisted onto a table by 4 men, 2 on either side of him, after a noose was put around Leo Frank’s neck, the sentence of the Jury was read by a former Judge and the table was kicked away.

Leo Frank was properly lynched on the morning of August 17th, 1915 at 7:17AM for the bludgeon, rape and strangulation of Mary Phagan.

Because Leo Frank was president of B’nai B’rith, his conviction became part of the impetus for the creation of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith in October 1913.

For more information about Leo M. Frank, visit:

Please write a review of this book below.

More excellent books and reading on the subject include:

0. The Leo Frank Case (Mary Phagan) Inside Story of Georgia’s Greatest Murder Mystery 1913 – The first neutral book written on the subject. Very interesting read.

1. The Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean (Available here on Written by Mary Phagan Kean, the great grand niece of Mary Phagan. A neutral account of the events surrounding the trial of Leo Frank. The Murder of Little Mary Phagan is well worth reading and it is a refreshing change from the endless number of Jewish and contemporary books turning the Leo Frank case into a neurotic race obsessed tabloid controversy.

2. American State Trials, volume X (1918) by John Lawson (Available here on and Tends to be biased in favor of Leo Frank and his legal defense team, this document provides an abridged version of the Brief of Evidence, leaving out some important things said and details when it republishes parts of the trial testimony. Be sure to read the closing arguments of Luther Zeigler Rosser, Reuben Rose Arnold, Frank Arthur Hooper and Hugh Manson Dorsey. For a more complete version of the Leo M. Frank trial testimony, read the 1913 murder trial brief of evidence found on and you can see what was left out.

3. Argument of Hugh M. Dorsey in the Trial of Leo Frank (Available here on and Some but not all of the 9 hours of arguments given to the Jury at the end of the Leo Frank trial. Only 18 Libraries in the world have copies of this books. It can be found here on thanks to This is an excellent book and required reading to see how Dorsey in sales vernacular ‘closed’ a Jury of 12 men and Judge Roan.

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

5. The Atlanta Constitution, April 28 to August 27 1913. One can sign up at if they would like to pay $30 a month, to retrieve 30 articles a month on the Leo Frank case as reported by this newspaper.

6. The Atlanta Journal, April 28 to August 27 1913. One can sign up at if they would like to pay $30 a month, to retrieve 30 articles a month on the Leo Frank case as reported by this newspaper.

7. The Atlanta Georgian, April 28th to August 27th 1913. Hearst’s Tabloid Yellow Journalism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Though Tom Watson is considered a controversial figure by some, when one puts the rhetoric aside, his writings on the Leo Frank case are lucid, making a very complicated trial easy to understand. Read all five of Tom Watson’s 1915 works written two years after the Leo Frank trial and decide for yourself.

The most comprehensive research archive of Leo M. Frank Case information and documents, visit:

Fair Usage Law

April 24, 2011   Posted in: Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, B'nai B'rith, Holocaust, Holocaust Denial, Holocaust Revisionism, Jewish, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism, Leo Frank, Multicultural News, Race Relations, Racism News, Racist News, White Nationalism, White Supremacism, Zionism  Comments Closed

Elaine Marie Alphin, An Unspeakable Crime, The Prosecution and Persecution of Leo Frank

A multi-part review by Leo Frank scholars about the book, “An Unspeakable Crime: The Prosecution and Persecution of Leo Frank”, the book was authored by Elaine Marie Alphin and released to the public in March, 2010. Elaine Marie Alphin wrote “An Unspeakable Crime: The Prosecution and Persecution of Leo Frank” for the audience of high school and college students.

Review Introduction by MC, Followed with Book Review by AK.

Generic Book Information:

Title: An Unspeakable Crime, The Prosecution and Persecution of Leo Frank
Author: Elaine Marie Alphin
Reading level: Young Adult (High School and College Students)
Library Binding: 152 pages
Publisher: Carolrhoda Books
Published Date: March, 2010
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0822589443
ISBN-13: 978-0822589440
Product Dimensions: 10 x 7.4 x 0.7 inches
Shipping Weight: 1.3 pounds


Before reading any reviews of “An Unspeakable Crime, The Prosecution and Persecution of Leo Frank” here and on, it is important for one to first familiarize oneself with the Author, Elaine Marie Alphin, her background and the side she takes in the Leo Frank case, which is all clearly revealed on her web site, located here:

After reviewing the contents of Alphins website getting a good feel for opinions she expresses on the case and the opinions she asserts, one should then follow through with reading the abridged version of the “An Unspeakable Crime, The Prosecution and Persecution of Leo Frank”, which provides numerous excerpts of the text pages of her book, available to peruse free in its limited form, online from Google books, located here: An Unspeakable Crime: The Prosecution and Persecution of Leo Frank By Elaine Marie Alphin (Google Books Online). Though the free Google books version of her work is limited to an extent, there is still enough of the book to give one an idea of her various positions, sympathies and some of the racial assertions she makes — which will be quoted here.

Borrow, Don’t Buy!

Should one want to read the actual physical book, the best recommendation is to avoid purchasing it, because irregardless of the political position or side one takes on the Leo Frank case, the book is weak on the facts and filled with countless errors, several of which will be discussed at length. Save money and instead inquire to determine if one can borrow a free copy from a local library or through inter library loan. If a copy of the book is not available at your local library, consider buying a used version of the book, instead of a new copy. The used price of this item on should give you an indication and reference in terms of the veracity of the reviews on the book.

A complete digitized version of the book will likely make it’s way online in the future as all books are ultimately destined.

Start By Reading the Official Leo Frank Trial Documents:

To put everything in proper context, it is strongly urged and highly recommended, before obtaining a free copy of this book in question from the library, to carefully study the original primary source Leo Frank case legal documents concerning the trial and appeals (see the Georgia Supreme Court Archive 1913+ available). By reading and studying the dry leaves of the official records in the Leo Frank case one can make their own independent interpretation of the facts and evidence, without the skewed biases of the unilateral artificially created majority position created by secondary source writers who are typically Leo Frank partisans and weave some wild spin on the trial and aftermath.

Becoming fairly acquainted with the Leo Frank trial evidence and reading the 1913 to 1915 newspaper accounts of the case will enable one to better understand the chain of events, so as to be able to clearly see the problems, flaws and issues (what was left out) with Elaine Marie Alphin’s interpretation of the Leo Frank saga and why her version of the Leo Frank case lacks truth, veracity and legitimacy. More importantly, understanding the facts and evidence in the Leo Frank case should make it clear why Alphin can not be considered a reliable academic or scholarly source.

Is Elaine Marie Alphin perpetuating the bogus and artificially created popular-culture myth surrounding Leo Frank that his conviction was a vast bigoted anti-Jewish conspiracy and bigoted political-social injustice, or was Leo Frank suspected and convicted on trumped up evidence because Leo Frank was a Northern Jew?

From the Prosecution Side of the Leo Frank Equation: Elaine Marie Alphin, has joined the ranks of open and vocal Frankites (Leo Frank cult members), who have for the last century been perpetuating numerous lies, smears, slanders and defamation against the people associated with the “prosecution side” of Leo Frank case including Southerners. Elaine Marie Alphin, achieves these crass political and antagonistic social ends, utilizing a plethora of media tools and proselytizing media methodologies on her website, including using portions of her book, informational PDFs, audio and video, to: Frankite, “politically correct” and “transsexualize” the Leo Frank case from the prosecution of a pedophile, rapist and murder, flipping it into the struggle of a Promethean stoic hero, a noble Jewish martyr mellow dramatically being thrown on the funeral pyre of ethnoreligious racism, anti-Jewish prejudices and bigotry.

Reflections of the Jewish-Gentile Culture and Race War

From the European-American Perspective: Elaine Marie Alphin’s book reflects the instigation of the smoldering Jewish-Gentile war, the manifested and subtle “Jewish-Gentile ethnoreligious cultural race war and conflict” – which the “Leo Frank Case” was not, but has artificially become, and that’s a deeper analysis of her shallow suppositions.

A Dirty Bloody Race War Between Jews and Gentiles

Tom Watson called Leo Frank partisans and followers of Leo Frank as Frankites.

Alphin and other Leo Frank partisans have been using the Leo Frank case to instigate a culture and race war between Jews and Gentiles, and it’s working, the rage in response to the lies and fighting words are smoldering over after 100 years of smears coming from the Frankite camp.

To make matters worse Alphin is not even subtle about it, from beginning to end, Elaine Marie Alphin’s book takes every opportunity to engage in loathsome race baiting, trolling, hypocritical racism and play countless unsubstantiated odd wild-cards from the racecard deck. You can’t help but feel nausea as you turn the leaves of this “high-production” value book, with each and every weirdo race obsessed admonishment she uncouthly squeezes and jams into the paragraphs of this culture-war Jewish-Gentile racial propaganda book.

From the European-American perspective, this book reads like the subtle instigation of that eternal war of revenge that has been tightly cycling through and between tribes of people throughout history and as a result Alphin has turned the Leo Frank case into a 100 year culture war between Jews and Gentiles.

Famosus Libellus: Blood Libel Smears Against Everyone Not on the Side of Leo Frank

In the 100 year tradition of the Frankite Smear Mongers, Elaine Marie Alphin in her book basically perpetuates the worst kind of blood libel and racist slander possible against Southerners, Georgians, European-Americans, Christians, local newspapers and Atlantian Police detectives – the Latin phrase famosus libellus means a libelous writing.

Alphin suggests the Police suspected, railroaded, and framed Leo Frank because of anti-semitic and regional bigotry at the time, and the immediate emergence of Leo Frank into the status of prime suspect was catalyzed by the “media frenzy” which impelled the Police to do so (Elaine Marie Alphin WWW, Feb. 2011). Her statements suggest the Leo Frank case was a state sponsored antisemitic railroading, framing and murder supported by the general culture at the time, because Leo Frank was a Northern Jew crucified on a tree at the blind hands of regional and racial prejudices.

Evidence, Not Racism

People who have studied the Leo Frank case, know that Leo Frank was suspected, because of a mountain of evidence that immediately emerged against him, not because of anti-Semitism, anti-Jewish prejudices, bigotry, media pressure or media frenzies. Jewish and Southern historians note that Anti-Semitism was virtually non-existent in the South and Jews were a respected people that participated in Southern politics, business, law, manufacturing, finance, culture and education. Ironically, white racial separatist Southern culture suited the racially conscious collective Jewish community with a kind of genetic harmony, because Jews happily embraced their own brand and version of racial separatist philosophies in a Jewish assimilation context.

Smears Against the Honor of Southerners: Murder “Innocent” White Jews and Let Free “Guilty” Black Murderers

The ultimate insult.

The substanceless slanderous statements don’t just stop with the “anti-semitic prejudiced police” and “instigating local newspapers media frenzy”, she implicates Southerners too – All of them. Her statements about Southerners amounts to the worst kind of defamation, because she is suggesting they didn’t suspect, convict, and lynch Frank because of the mountain of genuine ineluctable evidence which emerged against him overwhelmingly proving his guilt, but instead because he was an “innocent” Jew and a “guilty” black man was not worthy enough in terms of some kind of value, to pay the price for the murder of Mary Phagan (“even though he did it”). You have to read it to believe it! Websites can change, but chiseled in stone book editions can’t.

Does that overt supposition asserted in her book like many others, pass the common sense test?


The assertion Alphin uses throughout her audio, video and writing tends to indicate she is implicating the whole of Southern people as part of of a vast murderous antisemitic conspiracy directed against Leo Frank because he was raised in New York and his Jewish ethno-religion made him a target of scapegoatery. 97 years ago they did the same thing, Alphin stoops to the lowest, basest and most desperate position possible in her assertions, just like the original Leo Frank Defense team did when they realized they had a losing case, like them, she resorts to playing the antisemitism card to it’s fullest. (See: the two final speeches of Reuben Rose Arnold August and October 1913)

One Hundred Years of Smears: The Vast Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theory Against European-Americans

Elaine Marie Alphin is making what amounts to the false accusation of Jewish blood libel against the good people of Georgia and the South, it is the one being made over the last one hundred years by the Leo Frank Cult members known as Frankites.

Alphin in the tradition of the Frankite cult is unleashing the ultimate century-old smear against Southern European-Americans, saying the people of Georgia openly, maliciously, intentionally and collectively convicted and assassinated an “innocent” man because Gentiles are collectively and blindly ignorant, and antisemitic hate mongers (for or no reason?), this 100 year old hideous Frankite position is one which can not be substantiated by any reliable sources or factual evidence, and is made despite the fact there was virtually no recorded antisemitism in the South.

Southerners are politely demanding that on both sides all fighting words become retracted and the guilt accepted.

From the Far-Right Southerner Position:

Conservative Perspective on Elaine Marie Alphin: Alphin like all the other Frankites of the last 100+ years are showing their true colors, they are the subversive subset and part of a much larger morbid movement, a perfidious conglomeration of treacherous people undermining the United States, instigating a no holds barred dirty cultural war from within, against the people of the United States of America with these race war fighting words. Her statements are a challenge to the honor of the good people of the South, European-Americans, Christians and American patriots, she is part of the movement instigating an unnecessary ethnoreligious cultural race war between Jews and Gentiles in the libraries, schools, colleges, universities and Internet.

According to Elaine Marie Alphin, Direct Quote:

A black watchman found Mary’s body brutally beaten and apparently raped. Police arrested the watchman, but they weren’t satisfied that he was the killer. Then they paid a visit to Leo Frank, the factory’s superintendent, who was both a Northerner and a Jew. Spurred on by the media frenzy and prejudices of the time, the detectives made Frank their prime suspect, one whose conviction would soothe the city’s anger over the death of a young white girl. (2011)

Take a closer look at the last part of this particular Elaine Marie Alphin Quote, “…one whose conviction would soothe the city’s anger over the death of a young white girl….” … this suggestion on her web site is more subtle and couched, compared to what she more openly and directly suggests in her book about choosing an “innocent” Jew over a “guilty” Negro…

In the early part of her book, “An Unspeakable Crime, The Prosecution and Persecution of Leo Frank”, Elaine Marie Alphin, suggests the most perverse smear and outlandish claim that White racial separatist Southerners of 1913 are essentially so depraved, loathsome and antisemitic, that they would rather openly let a “guilty black pedophile-rapist and strangler” go free and instead railroad and frame-up an “innocent” White Jew. This instance will be discussed later with direct quotes from her book, but this little snap shot is to give you more of a warm up idea about one of the newest Frankites and Frankite books to come out of the woodwork and into the limelight concerning the Leo Frank anti-Semitism hoax from 1913 to 2010 and onward.

Factoid: Back in the day circa 1913 to 1915, there was actually a large and successful national group which formed calling itself the Leo Frank Defense League and their efforts live on today 100+ years later through the generations of Frankite cult members.

More on the Elaine Marie Alphin Quote: “…Spurred on by the media frenzy and prejudices of the time, the detectives made Frank their prime suspect…

The Prejudices of the Time (“media frenzy”)

From the time of the discovery of Mary Phagan’s dead body at 3:15AM on Sunday, April, 27, 1913, till the time Leo Frank was arrested about 56 hours later at 11AM on Tuesday, April 29, 1913, not a single word, sentence, paragraph or page was uttered by the media that was antisemitic, anti-Jewish, instigating or pushing Leo Frank as the prime suspect because he was Jewish or because the regional prejudices (including north vs. south tensions at the time) spurred the police on to arrest Frank and make him a prime suspect. The prevailing artificial culture created by Frankites surrounding Leo Frank in terms of both its regionalism (or a civil war tension, 50 years after the civil war) and Gentile anti-Jewish racism claims are grossly over exaggerated.

Anti-Semitism was Virtually Non-Existent: Shared Freedom

The fact Anti-Semitism was virtually non-existent in the South is historically well known, and Jews shared in the liberties and religious freedoms that Christians enjoyed. Jews were respected as equals to Whites and Christians in the South, and many Jews were very successful and held prominent positions in politics, education, law, finance and business. The White Racial Separatist South was a free market boon to the Jewish community against the modern claims of the loudest opponents of Western Civilization.

The Media Frenzy Impelled Anti-Semitism and Bigotry?

Not a single anti-Semitic sentence open or covert was ever published in the “media frenzy” suggesting to wrongfully convict Leo Frank from the time of Leo Frank’s arrest on Tuesday, April 29, 1913 at 11AM to the affirmation of his conviction by Judge Leonard Strickland Roan on August 26, 1913.

More than a bakers dozen of higher level judges agreed Leo Frank got a fair trial.

Anti-Semitism: The Media Never Tipped off the People About a Leo Frank Murder Confession.

It was police leaks that made it into the media, not the other way around.

If anything the newspapers at the time “covered” for Leo Frank. In fact the newspapers at the time, never even revealed to the public that Leo Frank made what amounted to a shocking and blunderous murder confession on August 18, 1913 when Frank “unconsciously” went to the bathroom in the metal room at the same time he said Mary Phagan arrived in State’s Exhibit B. If anything they tended to side with him more than he should have fairly and neutrally received during his trial, the newspapers wanted a good fight, because the good fight is the juicy fight, which ensures a total sellout of every newspaper. Leo Frank got better coverage than deserving of him.

Ironically, concerning Leo Frank’s 4 hour testimony on August 18 1913, the newspapers said superficially it was far and away one of the best at the trial – even though it was a “ratcheting” rambling disaster filled with damaging and questionable statements which the prosecution attacked ruthlessly. The newspapers never provided deeper analysis on what Frank had said, the newspapers and “Alphin-created” media frenzies had clearly been neutral or favorable to Leo Frank when all things are considered and put on the balancing scale (See: The Atlanta Constitution, April 28, 1913 to August 27, 1913).

Not Even Tom Watson Made the Suggestion

In the last 100 years there has not been found a single piece of reliable primary source evidence, open or covert, that suggests Leo Frank – should, would, or could – have been arrested because he was a “Northern Jew”, nor was there any prejudiced groups of people or individuals calling for the police to make Leo Frank the prime suspect because he was Jewish. Nor was their any playing on prejudices, because Frank was a Yankee Northerner. The police made Leo Frank the prime suspect because a mount everest of suspicious clues Leo Frank created himself which tended to overwhelmingly pointed to the guilty finger inward, it was not because of a media frenzy or prejudices of the time. Leo Frank was not a very good manipulator against the police.

Leo Frank Incriminated Himself

The voluminous amount of evidence which came out against Leo Frank within the first 56 hours of the murder discovery will be discussed in long winded detail and is reviewed exhaustively on this web site. Both sides of the Leo Frank case including the prosecution and defense will be given representation on this site. This site intends to apply a telescope, magnifying glass, microscope, wide angle lens and electron microscope on every detail of this case, including putting testimony and evidence through the common sense test (which is sorely needed).

Could a Jew suggest a Blood Libel Smear Couched as the Antisemitism Card, would it have little place in the South?

The Ant-Semitism Card that was played at the Leo Frank trial, left Southerners perplexed. The Jewish community of Atlanta was not only highly assimilated, respected and perceived to be equal and Southern, their was virtually no anti-semitism, especially since thriving Jewish businesses, created countless thousands of jobs for the Gentile community. And despite Alphins expressions that Southern laborers in the South were paid much less than Northern laborers in the North, the locals did not perceive it that way, they were getting much better wages in the city verses their kinsmen that worked as farm staff or worked in the rural areas.

Atlanta was a thriving, alive and growing city. Jews were considered to be God loving people who went to “church”, and when Southerners described Jews going to “church” that didn’t mean they weren’t Jewish or that Jews went to church, that was just the Southern Christian and familiar way of expressing their general respect for Jews who were perceived on the surface as being a moral and righteous people (PvLF, 2009) because they went to their own temple synagogue services each weekend, where they sang, prayed and respected the Creator. On the surface Jews were considered good White people and most Southerners believed it was more than skin deep.

Steve Oney, derailed one of the central Anti-Semitism claims of the ADL and Bnai Brith, he corrected an important historical myth when he stated, authoritatively, that there is no evidence that crowds shouted “Hang the Jew or I’ll hang you,” through the allegedly “open windows of the steamy” Atlanta courtroom where Frank stood trial in the August heat of 1913. The Leo Frank trial court room was the coolest place in the city and had fans and ozoneators (precursors to air conditioners) cooling the air in the court rooms with closed windows. Even with the windows closed, no one was shouting outside “Hang the Jew or We’ll Hang You” or any variation of that Anti-Semitic Hoax.

According to Frey, even after the Frank case had played to its tragic climax in the later half of 1915, Victor Kriegshaber, a German-Jew, was elected president of the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, in 1916.

Jews Thrived in the South

Jews thrived in the South financially and lived the patrician good life, compared to their fellow Jew yorkers shivering their tooshies off in the cranky 6 to 8 months combined of shitty weather throughout the entire NY calendar year. There were certainly more opportunities to make big money in New York, but “quality of life” is not measured by working your ass off and life away to be buried in a solid gold coffin in NYC. The South had the advantage of milder winters and a lot more elbow room, plus the girls in NY are more stuck up, cold and have constipated personalities, where as the Southern girls are a lot prettier and friendlier on average.

Leo Frank Prime Suspect Because of Evidence, Not Bigotry and Media Pressure

The police made Frank their prime suspect and arrested him within 56 hours of the discovery of Mary Phagan, because many red flags went up concerning things pertaining to what Leo Frank said and what others said about his behavior on that infamous day, especially by the “Night Witch”, Newt Lee, AND NOT because of media pressure, frenzies or prejudices against Frank’s heritage and his former address in Brooklyn five years ago where he grew up.

Leo Frank, the Only Suspect to Act Peculiarly.

Before the police even told Leo Frank about the murder on the morning of Sunday, April 27, 1913, when they paid him a visit, they cautiously observed him, Frank was shivering and quivering like a crack baby (yes, they actually had pregnant women addicted to coke at the time). The body language of Leo Frank tended to be suspicious and he ended up giving himself away since no one else questioned or examined by police and detectives acted so nervous or behaved so peculiarly. This was obvious for detectives and the immediate analysis within the first 48 hours needed to have all eyes turned on him for numerous reasons which will be discussed at length.

Collar and Tie: April 27, 1913, Morning Time

Leo Frank the Superintendent was like anyone else who put on a tie day in and day out, like the average police officers and investigators who paid him a visit at 7AM on Sunday Morning, April 27th 1913, they could put on a collar and tie with their eyes closed, as surely as Frank had done so with ease for the last five years or more during his tenure at the National Pencil Company. However, on that morning of Sunday, April 27, 1913, when the police arrived, Frank had difficulty doing very simple tasks, he struggled and fumbled with his shirt, collar and tie. There were notions Frank was trying to delay going to the factory and trivialize things, these things would turn into questions for the police: Why?

Nervous Rapid Fire Questions

A visibly hung over and strung out Leo Frank was trembling, nervous, shaking, quaking, firing off questions at a million miles a second before the police could even attempt to answer them, and Frank was God awful ghostly pale blue. The voice of Leo Frank was trembling and terribly hoarse possibly from excessive chain smoking the night before, because these behaviors and physiological reflections were noted they may have raised possible red flags of suspicion early on for the police when they started adding things up later.

One simple observation by the police: Leo Frank was the only person freaking and bugging out to the max before the police even told him what it was about when they arrived at his house at 7AM on Sunday, April 27, 1913.

Psychology of Behavior and Emotions

When things in context do not make any sense and seem out of place, the psychology of body language also reveals a lot as well, these things are considered within their context as part of the many intuitive mental tools developed in the arsenal of every police detective investigator since the dawn of civilization, because it was part of their criminal science before they had the nanoscopic forensic sciences we have today. Intuition, wisdom and common sense are some of the most powerful tools then and today, even with the advent of modern sciences, the conscious mind is the most powerful tool in the universe.

Newt Lee Marinated and Interrogated

Once Newt Lee was arrested at the scene of the crime, he would have been drilled and jack hammered into exhaustion about every minute detail of the last 24 hours leading up to the discovery of Mary Phagan’s beaten, strangled and raped body, it would have all been recorded on paper. Another powerful tool in the police is the stenographer, one who captures things down and for later police and detective teams to cross reference it.

April 27 1913

What Newt revealed to the police about the behavior of his boss Leo Frank the day before on the afternoon of April 26, 1913, would be interpreted as suspicious by any intuitive detective and reasonably intelligent police staff member, at the very least it raised eye brows, suspicion and little red flags.

The First Arrest Was Very Revealing About Leo Frank’s Behavior

Given the demanding nature of the police and the relatively recent timing of the approximately ~16.5 hour aged murder and its 2nd alerted discovery by police at about ~3:45AM on April 27, 1913, the police would have wanted to know immediately everything that occurred within the 16.5 hours between Phagan’s arrival at the factory (based on Phagan’s Mom, Mrs. Coleman saying on Sunday that Mary Phagan had left for the factory at 11:45) noonish on April 26, 1913 and the 1st discovery of her dead body at 3:15AM in the morning the next day on April 27, 1913. The murder could only have occurred at the factory given common sense and Leo Frank admitted to being one of the only people at the shuttered factory from noon onward who had seen her last. In a virtually empty factory on August 26, 1913 Leo Frank admitted he alone was the last person to see her alive. Naturally this would have raised suspicions against Leo Frank.

Minty Fresh Memory: The Bossman is acting Distressed!

Even though Newt was tired because he had an hour less sleep and was deep into his shift, Newt Lee’s recollection would have been spearmint fresh about his arrival at just minutes before 4PM (3:57 PM) at the factory on April 26, 1913. Newt Lee would have recounted Leo Frank’s suspicious actions which were odd and out of place. Leo Frank was acting very NOTICEABLY weird, nervous, frenetic and unusual toward Newt Lee that day given what happened that day in the factory.

Calm and Cool to High Strung

On April 26, 1913 at 4PM Frank was bustling and behaving in a way that was not like his normal haughty, calm, cool and collected self as the be-throned king and bossman sat in his swivel chair in the second floor window front office and was the B’nai B’rith President.

Using common sense test: Do you think the police couldn’t figure out Newt Lee, the man framed in the contrived murder notes, was innocent considering Lee had started work 6 hours after Phagan went missing at the factory? Was Phagan locked in a cage for 6 hours in the basement, until Newt Lee arrived to kill her? most probably not. The police also couldn’t come up with a motive for Newt Lee and taken at face value Newt Lee “acted” like an innocent man by attempting to call the Superintendent Leo Frank for 8 full minutes and even though he failed reaching Mr. Frank at his home, Newt was successful when he called the police. The murder notes which seemed to point to Newt Lee, would make it seem odd that he would alert the police about the lifeless body of Mary Phagan. It was not considered typical negro behavior at the time for one to beat, rape and strangle a White girl to death and then call the poh poh.

The Murder Likely Happened Within Minutes of Her Arrival.

The police and detectives were looking for things out of place, leads and clues which is standard protocol.

Newt Lee’s statements and Leo Frank’s noticeably different behavior don’t necessarily make anyone guilty per say, but it naturally would create some level of suspicion in the intuitive minds of police and detectives, when added to the fact Frank admittedly was the last person to see Phagan alive and the only person in the virtually empty building on his floor on a Saturday State holiday. The murder notes written in classical ebonix caused the police to acknowledge them as possibly “negro” notes and would have made Leo Frank aware of this when they put them in front of him to read.

Keep in mind that at this time Leo Frank does not even dare mention his employee the Negro Jim Conley to the Police at the early stages in the investigation. What makes Frank’s silence even more ironic, is that Leo Frank knows Jim Conley can write, because Frank has Conley’s signed pocketwatch pawn-layaway contracts in his top desk drawer.

The contrived murder notes written in quaint Southern Negro ebonix meant the police had to track down the Black writer and would naturally want to speak with every African-American employee at the factory.

Newt Lee Friday, April, 25, 1913, Circumstances Not Prejudice Made Leo Frank the Prime Suspect

Newt Lee going over the events on April 26, 1913, with the police, leading up to the discovery of the body, would have meant he specifically recounted every detail he remembered about Leo Frank telling him [Newt Lee] to come in to the factory an hour earlier when they spoke together at payroll on payday Friday, April 25, 1913 at 6pm the day before the infamous murder and then once Newt arrived an hour early like he was told to do, arriving on April 26, 1913, at 4pm in the afternoon, instead of his normal and usual 5pm in the evening (1 hour difference), a big red flag went up, when Leo Frank then assertively requested Newt Lee out of the factory at 4 PM, telling him to leave for 2 to 2.5 more hours and go have a good time, this would also raise red flags considering the evidence of the crime in the basement and the metal room. The Police would naturally ask why does Leo Frank try to create 2 to 2.5 more available hours in an empty factory during the late afternoon to evening period on a Saturday and State holiday?

Newt Lee Suggests He Would Rather Sleep for 2 hours. The police asked why not just let him nap in the packing room?

Despite Newt Lee resisting Leo Frank’s request to leave the building by telling Leo Frank he [Newt Lee] was tired because he had an hour less sleep last night, followed by Newt Lee requesting permission to sleep in the packing room for an hour or so, it was perceived as being avoided and rejected by Leo Frank. Newt begrudgingly left the building, something he had never been told to do before during his 3 week tenure.

Frank flat out denied Newt a chance to catch an hour of sleep in the packing room and instead practically pushed-forced Newt Lee out of the factory telling him to come back at either 6pm or 6:30pm and go out and have a good time. Newt Lee chose to leave for 2 more hours at his bosses request, even though he could have theoretically left for 2.5 hours. Newt Lee chose to come back at the much earlier end of the half-hour range given to him by Leo Frank encompassing 6PM to 6:30PM, the time span that Leo Frank gave him was an hour later than he normally was supposed to be there on Saturdays which was always locked in at 5pm.

What more did Leo Frank have to do during these 2 or 2.5 hours? After Police cracked Jim Conley, the question evolved into was he waiting for Jim Conley to come back and finish the job on the promise of $200 to dispose of the body in the cellar furnace?

Once the Night Watch Arrives He is Not to Leave the Premises of the Building

There was also a general non-negotiable rule for the factory nightwatchmen that once they entered the building, they were not allowed to leave the property of the building during their scheduled shift, except for smoking a cig in the doorway of the factory. No other exceptions were generally noted.

6PM April 26 1913

When Newt Lee arrived at minutes before 6pm after a two hour zombie hiatus to go out and “have a good time” after the parade was already over.

Twice as Long on Changing the Time Clock Slip

Frank, who had presumably spent the last 5 years (1908 to 1913) putting in and taking out time slips, for some reason at that exact time when Newt Lee returned from his 2 hours on the town, Frank bumbled and fumbled like a jitterbug with it the time card in front of Newt Lee, struggling to put the new time slip in and making lame excuses that it was difficult, something just didn’t fly with the police.

The police would later ask themselves why are Leo Frank’s hands quivering so intensely he can’t seem to put the time card in the punch clock in the standard normal time?

Cigarette Break

After taking twice as long to put in the new time slip, Newt Lee punched the time clock in Leo’s office and gingerly in his overalls pigeontoed downstairs to the first floor, then he went out to the main stone frame doorway to smoke an evening fag, inaugurating his long Saturday nightwatchman rounds, which also included the grave yard shift.

While the tall and slim red eye’d Newt Lee was sitting on a crate in the front doorway Bogarting away on a 1913 cigarette, an ex-factory employee known as Gantt arrived at the doorway in an unbeknownst manner, he too was a long legged man who just recently made long sweeping urgent steps from the saloon bar across the street. The arrival of Gantt had appeared before Newt and they started chatting away about one of the most important subjects in the universal cosmos, his shoes. Gantt had known Mary Phagan and her family for years, but Gantt wasn’t looking for her, he stopped by the factory to pick up something he would need to find a new job as he was recently made unemployed at the National Pencil Factory over “tudahllahs” to put it in Leo Frank’s Brooklynese.

Gantt came for Four Shoes in total, a black set and a tan set, he had forgotten and left them in the packing room 2 weeks before, the unemployed Gantt needed them to pound the pavement looking for a new job.


The former accounting employee had been dismissed by Leo because there was a shortage of $2 and he had been responsible for balancing the books properly and did not make good on the missing funds which were attributed to either him taking them, misplacing them or simply the result of poor fund management. When the frazzled Frank rushed out the factory door at 6:15PM, and ran into the former book keeping employee, Frank fell back scared practically trying to crawl away backwards, but it was too late, he was spotted, and had to compose himself. The fear Leo Frank expressed was not because he was scared of Gantt, the Negro Newt Lee could easily have taken that tall skinny bean stalk, Frank had an engram of something else. Frank was in a nearly imperceptibly short moment of fear because Gantt had known Phagan and her family quite well, the immediate mind flash assumption of Frank was Gantt might have been looking for Phagan. It was probably another heart pounding stomach churning moment for Leo Frank after a half day of them.

Black Shoes and Tan Shoes

When Gantt revealed he was only there to get his shoes he left behind, Frank was relieved beyond words, but still, he dropped his head dejectedly, and told Gantt he saw a negro sweep the lost shoes out of the building, (notice that Leo Frank does not mention the Negro sweeper Jim Conley by name, but genericizes it as some negro swept them out) but Gantt changed the shoe color adding another black pair to the mix and out maneuvered the cautiously resistant Frank who was in a rush to get the hell out of dodge and go home, without raising any more suspicions than he might have already created in this 6:15PM, April 26, 1913, little skirmish he acquiesced.

Avoid Drama at Any Cost

Moreover, the last thing Leo Frank really wanted was to create a big drama over the shoes as it might draw suspicion later as to why he doesn’t want someone who knows Mary Phagan from going into an empty and locked up factory to get his shoes. Frank instead told Newt Lee to follow Gantt up and stay with him during the entry, retrieval and exit. From the front door based on factory diagrams and repeating the distance one needs to cover, It takes less than 2 minutes to walk up the stairs, into the packing room and then down the stairs and out of the factory.

It would become stomach twisting and eat away at Leo Frank as he walked away toward the electric-car on his way home, wondering if Gantt was really there for only his shoes. Leo Max Frank had to be sure and couldn’t wait one minute more until he got home.

But before getting home, Leo Frank had something else very important he had to do. Frank continued briskly on his way home, stopped at a store and bought a big box of chocolates for his wife, perhaps out of some kind of normal guilt or remorse, as it certainly wasn’t a “special occasion” or was it?

Frank came home with a big box of chocolates.

Observers are wondering what is Leo Frank doing buying his heavy set wife who weighs more than him a box of chocolates, especially when Skinny Leo Frank always complained behind Lucille’s back about her being his “big fat wife”? There is certainly nothing wrong with buying your wife chocolates, indeed it should be encouraged, but when all things are considered, it suggested Leo Frank was possibly trying to pay down some kind of an invisible guilt and remorse, more than it reflected love. Men who know Men, tended to interpret the chocolate for what it really was, a partly feeble attempt by a guilty man to pay down on his remorse and betrayal.

The Late Evening

For another perspective on what happened at the Frank-Selig house hold that evening on April 26, 1913, Check out Minola McKnight’s affidavit, State’s Exhibit J, that will put that delicious box of chocolates into real perspective. It was one nightmarish late evening at the Selig-Frank residence for Lucy aka Mrs. Leo Frank, an incensed wife who waited nearly 2 weeks to visit her husband after he got arrested on Tuesday, April 29, 1913. Did those actions by Lucy betray she knew the truth, as Magnolia Mcknights affidavit suggests?

Back to 6:30 PM and 7:00 PM on April 26, 1913

Frank did something he had never done before concerning Newt Lee, he called Newt Lee at the factory twice, one time he got no answer at 6:30PM, and a second time he got Newt on the phone at 7PM to find out if everything was OK.

Frank was trying to see if everything went OK (no irony intended) with Gantt and if Newt had discovered the body or not during his rounds, because it was Newt Lee’s job to walk every square inch of the factory in 30 minute cycles. Newt Lee might have done a “half-assed” job when no one was looking and didn’t discover the body right away.

That night Leo Frank would chain smoke his cigarettes and guzzle down the liquor cabinet until he was a glutinous mess, shot gunning and swilling whiskey like it was goin’ out of style. A drink in one hand and one cigarette after the other dangling from his pretty mouth.

A Sense of Urgency: Early Morning, April 27, 1913

However, later when it was so early in the morning the next day, April 27, 1913, Newt Lee needed to use the “negro” toilet in the basement and get into the thinking man’s position, when he stood up after finishing his “bidness” and not wiping himself, he suddenly spotted something in the gloom, it looked like a leg or something. Newt Lee thought the scary looking thing next to cellar’s furnace was a prank — though it certainly was not Halloween — he began to approach it with his smokey lantern in the pitch black basement.

3:15PM, April 27, 1913, Newt Lee Discovers the Body of Mary Phagan

Newt Lee tried to call Leo Frank for 8 full minutes on the phone with no answer, Leo Frank was stone cold drunk in his bed alone, tossing and turning, while his “big fat wife” as he affectionately called her in real life behind her back, slept on the rug next to the bed at the request of Leo Frank (and if you want to know the inside scoup of the erratic events on that evening on April 26, 1913 in the Selig-Frank residence, you can re-read the section on Minola (Magnolia) McKnight).

Suicidal Leo Frank Confessed to His Wife Lucille

Frank nearly poisoned himself to death with whiskey, half-confessed the murder of Phagan to his wife, saying, “He didn’t know why he would murder” and called for his pistol so he could adolf-hitler himself, but the dinky coward had no shame and chose instead to humiliate himself, his wife, family and the Jewish community in a 100+ year ordeal which is still raging today thanks to the Jewish Frankite Cult and its Leo Frank cult activist members who have turned Leo Frank into a cultural icon against Christians, European-Americans and Western Civilization.

It can’t be sad enough, and the Frankites rarely mention that the suspicion against Leo Frank had everything to do with him being the last person to admit seeing Mary Phagan alive and in a virtually empty factory on a Saturday State Holiday, excepting for Frank on the second floor and 2 labor employees hammering away on the 4th floor tearing down a partition, there was no one else in the building in the afternoon — except Jim Conley — the person Leo Frank never brought up and later denies knowing was even there on August 26, 1913. (Brief of Evidence, 1913)

Newsie George Epps

There were also allegations from George Epps, that Phagan had confided in him that her creepy touchy feely boss Leo Frank was inappropriately flirting with her, winking at her, scaring her, running up in front of her when she tried to leave, getting a little bit too close “if you know what I mean” and making subtle sexual innuendos. What we might normally call today, adulterous and aggressive sexual harassment with a pedophile twist.

Bottom Line: Elaine Marie Alphin, Smear Monger or Truth Sayer?

The book by Elaine Marie Alphin is a fantastic collection of lies, disgusting smears, bigoted slander and outlandish accusations against Southerners accusing them of everything from them openly letting a black rapist killer go free so an innocent Jew can be blamed, to antisemitism and railroading Leo Frank because of media frenzy pressure toward the weak minded police — a vast prejudiced conspiracy because Frank was a Brooklyn Hebrew. The list of atrocious utterings in Alphins book are so numerous they must be debunked.

Unscholarly: Weak on the Facts Another Major Issue

This book is NOT a reliable source and should not be cited in scholarly research or papers. The book is not only weak on the facts, but makes every kind of weird racial, Frankite and politically correct accusation against Southerners you could possibly imagine. It reads like titty twister racial guilt and it notions egalitarianisms hunger to regress toward some kind of lower mean. This propaganda book should be labeled a Jewishesque style culture war hate book and for the unsubstantiated slanderous remarks she makes against Southerners in her books, it means she should never be used as any kind of serious source in any place of higher learning, except when educating people on the kinds of lies being perpetuated about the Leo Frank case.

An Unspeakable Crime was written by Elaine Marie Alphin, for high school and college students, it’s a smooth read with good stoppage and flow by a seasoned writer. Even if the book is profoundly weak on the facts, whips up wildly disgusting, psychotic and outlandish defamation, enraging people to a boiling crescendo, and not worthy of high school, college students, teachers, professor, researchers or anyone for that matter, the book is ultimately primarily for the self-deceiving Leo Max Frank extremist group known as the Frankites – not the general public. This proselytizing book is dangerous for the naive as well.

Normal US Grading System: A, B, C, D, F

Alphin gets a B+ for her writing style as the book was mostly a smooth read, it wasn’t quite an A- so it gets an 87 out of 100 for her writing style, but a BIG FAT (what Leo Frank called his wife behind her back) F (eff) for the substance of the book.

Alphin gets an F (failure) for Intellectual Honesty and Intellectual Heroism (telling the truth despite the consequences).

Aphin gets an F (failure) for Facts and Research

As a student reading Alphins book for the first time, I kind of feel like she doesn’t give enough detail, Alphin gets a D for details

Alphin gets an A for Racial Propaganda Political Correctness

Before we get to the book review let’s meet her:

Meet Elaine Marie Alphin

Elaine Marie Alphin was born on 30 October 1955 in San Francisco, California, and attended Lafayette Elementary School in San Francisco. Then her family moved to New York City, where she attended William H. Carr Junior High School. After that she moved to Houston, and went to Westchester High School and on to Rice University.

As an adult:

As you read this book it exudes this feeling like it was written by Alphins deadringer doppelganger, Annie Wilkes the psycho fictional character played by Kathy Bates in the Steven King movie called “Misery” (just add eye glasses)

Total Regurgitation Into the Minds of Children and College Students

Though the book, ‘An Unspeakable Crime’ by Elaine Marie Alphin is well written and easy to read, as it is a huge disastrous disappointment in terms of providing any revelations of quality research and because the book is filled with so many half-truths, mistakes and outright lies, it’s an unspeakable crime such a book will be used to indoctrinate, proselytize and deceive high school and college students about one of the most notorious criminal trials in US history. The bottom line is the book is a Frankite and culture war propaganda tool.

The Specifics: Uncountable Errors

Beyond Left and Right politics and Beyond Prosecution and Defense: The book makes a zillion factual errors, that are easily verified, too numerous to list them all, but the review by Allen Koenigsberg summarizes some of them. In fact some of the factual errors can be classified as such simple mistakes, even novice students of the Leo Frank case could easily point them out. In truth, it is mind boggling that the book was even allowed to be published in the first place, reflecting the declining quality standards of the editorial review process. What makes things even worse is high schools and colleges would let this book be used by them for teaching students about the case, it shows how low the research and educational standards are in the US.


The dumbing down of America is no longer debatable, it’s a fact – “Thank you”, Elaine Marie Alphin for being part of the downfall of Western Civilization, we the students and teachers of the United States “really” appreciate you and your book being part of school curriculum and your participation in destroying the educational standards of our country. Thank you for butchering the truth. Sarcasm Gratis.

High Expectations, Big Let Down

Many people have very high expectations when a new book comes out on the Leo Frank Case, hoping that some new, insightful and fresh analysis will be revealed about the case. Alas, ‘An Unspeakable Crime: The Prosecution and Persecution of Leo Frank’ by Elaine Marie Alphin is a total and major shake your head let down, and might even be accurately described as the worst overt propaganda book made in bad taste on the Leo Frank case yet published in the first decade of the 21st century or even in the last 100 years. Congratulations to Elaine Marie Alphin.

Leo Frank or Bust!

The book provides nothing more than a regurgitation of the Leo Frank defense side of the equation, it lacks in any originality, pretense of subtlety and nuance of depth. The book is absolute total dishonest garbage, but don’t take our word on it, see if you can get a free copy at the library and compare this book against the official record, and primary sources of the Leo Frank case to see for yourself.

Elaine Marie Alphin Please Fix the Book

It is the sincerest hope that Elaine Marie Alphin will, pretty please, produce future editions of the book that will correct the uncountable factual errors and hopefully provide some interesting analysis instead of just the same old forgery and re-write of other peoples works for gaining some fast and dirty greenbacks. The book in its current form offers absolutely nothing to the Leo Frank Case, it might as well be considered a badly plagiarized re-hash of other peoples works on the Leo Frank case.

Tell Kids What to Think? or Teach them How to Think for Themselves?

What is sorely missing today are books which don’t tell kids what to think, but instead give them the tools and frameworks to think for themselves. ‘An Unspeakable Crime: The Prosecution and Persecution of Leo Frank’ seems to push the Jewish, politically correct, racist and antisemitism victim mentality position in the Leo Frank Case, most children naturally trust adults and give them the benefit of the doubt, which is truly unfortunate in this situation, because this book, aside from making more factual mistakes than possible to mention here, it also makes the most ridiculous and outrageous racist race bending claims that defy logic and common sense. Is that good for high school students and college students? depends who you ask.

We told you earlier we would discuss this in more details…

Early on in the book Elaine Marie Alphin suggests the most shocking and outlandish claim that White racist and racial separatist Southerners of 1913 would essentially and intentionally overlook and let a “guilty murdering” Negro go free over the “miscegenation rape” and strangulation death of a White Girl, so that they could instead convict an an “absolutely innocent” White Jew (I know its too hard to believe, but you have to read this suggestion she puts forward in her book to believe it).

Alphin suggests the ultimate in infinite prejudiced antisemitism, that a “guilty” Negro was not worthy enough to be convicted for the rape, beating and murder of a White girl Mary Phagan because he was a lowly black janitor, so they instead went after a well educated, Northern and “innocent” White Jew to satisfy their antisemitic blood thirst. Sorry for being repetitive here, but the suggestion is so insolent and insulting to ones intelligence, one can not help but feel profound rage that such ideas are being pushed as the truth to high school and college students.

After reading that insanity, it is permanently impossible to ever take Elaine Marie Alphin serious again, she lost complete credibility and makes so many of these kinds of assertions and claims in her book you can’t help but feel indignant. This book is an outrage and because it is part of the culture war against Western civilization, it can not and will not be forgiven – EVER.

Back to the Educational Standards of Our Colleges

As a full time student, it is very frustrating, but speaks of the declining educational standards in the United States and moreover that books written and published for students are not more rigorously checked enough for factual errors and abject politically correct proselytizing. Hopefully the Internet will balance out the declining educational standards created by such authors as Elaine Marie Alphin. This is coming from a full time student.

For those students who become interested in the case, they will hopefully do independent research and come to their own independent conclusions after reading the original primary sources of the Leo Frank case which are now available to the public. What would be great is if there were a book published on the Leo Frank case which was written by a dispassionate researcher and helped students to understand both sides of the case equally well, not push one side or the other. It is unlikely such a book will ever be produced and therefore this web site will serve to present both sides of the case, even the most extreme to centrist positions from the defense and prosecution sides will be presented, so that people can make their own independent intelligent judgments.

Critical thinking requires that people be able to learn and understand many different perspectives and consider why people hold them, even the most outlandish, like the nonsense that comes from Elaine Marie Alphin. Moreover, the ultimate bottom line of critical thinking, requires more than just understanding different perspectives on things, but that people who are engaged in critical thinking should have or develop the evolving mental capacity to fully think for themselves without being gullible or easily influenced by the loudest position or voice. The loudest position on the Leo Frank case, is from the defense side, but how does it stack up against the official record and common sense? It’s a wobbly house of cards – antisemitism cards.

Dear Professors “An Unspeakable Crime”: Not Worthy of High School and College Students

Concerning ‘An Unspeakable Crime: The Prosecution and Persecution of Leo Frank’ by Elaine Marie Alphin, No respectable professor knowledgeable about the Leo Frank case and not a Frankite, would have allowed this book to have been published in its current form, yet now the book is sadly making its way into many high schools and colleges in the United States for the Jewish culture war moveent and political correctness movement geared at dumbing-down America. Absolutely no mercy, this author should be added to the list of authors waging a culture war against Western civilization and this book will be added to the list of works written for the purpose of defaming and destroy Western civilization.

The unspeakable crime is that the book was ever allowed to be published. In terms of the prolific production of books by the carpel tunnel laden Elaine Marie Alphin, what ever happened to the philosophy, quality, not quantity? Elaine Marie Alphin, please stick to writing fiction books, stay as far away from non-fiction as possible, please for the sake of the children, high schoolers and college students (and the general public). You have no excuse.

The Worlds Foremost Expert on the Leo Frank Case

If there is one person perfect for reviewing any book about Leo Frank, it is Allen Koenigsberg, who is the single most knowledgeable person alive today on the case, he has mindfully focused on the deepest levels of research, source comparison, fact checking and analysis from every lens of the Leo Frank saga. He is the perfect man for reviewing, “An Unspeakable Crime, The Prosecution and Persecution of Leo Frank” by Elaine Marie Alphin.

Koenigsberg is so knowledgeable about the Leo Frank Case he has discovered numerous factual errors made by recognized Leo Frank authors who are considered the preeminent Leo Frank scholars, including Steve Oney, Leonard Dinnerstein, and others. Allen Koenigsberg, has gone to the most extreme, unimaginable and fanatical lengths to obtain primary source materials on the Leo Frank Case and analyzed them from many perspectives. Despite the fact Koenigsberg has not written a single book on the subject, he is more knowledgeable about the Leo Frank case than Steve Oney, Leonard Dinnerstein, and all the other living and deceased writers on the Leo Frank subject combined. In proof and vindication for Koenigsberg, the numerous errors in the books of Oney and Dinnerstein will likely be “quietly” corrected in future editions and releases of their books and moreover the future error corrected versions of their books will likely be published without attribution to him.

Though Elaine Marie Alphin is a lightweight in terms of academic and scholarly research, probably not worthy of being written about or reviewed, because biased Wikipedia, high schools and colleges are using her book as a “scholarly source”, it makes sense to show how depraved and low our educational system and Wikipedia have sunk in terms of using reliable sources.

Provided further below is a very short and concise book review by Allen Koenigsberg about one of the newest “treatments” of the Leo Frank Case, a book called: ‘An Unspeakable Crime: The Prosecution and Persecution of Leo Frank’.

The Above Introduction was written by MC, below Allen Koenigsberg

Now, onto the book review by Allen Koenigsberg…

Allen Koenigsberg: Book Review of ‘An Unspeakable Crime: The Prosecution and Persecution of Leo Frank’ by Elaine Marie Alphin’.

In this latest book on the Leo Frank Case (152 pages), author Elaine Alphin takes for her title a post-lynching judgment by the Mayor of Atlanta (James Woodward): “a just penalty for an unspeakable crime.” But she has recast that harsh approval of Leo’s Midnight Ride, and added, “The Prosecution and Persecution of Leo Frank.” This is clearly not a volume of subtleties and the reader is thus quickly informed of the writer’s sympathies. It is mostly about the trials and tribulations of the accused and there is little (correct) about Mary Phagan herself.

The book is aimed at young people, and Ms. Alphin notes that in all the literature on the case — despite the abundance of teenagers at so many stages of the events — there has not up to now been a retelling aimed for that audience. It is clearly written, with fine production values, with a large variety of vintage photographs, and rarely have they been reproduced so well. She is obviously entranced with this “miscarriage of justice” and has traveled widely and visited several of the major Archives – all are cited in the back along with the previous major books, and is so current that the recent PBS-TV Special (‘The People v. Leo Frank’) is mentioned.

Some of the original material was of a salacious nature, but all is handled here tastefully. The major problem is that even high-schoolers are entitled to an accurate accounting of this iconic case, and that is where this latest publication falls short. The basic narrative of the crime, and its ultimate resolution at the end of the lynchers’ rope, strikes our sensibilities to this day, and there are still many who would prefer that an innocent Leo Frank be the prime example of American justice gone wrong. But the Jury, in Georgia’s longest trial, heard all of the evidence, and the author seems unaware that the Atlanta newspapers were an excellent source for the day-to-day testimony. As she notes, the stenographic Court Transcript has been lost for some fifty years.

For reasons unknown, Ms. Alphin has Mary Anne Phagan born in Marietta, Georgia and her biological father also dying there. But Mary was born in Florence, Alabama, on June 1, 1899 and her father had died several months before she was born – she was a posthumous child. Fannie Phagan (Alphin wrongly calls her `Frannie’ throughout) raised her youngest daughter and siblings as a single parent and did not (re-)marry John Coleman until 1912 – she was essentially raised without a father. When Mary did not return home by 7pm, her step-father would indeed look for her on the evening of April 26, 1913, but the family never “called the police” as is claimed here. They would learn of their daughter’s death only after a night of waiting, 5:30 the next morning, from one of Mary’s chums.

We would not expect all material to be footnoted in a book like this, but the author (and her readers) would have benefitted from more explanatory Notes at the back. For example, on p. 11, it is claimed that Mary’s body showed bitemarks on her shoulder when found. This is rather a unique statement and was not reported at the time – actually, it derives from one book (‘To Number Our Days’ by Pierre van Paassen) published years later, in 1964, describing a visit by that author to Atlanta in 1922. Van Paassen said these marks had been “x-rayed” and were still preserved in a court folder. But who could (then or now) x-ray such indentations in human flesh? And surely van Paassen’s parallel claim (through lawyer Henry Alexander) that Leo Frank did not have a trial to overturn would make his report highly suspect. But Ms. Alphin does not question her sources, simply quoting what seems beneficial on each occasion – Oney’s book does the same with this incident (p. 617). Van Paassen would argue that Leo’s dental records (which he also says he saw in 1922) did not match the bites in Mary’s neck and hence he was innocent of the crime. But this is one man’s word at best and does not stand up to even minimal scrutiny.

Although this is (or should be) a case where the devil is in the details, they come thick and fast but are often unverified or wrong. Ms. Alphin states that Leo’s father had retired by 1907 due to a railway accident, and that the family had their basic estate of $20,000 as a result of a financial settlement. However, there is no evidence for this claim, and the 1910 Census shows Rudolph Frank still working (as a salesman). Ms. Alphin does not give a source for this “accident” but it was only mentioned once, in a publication in 1947 by Burton Rascoe, who also gave no supporting details. When Rachel Frank (Leo’s mother) testified at the trial, she explained her husband’s absence by saying that he was too “nervous” to come to Atlanta and was broken down from his work.

Several times, Ms. Alphin refers to Leo and his family as “relatively poor” (but he earned $150 per month as Superintendent of the National Pencil Co.); however, the record shows he had traveled to Europe twice (in 1905 and 1908). Leo’s wealthy uncle, Moses Frank, is cited as having fought for the Confederacy, and this factoid is often mentioned in other books on the case, but it is not true and was only introduced (again without details) by one of Leo’s lawyers (Reuben Arnold) in October of 1913. Leo would later deny it.

It is claimed that the Seligs were a “high society family” but Lucille’s father was at the time a traveling salesman for the West Disinfecting Co., having earlier dealt in various liquor products. On p. 25, Lucille “announced her pregnancy” in the Spring of 1913, but no evidence from that period is offered. This remark apparently derives from Steve Oney’s book (p. 85), where the event is instead dated months later to the early Winter of 1913, but leading to a miscarriage (cited Interviews of 1986 and 1998). Oddly, in all the voluminous correspondence between Leo and Lucille (and many other family members), there is not a single reference (oblique or otherwise) to this lost ‘offspring’ (a tragic result if true). Only 73 years later is this supposed ‘miscarriage’ mentioned.

When one is truly immersed in a murder case, even decades after the fact, one can look at original documents with a new eye. For example, Ms. Alphin seems to have used some of the unpublished Pinkerton Reports generated by the NPCo.’s hiring of that detective agency. But Oney did so as well, and both report that two men in the factory, Ely Burdett and James Gresham, knew more than they were telling. These two indeed worked at the factory, but never testified; however, their names were actually Earl Burdett and James Graham. In a remarkable coincidence, their fathers were in the Forsyth Street building just minutes before Mary was killed.

I could go on…. It is claimed that the ADL was founded as a result of Leo’s lynching in 1915, but the newspaper backing up this assertion (illustrating the caption) is dated two years before, October 1913. Even then, the ADL did not state that it was established because of the crime, the trial, OR the lynching. Standard dates, such as the original Murder Indictment of May 24th (1913) and the lynching of Aug 17 (1915), are mangled and mis-cited.

The Jury had to confront many other details, some of which are omitted here. For example, Newt Lee had been told the day before (by Leo himself) to report early for his watchman’s duties on Saturday, 4pm instead of the usual 5. But when Newt dutifully appeared, on time and after confronting a locked door, Leo sent him away, telling him not to remain in the factory, and only come back at 6pm (an hour later than usual).

Having said all of this, can we surmise more accurately than those who came before us, what really happened on Confederate Memorial Day in 1913? Solicitor Dorsey would argue that it was a crime of passion, that Mary stood up for her Southern honor, and that Leo violently reacted to her refusal. Was that scenario indeed the truth? And was Dorsey (and others) driven mainly by anti-Semitism? Even Steven Hertzberg, author of a well-regarded history of the Jews of Atlanta, exculpates him from this charge. Tom Watson’s diatribes are mentioned and rightly excoriated, but Watson did not publish anything at all on the case until a year after the crime. And Jim Conley? Alphin makes him out to be a Machiavellian character, intelligent and articulate when he wanted, and folksy and charming at other times. Anyone who has studied the case for a while will surely acknowledge that Conley lied about several of his actions that day, but what was really being concealed? Did Jim bear a greater responsibility than he admitted, or was he instead the sole killer, lurking so close to his boss’ office? Why did Leo not permit cross-examination after his own long-courtroom Statement – under Georgia Law, since 1868 (Title VI), it WAS allowed (unsworn), IF the defendant agreed.

It is likely that the case will continue to be debated for a long time, even by anonymous reviewers. But those who argue it and present their best efforts on either side are encouraged to get the details right. First the facts, then the interpretations, not the other way around.


It has been suggested (on the Internet, right here!) that in matters of accuracy, a publisher’s Fact-Checking Dept is much more valid that any Reviewer’s comments. Here are the relevant words:

“…the type of fact-checking that a publisher requires before releasing a book such as this, so I’ve got a lot more faith in the book’s sources than his (the Reviewer’s).”

Alas, anyone who works in publishing knows that proper “fact checking” is a lost art, and physical books are as prone to errors as the world wide web. Let us look then at some “facts” that the publisher of ‘An Unspeakable Crime’ has (presumably) verified:

On p. 59, the remarks of Wm Mincey are, shall we say, “misrepresented.” Rosser had claimed he would implicate Conley with a confession from the day of the crime, but Mincey never testified, and the author’s claim of “several women” to confirm it evaporated. So who were these women? The author doesn’t tell us. Even Leo’s lawyers realized that Mincey made it up and refused to put him under oath.

On p. 76, it is argued that Mrs Selig (Lucille’s mother) was ill and hence did not discuss the girl’s murder (at home, over the weekend). But Mrs Selig played Bridge and Poker on those 3 successive nights (for hours) and the illness was never mentioned or specified at the time. So what’s the source – only a lawyer’s convenient claim? And Lucille’s supposed pregnancy? That was only mentioned by a family member in 1998, some 85 years later. Does that make it true?

On p. 131, the author claims that the modern musical ‘Parade’ was written in the year 2000. Yet it opened on Broadway (in NYC) in 1998. Ah, but the Publisher must have checked… and yet the information is still wrong (by two years).

The book claims (on pp. 48 & 138) that Leo Frank was formally indicted for murder on May 23, 1913. But he was indicted on May 24th. So who is right? Guess.

The author states that Alonzo Mann died on March 19, 1985 – only off by a day – he died on March 18th. Is the author or publisher aware that Mann lied about his age (by a full year) when he enlisted in the US Army? I don’t think they bothered to check.

On p. 111, the author quotes a letter from Leo’s niece Eleanore Stern without commenting on how remarkable it must have been for a 3-year-old child to write it. No one checks birthdates any more?

On p. 120, the author even gets wrong the date of the lynching, claiming it occurred on the morning of August 16, 1915. Who was asleep at the switch? The correct date of Aug 17 is then given on p. 139. Teenagers must like to have a choice…

Why the author repeatedly calls Leo Frank “relatively poor” remains a mystery. He was the head of a factory that employed 170 people and was the highest paid man there ($150 per month).

There are three pages of Source Notes (at the back), but no formal footnoting whatever. As a result, we have on p. 49 the unsourced claim that Jim Conley was on the chain gang twice, and once for attempted armed robbery. But Conley’s court records were introduced at the Trial, and this is not supported. It would have been helpful for the reader to know where the author got her “facts.”

There are many other examples of this basic problem in the book, and they may even seem petty to some. But if a work tries to be fair and accurate, it demands the highest standards, for both young and old.

Even teenagers should learn, by example, how to do history right. And that includes being careful with sources, citations, and the use of scholarly material. We don’t want people to think (on p. 10), because of some presumed ‘fact checking department,’ that Mary Phagan was really born in Marietta, Georgia. Census records (and Phagan family documents) show clearly that she was born in Florence, Alabama.

This case can indeed be discussed at the dinner table, and on the Internet as well. But first comes the hard part: genuine historical research. Then we can make up our minds as to the likely culprit. First the facts, then the interpretations. However, I must say that it is wonderful to see youngsters still interested in the past.

“I never truly understood why Alonzo Mann’s belated statements (post-1982) were considered significant by anyone.”

This is a fine point to be sure. But Conley had testified that he moved the body (at Frank’s behest) inside the factory elevator, directly from the second floor to the basement. Alonzo claimed that he came upon Conley carrying the body while on the first floor, and visible to him when supposedly returning to the building.

It does seem rather odd that Conley would leave the front door open if he were truly carrying the body of a white girl – an invitation to sure disaster in 1913 Atlanta.

Alonzo claimed at the Trial that he had called Herbert Schiff’s home twice that morning to remind the missing paymaster to report to work. But Herb never came in and we are left with another small mystery – why did Schiff (who prided himself on his perfect attendance record) not come to work that Sat morning? He would insist at the Trial that he “overslept.”

Mann had only been working at the factory for three weeks when all of this occurred. By 1982, Alonzo was somewhat alone (and lonely), having lost his wife (recently) and losing his only son years before. We can merely speculate why he suddenly came forth with such an odd story, nearly 70 years later. After all, back in April 1913, he reported back to work on Monday the 28th when Conley was still employed. If he truly told his parents what he saw, why would they allow him to return to the premises where he had been (supposedly) threatened with death?

The solution to this crime is one that no one will want.

References:, Unspeakable Crime Review

An Unspeakable Crime: The Prosecution and Persecution of Leo Frank
By Elaine Marie Alphin Retrieved February 2011.

Closing questions by MC:

The Questions to Ask About An Unspeakable Crime, The Prosecution and Persecution of Leo Frank by Elaine Marie Alphin:

What do you call a book which makes warped and racist blood-libel smears against Southern Euro-Americans which can not be substantiated by any genuine and reliable evidence? What do you call a book which perpetuates century-old lies, half-baked rumors and cheesy hoaxes as the truth? What do you call a book that cherry picks and re-writes history, giving a dishonest version of a well documented murder trial?

These are the questions we ask people who are interested in the Leo Frank case, that are capable of reading between the lies, have not been fooled by the Frankite position on the Leo Frank case, or suffer from self-deception tendencies.

Fair Usage Law

April 12, 2011   Posted in: Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, B'nai B'rith, Holocaust, Holocaust Denial, Holocaust Revisionism, Jewish, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism, Leo Frank, Multicultural News, Race Relations, Racism News, Racist News, White Nationalism, White Supremacism, Zionism  Comments Closed

Leo Frank Trial For the Murder of Mary Phagan Testimony Analysis

Leo Frank Sketched on the Witness Stand August 18, 1913

Twelve of the Thirteen Jurymen

The Leo Frank Trial, July 28, 1913: Photo taken from behind the left side of the Jury. The Thirteenth Juror, Judge Leonard Strickland Roan (upper right), Leo Frank (center) Flanked by his Wife Lucy Selig Frank (left center) and his Mother Rachel Rae-Ray Jacobs Frank (right center). Newt Lee (far right) is seated on the witness stand, the Night Watch is being examined by solicitor general Hugh Manson Dorsey (far left).

Brief Introduction and Analysis, Followed by the Official Leo Frank Trial Testimony Statement of August 18, 1913:

Creating too many inconsistencies, making statements which seem to defy logic and common sense, or making unsubstantiated claims which easily tend to intuitively trigger peoples bullshit detectors can tend to damage ones credibility in terms of ones believability, trust factor and reliability. Once you lose your credibility in a trial it is very difficult if not impossible to regain it given the time variable.

Leo Frank’s Ever Changing Stories

There were a number of things that Leo changed between different occasions during police and detective interviews, Pinkerton interviews, Inquest testimony and his murder trial statement, which would tarnish his credibility. Once you lose your credibility, people will take other peoples word over yours when it comes down to a situation where it is their word vs. your word. At the trial there were many situations where it came down to Leo Frank’s word vs. more the word of more than a dozen of his employees and associates.

On Credibility:
at the Coroner’s Inquest, Frank said that he met his wife and mother-in-law on their way out to the Opera when he came home for lunch. At Frank’s murder trial, he said that he had lunch with them after arriving home. He apparently wanted to appear as arriving home sooner than he had originally said. Even in his Monday, April 28, 1913, statement known as “State’s Exhibit B”, Frank said he didn’t leave the factory until 1:10 PM. Minolas Affidavit, “State’s Exhibit J”, put Leo Frank leaving the factory at 1:20PM, a contradiction of ten minutes. Ten minutes might not seem like a lot of time, but in a murder trial where every second counts, minutes become immeasurably precious. Minola’s affidavit also said Leo Frank did not eat lunch and that he left the home after 5 or so minutes, whereas, Leo Frank claimed he had spent nearly a half hour at his home eating a very late lunch with his family.

There are numerous inconsistencies, some will need to be discussed at length.

The Lynchpin of the Trial: The Infamous “unconscious” Bathroom Visit from 12:05 to 12:10

In State’s Exhibit B and at the inquest, Leo Frank said specifically that he hadn’t used the bathroom all day on Saturday. Coroner Donehoo the Inquest Judge of the Inquest Jury seemed a little incredulous, as well he should have been. It seemed to defy common sense, observers are asking “What normal person doesn’t go to the bathroom all day?”

After Monteen Stover’s witness testimony at the murder trial had cracked wide open Leo Frank’s alibi, for the first time in 3 months a newfangled bathroom revelation would be revealed. Leo Frank would counter the evidence and testimony of Monteen Stover, by saying he might have “unconsciously” gone to use the bathroom in the metal room during the very time of the murder occurred. Because Leo Frank also described the entire factory as virtually empty, except for 2 people on the top floor banging away with hammers, removing a partition to open up the space on the 4th floor, observers began asking common sense questions like, “who else could have killed Phagan in the second floor metal room?” if it wasn’t Leo Frank, than who? and if it was someone else, why didn’t Leo Frank hear the scream?

The Cosmos Became One Universally Conscious Legal Eye and Mind in an Event that Seldom Ever Happens in Human History

That moment in Frank’s 4-hour statement was the hushed spine tingling crescendo of his trial testimony and the ultimate linchpin moment of truth, for the entire case would become Frank’s “unconscious” bathroom visit to the metal room from 12:05 to 12:10. It would be perceived and described by those paying attention as the Leo Frank virtual murder confession, because this first-time disclosure was perceived by observers, prosecution councilors, Tom Watson, the Judge, the Jury and two years of appellate review, as an inescapable admission of guilt, because the entire prosecution argument was successfully based on spending 29 days trying to prove to the Judge and Jury that Leo Frank murdered Mary Phagan in the second floor metal room which was just down the hall from where Leo Frank worked and the precise place Mary Phagan worked. Leo Frank by his own words had just pitched the prosecution a Grand Slam Home Run. The statement by Frank was just short of him actually coming out with it and saying, “I Leo Frank Murdered Mary Phagan in the Metal Room, Between 12:03 and 12:15”. Instead the Leo Frank statement became a murder confession by proxy. How many times in U.S. Legal history does the prime suspect make a virtual murder confession on the witness stand at a capital murder trial.

Shocking Draw Dropping Blunder

Frank’s shocking jaw dropping blunder helped the prosecution which was already far ahead in the case essentially guarantee it won the case one week before the Judge and Jury would give its unanimous verdict of guilt, 13 to 0. Why Leo Frank made such a slip up blunder is really hard to comprehend or figure out, but he had personally sealed his own doom in that very moment. Be sure to read the closing arguments of Hugh M. Dorsey and Frank Arthur Hooper (available in American State Trials Volume X 1918), followed by Tom Watson’s, September, 1915, “Jew Pervert” article, in Watson’s Magazine to get the delicious details of the Leo Frank murder confession.

Mary Phagan Who?!

When the police first visited Leo Frank at his house on the morning of the April 27th 1913, he fully denied knowing any Mary Phagan and said he would have to check his log book, even though Phagan worked on the same floor as Leo Frank for a full calendar year, having been hired in April 1912 and she was one of only four girls working in the metal room / tipping department. Frank would also pass immediately by Mary Phagans work station each day, to go to the bathroom, because Phagans work station was 2-3 feet away from the bathroom door, which was the ONLY bathroom on the second floor. Given that Leo Frank drank a lot of coffee, it is likely he might have gone to the bathroom more than once in a typical 11 to 12 hour day. Ask 100 people who drink coffee, if drinking coffee is a diuretic and therefore makes you tend go to the bathroom a lot more often and see what the results come out numerically in terms on their answers. How many times did Leo Frank pass Mary Phagan each day on the way to the bathroom? On the low end, perhaps 150 to 200, on the high end, perhaps 300 to 400+. What happened psychologically to Leo Frank during these hundreds of passes inspired by natural body urges.

Leo Frank Paid Off Mary Phagan About 50x

It was a really odd thing for Leo Frank to deny knowing Mary Phagan, because it was determined after deeper investigation that Frank paid and logged her salary more than 50 times in his account books, across more than 50 weeks during the work year, within a about a calendar year of Mary Phagans employment. It is estimated Mary Phagan invested more than 2,500+ hours laboring at the sweatshop factory, if you multiply a typical 55 hour week by 50 weeks.

Mary Phagan was part of a final production major dependency.

Mary was not in an obscure irrelevant position at the plant, she worked in one of the most crucial capacities, in the final production of pencils at the National Pencil Company, she was a tipper and thus she inserted the erasers into the brass metal bands that were attached to the pencils. She and four other girls worked in the metal room and if there was no metal, and thus no bands on the pencils, then there were essentially no erasers to put into the pencils, and thus the pencils could not be completed and that’s the bottom line. No pencils, No Sales, No Money. Observers are asking is this very successful pencil company which has huge demand from clients across the country all of a sudden going out of business or is the ordered brass likely to come at some point in the very near future?

Four girls were laid off as a result of their being no metal, and therefore no small brass bands around the pencils meant the completed pencil supply would run out, it was only a matter of time. Leo Frank would surely know the names of the four girls on his office floor that would be temporarily laid off wouldn’t he? He did after all meticulously oversee the final production, supplies acquisition and payroll. Was the running out of supplies a minor affair at the factory? Likely not. The pencil manufacturing plant under Leo Frank’s supervision wasn’t about to just shut down because of a temporary shortage of metal and they certainly weren’t going to fire the “tippers” and then hire new employees to train from scratch once the supplies came back in… The supplies become a very important factor in the metal room. Seeing if they were there became an issue of contention at the murder trial.

Did Leo Frank get caught in a lie about not knowing Mary Phagan? and Observers are asking why was he trying so hard to claim he didn’t know Mary Phagan and distance himself from her?

Frank would deny that he knew Jim Conley was at the factory that day too, but other people would swear they saw Leo Frank and Jim Conley together on the day of the murder. Ironically, Alonzo Mann would describe seeing Jim Conley lounging there all morning long 70 years later, contradicting Leo Frank who said he didn’t even know Jim Conley was there that day.

Leo Frank would deny knowing one of his whoring buddies and one of the girls who was regularly whoring at the factory, Leo Frank would get caught in a lie about that too.

Further analysis after the official statement of Leo Frank….

The Testimony Leo M. Frank gave to the Court and Jury on August 18th 1913

LEO M. FRANK, the Defendant, made the following statement:

Gentlemen of the Jury: In the year 1884, on the 17th day of April, I was born in Cuero, Texas. At the age of three months, my parents took me to Brooklyn, New York, and I remained in my home until I came South, to Atlanta, to make my home here. I attended the public schools of Brooklyn, and prepared for college, in Pratt Institute, Brooklyn, New York. In the fall of 1902, I entered Cornell University, where I took the course in mechanical engineering, and graduated after four years, in June, 1906. I then accepted a position as draftsman with the B. F. Stur-tevant Company, of Hyde Park, Massachusetts. After remaining with this firm about 6 months, I returned once more to my home in Brooklyn, where I accepted a position as testing engineer and draftsman with the National Meter Company of Brooklyn, New York. I remained in this position until about the middle of October, 1907, when, at the invitation of some citizens of Atlanta, I came South to confer with them in reference to the starting and operation of a pencil factory, to be located in Atlanta. After remaining here for about two weeks, I returned once more to New York, where I engaged passage and went to Europe. I remained in Europe nine months. During my sojourn abroad, I studied the pencil business, and looked after the erection and testing of the machinery which had been previously contracted for.

The first part of August, 1908, I returned once more to America, and immediately came South to Atlanta, which has remained my home ever since. I married in Atlanta, an Atlanta girl, Miss Lucile Selig. The major portion of my married life has been spent at the home of my parents in law, Mr. and Mrs. Selig, at 68 East Georgia Avenue. My married life has been exceptionally happy-indeed, it has been the happiest days of my life.

My duties as superintendent of the National Pencil Company were in general, as follows:

I had charge of the technical and mechanical end of the factory, looking after the operations and seeing that the product was turned out in quality equal to the standard which is set by our competitors.

I looked after the installation of new machinery and the purchase of new machinery.

In addition to that, I had charge of the office work at the Forsyth Street plant, and general supervision of the lead plant, which is situated on Bell Street.

I looked after the purchase of the raw materials which are used in the manufacture of pencils, kept up with the market of those materials, where the prices fluctuated, so that the purchases could be made to the best possible advantage.

On Friday, April 25th, I arrived at the pencil factory on Forsyth Street, at about seven o’clock – my usual time. I immediately started in on my regular routine work, looking over papers that I had laid out the evening before, and attending to any other work that needed my special attention that morning.

At about 9:30 1 went over to the office of the General Manager and Treasurer, Mr. Sigmond Montag, whose office is at Montag Brothers, on Nelson Street. I stayed over there a short time, got what papers and mail had arrived over there-all the mail for the Pencil Company comes over there to their office-I got that mail and brought it back to Forsyth St. I then separated the mail and continued along my usual routine duties in the office on Forsyth Street. At about eleven o’clock, Mr. Schiff handed me the pay roll books covering the plants at Forsyth Street and at Bell Street, for me to check over to see that the amounts and the extensions were correct. Of course, this work has to be very carefully done, so that the proper amount of money is drawn from the bank. This checking took me until about 12:30 P. M., when I made out the amount on a slip of paper that I wished to have drawn from the bank, went over to Montag Brothers, had the checks drawn and signed by Mr. Sigmond Montag, after which I returned to Forsyth Street and got the leather bag in which I usually carry the money and coin from the bank, and gotthe slip on which I had written the various denominations in which I desired to have the pay roll made out, accompanied by Mr. Herbert Schiff, my assistant, went to the Atlanta National Bank, where I had the checks cashed. Returning to the factory, in company with Mr. Schiff, I placed this bag containing the money for the pay roll in the safe and locked it. At this time, my wife called for me and in her company and that of Mr. Schiff, I went over to the car and took my wife home to lunch. After lunch, I returned to the factory and took a tour for about an hour through the factory, after which I then assisted Mr. Schiff in checking over the amounts on the pay envelopes-checking the money against the duplicate slips that we had gotten from the bank, to see that the correct amount had been given us, and I helped Mr. Schiff checking over the money and in filling the envelopes. This took us approximately until a quarter to six, to fill the envelopes, seal them and place them in the box that we have over there, with two hundred pigeon holes, and which we call our pay-off box. While I was so occupied with Mr. Schiff in filling these envelopes, a young man by the name of Wright, who had helped us out as a clerk in the office during the past week, came in and I paid him in cash, as Mr. Schiff, I found, neglected to put his name on the pay roll; I just made out a ticket for the amount of money he drew and put it in the cash box and charged it to the cash box and not to the pay roll. At a quarter to six, payment of the help took place, Mr. Schiff taking all the envelopes that were due the help who had worked from April 18th to 24th, inclusive, out to the pay roll window, which is entirely outside of either my inner office or the outer office and out in the hall beyond-a little window that we have built. I sat in my office checking over the amount of money which had been left over. This amount was equal-or should have been equal, to the amount that had been loaned out in advance to help and had been deducted when we were filling the envelopes. In checking this amount over-as near as I can recollect it, there was about $15 – I noticed a shortage of about $1.20-something over a dollar, at any rate, and I kept checking to see if I couldn’t find the shortage, going over the various deductions that had been made, but I couldn’t locate it that evening. After the help had been paid off, during which time as I sat in my office, no one came into my office who asked me for a pay envelope or for the pay envelope of another. After the paying off of the help had taken place, Mr. Schiff returned and handed me the envelopes which were left over, bound with an elastic band, and I put them in the cash compartment-which is different from the cash box-a certain cash compartment in the safe, the key to which is kept in my cash box. I placed them in the safe, and Mr. Schiff busied himself clearing up the books and the files and placing them in the safe. While he was doing that, I placed in the time clocks, the slips to be used next day. I took out the two time slips which were dated April 25th, which had been used by the help on Friday, April 25th, and took two slips out to the clock, the ends of which I creased down so that they would fit into the cylinder inside of the clocks; and I noticed that I had neglected to stamp the date on them, so I just wrote on them” April 26, 1913′”-in other words, I put the date of the day following, which is the way we usually do with the time clock. After placing these slips in the clock and bringing those back in the office, Mr. Schiff and myself left for home, it being about 6:30. I neglected to state that while I was sitting in the office, Mr. Schiff was paying off Newt Lee-these are the two time slips I took out-

Gentlemen, as I was saying, these two slips that had April 26, 1913, written at the bottom are the two slips I put in the clock on the evening of Friday, April 25th, to be used on the day following, which, of course, was April 26th. I neglected to mention also, in going over my duties at the factory, that Mr. N. V. Darley was superintendent of labor and of manufacture, it fell to his duty to engage the help and to distribute the
help throughout the plant, and to discharge the help in case it was necessary; it was also due to him whether their wages were raised or not.

In other words, he was the man that came directly in contact with the help. Moreover, he saw that the goods progressed through the factory without stopping, easily, quickly and economically manufactured. On Friday evening, I got home at about 6:30, had my supper, washed up, then went with my wife to the residence of her uncle, Mr. Carl Wolfsheimer, on Washington Street, where my wife and Mr. Wolfsheimer and his wife and myself played a game of auction bridge for the balance of
the evening. My wife and I returned home and retired at about eleven
o’clock. On Saturday April 26th, I rose between seven and seven-thirty
and leisurely washed and dressed, had my breakfast, caught a Washing-
ton Street or Georgia Avenue car-I don’t recall which-at the corner
of Washington and Georgia Avenue, and arrived at the factory on For-
syth Street, the Forsyth Street plant, at about 8:30, is my recollection.

On my arrival at the factory, I found Mr. Holloway, the day watch-
man, at his usual place, and I greeted him in my usual way; I found
Alonzo Mann, the office boy, in the outer office, I took off my coat and hat
and opened my desk and opened the safe, and assorted the various books
and files and wire trays containing the various papers that were placed
there the evening before, and distributed them in their proper places
about the office. I then went out to the shipping room and conversed a
few minutes with Mr. Irby, who at that time was shipping clerk, concern-
ing the work which he was going to do that morning, though, to the best
of my recollection, we did no shipping that day, due to the fact that the
freight offices were notreceiving any shipments, due to its being a holiday.
I returned to my office, and looked through the papers, and assorted out
those which I was going to take over on my usual trip to the General
Manager’s office that morning; I then turned to the invoices (Defend-
ant’s Exhibits 25 to 34) covering shipments which were made by the
pencil factory on Thursday, April 24th, and which were typewritten and
figured out on Friday, April 25th, by Miss Eubanks, the stenographer
who stays in my office; she had hurried through with her work that day,
previous to going home, so she could spend the holiday in the country
where she lived; I didn’t get to checking over those invoices covering
these shipments on Friday, due to the fact that Mr. Schiff and
myself were completely occupied the entire day until we left the fac-
tory, with the pay roll, so naturally, as these invoices covering shipments
which were made on April 25th, ought to have been sent to the customers,
I got right to work in checking them. Now, I have those invoices here
(Defendant’s Exhibits 25 to 34); these papers have not been exhibited
before, but I will explain them. You have seen some similar to these. Of
all the mathematical work in the office of the pencil factory, this very
operation, this very piece of work that I have now before me, is the most
important, it is the invoice covering shipments that are sent to custom-
ers, and it is very important that the prices be correct, that the amount
of goods shipped agrees with the amount which is on the invoice, and
that the terms are correct, and that the address is correct, and also in
some cases, I don’t know whether there is one like that here, there are
freight deductions, all of which have to be very carefully checked over and
looked into, because I know of nothing else that exasperates a customer
more than to receive invoices that are incorrect; moreover, on this morn-
ing, this operation of this work took me longer than it usually takes an
ordinary person to complete the checking of the invoices, because usually
one calls out and the other checks, but I did this work all by myself that
morning, and as I went over these invoices, I noticed that Miss Eubanks,
the day before, had evidently sacrificed accuracy to speed, and every one
of them was wrong, so I had to go alone over the whole invoice, and I had
to make the corrections as I went along, figure them out, extend them,
make deductions for freight, if there were any to be made, and then get
the total shipments, because, when these shipments were made on April
24th, which was Thursday, this was the last day of our fiscal week, it
was on this that I made that financial sheet which I make out every Sat-
urday afternoon, as has been my custom, it is on this figure of total ship-
ments I make that out, so necessarily it would be the total shipments for
the week that had to be figured out, and I had to figure every invoice and
arrange it in its entirety so I could get a figure that I would be able to
use. The first order here is from Hilton, Hart & Kern Company, Detroit,
Mich., here is the original order which is in the file of our office, here is
the transcription which was made on March 28th, it hadn’t been shipped
until April 24th, this customer ordered 100 gross of No. 2 of a certain
pencil stamped “The Packard Motor Car Company,” 125 gross of No. 3
and 50 gross of No. 4; those figures represent the grade or hardness of
the lead in the pencils; we shipped 100 gross of No. 2, 1111/4 gross of No.
3 and 49 gross of No. 4, the amount of the shipment of No. 3 is short of
the amount the customer ordered, therefore, there is a suspense shipment
card attached to it, as you will notice, the first shipment on this order
took place on April 24th, it was a special order and a special imprint on
it, and therefore, the length of time, order received at the factory on
March 18th. In invoicing shipments made by the Pencil Company, our
method is as follows: We make out in triplicate, the first or original is
a white sheet, and that goes to the customers; the second is a pink sheet
and that goes over to the General Manager’s office and is filed serially,
that is, chronologically; one date on the top, and from that the charges
are made on the ledger, and the last sheet or third sheet is a yellow sheet,
which is here, those are placed in a file in my office, and are filed alpha-
betically. These yellow sheets I have here are not the yellow sheets I
had that day, because they have since been corrected, I am just taking
the corrected sheets, I made the corrections. Miss Eubanks returned on
Monday and saw the corrections I had made in pencil on the white sheets,
and made another set of triplicates afterwards, and I presume made
them correct, I was not there, and I don’t know. These orders are re-
spectively Hilton, Hart & Kern Company, L. W. Williams & Company
of Fort Worth, Tex., the Fort Smith Paper Company of Fort Smith,
Ark., S. 0. Barnum & Sons, Buffalo, N. Y., S. T. Warren & Company,
South Clarke St., Chicago, Ill., S. H. Kress Company, warehouse at 91
Franklin St., New York, N. Y.; there is an order that we have to be par-
ticularly careful with, because all these five and ten cent syndicates have
a great deal of red tape. These invoices, though they were typed on
April 25th, Friday, were shipped on April 24th, and bear date at the top
on which the shipment was made, irrespective of the date on which these
are typewritten; in other words, the shipments took place April 24th,
and that date is at the top typewritten, and a stamp by the office boy at
the bottom, April 24th. Among other things that the S. H. Kress Com-
pany demands is that on their orders, you must state whether or not it is
complete, the number of the store, and by which railroad the shipment
goes. Here is one from F. W. Woolworth & Company, Frankfort, Ind.,
take the following illustrations: Less 95 lbs., at 86 cents per hundred
lbs., freight credit; in other words, we had to find out what the weight of
that shipment was, and figure out the amount of credit that they were
entitled to on the basis of 86 cents for every 100 lbs. shipped. Then here
comes one to Gottlieb & Sons, one of our large distributors in New York,
N. Y., they have a freight allowance of 86 per hundred lbs. also, and their
shipment amounted to 618 lbs., on Thursday, April 24th. That was a
shipment of throwouts, or jobs.

I started on this work, as I said, and had gone into it in some detail,
to show you the carefulness with which the work must be carried out, I
was at work on this one at about 9 o’clock, as near as I remember, Mr.
Darley and Mr. Wade Campbell, the inspector of the factory, came into
the outer office, and I stopped what work I was doing that day on this
work, and went to the outer office and chatted with Mr. Darley and Mr.
Campbell for ten or fifteen minutes, and conversed with them, and joked
with them, and while I was talking to them, I should figure about 9:15
o’clock, a quarter after nine, Miss Mattie Smith came in and asked me
for her pay envelope, and for that of her sister-in-law, and I went to the
safe and unlocked it and got out the package of envelopes that Mr. Schiff
had given me the evening before, and gave her the required two envel-
opes, and placed the remaining envelopes that I got out, that were left
over from the day previous, in my cash box, where I would have them
handy in case others might come in, and I wanted to have them near at
hand without having to jump up and go to the safe every time in order to
get them; I keep my cash box in the lower drawer on the left hand side
of my desk. After Miss Smith had gone away with the envelopes, a few
minutes, Mr. Darley came back with the envelopes, and pointed out to
me an error in one of them, either the sister-in-law of Miss Mattie Smith,
she had gotten too much money, and when I had deducted the amount
that was too much, that amount balanced the pay roll, the error in the
pay roll that I had noticed the night before, and left about five or ten
cents over; those things usually right themselves anyhow. I continued
to work on those invoices, when I was interrupted by Mr. Lyons, Super-
intendent of Montag Brothers, coming in, he brought me a pencil dis-
play box that we call the Panama assortment box, and he left it with me,
he seemed to be in a hurry, and I told him if he would wait for a minute
I would go over to Montag Brothers with him, as I was going over there;
and he stepped out to the outer office, and as soon as I come to a conveni-
ent stopping place in the work, I put the papers I had made out to take
with me in a folder, and put on my hat and coat and went to the outer of-
fice, when I found that Mr. Lyons had already left. Mr. Darley left with
me, about 9:35 or 9:40, and we passed out of the factory, and stopped at
the corner of Hunter and Forsyth Streets, where we each had a drink at
Cruickshank’s soda water fount, where I bought a package of Favorite
cigarettes, and after we had our drink, we conversed together there for
some time, and I lighted a cigarette and told him good-bye, as he went in
one direction, and I went on my way then to Montag Brothers, where I
arrived, as nearly as may be, at 10 o’clock, or a little after; on entering
Montag Brothers, I spoke to Mr. Sig Montag, the General Manager of
the business, and then the papers which I collected, which lay on his
desk, I took the papers out and transferred them into the folder, and
took the other papers out, which I had in my folder, and distributed them
at the proper places at Montag Brothers, I don’t know just what papers
they were, but I know there were several of them, and I went on chatting
with Mr. Montag, and I spoke to Mr. Matthews, and Mr. Cross, of the
Montag Brothers, and after that I spoke to Miss Hattie Hall, the Pencil
Company’s stenographer, who stays at Montag Brothers, and asked her
to come over and help me that morning; as I have already told you, prac-
tically every one of these invoices was wrong, and I wanted her to help
me on that work, and in dictating the mail; in fact, I told her I had
enough work to keep her busy that whole afternoon if she would agree
to stay, but she said she didn’t want to do that, she wanted to have at
least half a holiday on Memorial Day. I then spoke to several of the
Montag Brothers’ force on business matters and other matters, and af-
ter that I saw Harry Gottheimer, the sales manager of the National Pen-
cil Company, and I spoke at some length with him in reference to several
of his orders that were in work at the factory, there were two of his or-
ders especially that he laid special stress on, as he said he desired to ship
them right away, and I told him I didn’t know how far along in process
of manufacture the orders had proceeded, but if he would go back with
me then I would be very glad to look for it, and then tell him when we
could ship them, and he said he couldn’t go right away, he was busy, but
he would come a little later, and I told him I would be glad for him to
come over later that morning or in the afternoon, as I would be there
until about 1 o’clock in the morning, and after 3. I then took my folder
and returned to Forsyth St. alone. On arrival at Forsyth St., I went to
second or office floor, and I noticed the clock, it indicated 5 minutes after
eleven. I saw Mr. Holloway there, and I told him he could go as soon as
he got ready, and he told me he had some work to do for Harry Denham
and Arthur White, who were doing some repair work up on the top floor,
and he would do the work first. I then went into the office. I went in the
outer office, and found Miss Hattie Hall, who had preceded me over from
Montag’s, and another lady who introduced herself to me as Mrs. Arthur
White, and the office boy; Mrs. Arthur White wanted to see her husband,
and I went into the inner office, and took off my coat and hat, and removed
the papers which I had brought back from Montag Brothers in the folder,
and put the folder away. It was about this time that I heard the elevator
motor start up and the circular saw in the carpenter shop, which is right
next to it, running. I heard it saw through some boards, which I sup-
posed was the work that Mr. Holloway had referred to. I separated the
orders from the letters which required answers, and took the other ma-
terial, the other printed matter that didn’t need immediate attention, I
put that in various trays, and I think it was about this time that I con-
cluded I would look and see how far along the reports were, which I use
in getting up my financial report every Saturday afternoon, and to my
surprise I found that the sheet which contains the record of pencils
packed for the week didn’t include the report for Thursday, the day the
fiscal week ends; Mr. Schiff evidently, in the stress of getting up, figur-
ing out and filling the envelopes for the pay roll on Friday, instead of,
as usual, on Friday and half the day Saturday, had evidently not had
enough time. I told Alonzo Mann, the office boy, to call up Mr. Schiff,
and find out when he was coming down, and Alonzo told me the answer
came back over the telephone that Mr. Schiff would be right down, so I
didn’t pay any more attention to that part of the work, because I ex-
pected Mr. Schiff to come down any minute. It was about this time that
Mrs. Emma Clarke Freeman and Miss Corinthia Hall, two of the girls
who worked on the fourth floor, came in, and asked permission to go up-
stairs and get Mrs. Freeman’s coat, which I readily gave, and I told them
at the same time to tell Arthur White that his wife was downstairs. A
short time after they left my office, two gentlemen came in, one of them a
Mr. Graham, and the other the father of a boy by the name of Earle Bur-
dette; these two boys had gotten into some sort of trouble during the
noon recess the day before, and were taken down to police headquarters,
and of course didn’t get their envelopes the night before, and I gave the
required pay envelopes to the two fathers, and chatted with them at some
length in reference to the trouble their boys had gotten into the day pre-
vious. And just before they left the office, Mrs. Emma Clark Freeman
and Miss Corinthia Hall came into my office and asked permission to use
the telephone, and they started to the telephone, during which time these
two gentlemen left my office. But previous to that, when these two gen-
tlemen came in, I had gotten Miss Hattie Hall in and dictated what mail
I had to give her, and she went out and was typewriting the mail; before
these girls finished their telephoning, Miss Hattie Hall had finished the
typewriting of those letters and brought them to my desk to read over
and sign, which work I started. Miss Clark and Miss Hall left the office,
as near as may be, at a quarter to twelve, and went out, and I started to
work reading over the letters and signing the mail. I have the carbon
copies (Defendant’s Exhibit 8) of these letters which Miss Hall type-
wrote for me that morning here, attached to the letters from the custom-
ers, or the parties whose letter I was answering; they have been intro-
duced, and have been identified. I see them here-Southern Bargain
House, there was a letter from Shode-Lombard, dye makers, 18 Frank-
lin Street, the American Die Lock Company, Newark, N. J., another let-
ter to Shode-Lombard Company being in New York, one to Henry Diss-
ton & Sons, in reference to a knife which they sent us to be tried out, a
circular knife, one to J. B. McCrory, Five & Ten Cent Syndicate, one to
the Pullman Company, of Chicago, Ill., in reference to their special im-
print pencils, which they were asking us to ship as soon as possible, one
to A. J. Sassener, another die maker; these letters are copies of the ones
I dictated that morning; I signed these letters, and while I was signing,
ag Miss Hall brought these letters in to be signed, I gave her the orders
(Defendant’s Exhibits 14 to 24) which had been received by me that
morning at Montag ‘s office, over at the General Manager’s office, I gave
her these orders to be acknowledged. I will explain our method of ac-
knowledgment of orders in a few minutes. I continued signing the let-
ters and separating the carbon copies from the letters, and putting them
in various places, I folded the letters and sealed the letters, and of course
I told Miss Hall I would post them myself. Miss Hall finished the work
and started to leave when the 12 o’clock whistle blew, she left the office
and returned, it look to me, almost immediately, calling into my office
that she had forgotten something, and then she left for good. Then I
started in, we transcribed, first we enter all orders into the house order
book (Defendant’s Exhibit 12), all these orders which Miss Hall had ac-
knowledged, I entered in that book, and I will explain that matter in de-
tail. There has been some question raised about this, but I believe I can
make it very clear. Here is an order from Beutell Brothers Company
(Defendant’s Exhibit 32) ; the very first operation on an order that is re-
ceived by the pencil factory at Forsyth Street in my office is the acknowl-
edgment; that is the first operation, because the acknowledgment is the
specific second part of the contract, the first part is when they send us
the order; that is the party of the first part, and the party of the second
part is when we write them an acknowledgment card and agree to fill the
order, and enter the order which they send us, and so necessarily, to sat-
isfy our customers, it must be the very first thing that is done, and is the
first thing. The acknowledgment stamp, which you have already seen
here below, shows first two things; first, who acknowledges the order,
and second, the date it was received in the office on Forsyth Street. Here
is one from Beutell Brothers (Defendant’s Exhibit 32); that bears the
date April 23rd, up at the top; that was the date when Beutell Brothers
in Dubuque, Ia., had that letter typewritten, we didn’t know when they
mailed it, but that is the day it was written, it was received at the Gen-
eral Manager’s office, might have been received Friday, on Friday April
25th, after I had gotten the mail that day there, and remained there until
April 26th, when I went over and got the mail again. Here is one from
John Laurie & Sons, and here is one I think Mr. Dorsey did some ques-
tioning about, because of the fact that up here at the top was 4-22, this
order was written in pencil, of course it is written in pencil; this is an
order from F. W. Woolworth & Company (Defendant’s Exhibit 28),
that is a Five & Ten Cent syndicate, as you know, probably the largest
in the world, that has over 700 stores, and these stores would be so bulky
for one office to handle that the 700 stores are divided into different
groups or provinces, and in charge of each group there is a certain office;
for instance, there is one at Toronto, for the Canadian stores; one in
Buffalo, one in Boston, one in New York, there is one at Wilkesbarre, one
at St. Louis, one at Chicago, and one at San Francisco. Now, this order,
by looking at it, I can tell, because I have had reason to look into and
know the system of orders used by this syndicate, and I most assuredly
have to know it, you notice Chicago, Ill., 4-22, down here, and also store
No. 585 (Defendant’s Exhibit 28), the Woolworth Company, 347 E. Main
St., here again is DeKalb, Ill. In other words, DeKalb, Ill., is in the ju-
risdiction of the Chicago office. These blanks are distributed among
these various five and ten cent stores, and the manager of one store,
when he wants to order goods, he finds his stock is getting a little low, he
makes that out and sends his order in to the Chicago office, at the Chicago
office, the buyer looks over it, and sees that the manager has carefully
and economically ordered the goods, and then you will notice that little
stamp punched through; you see up there, that says: “Valid, 4-23,” in
other words, of course, we couldn’t have put that on there at our office,
but the validation stamp, with 4-23, the date of it, shows it took a day to
travel from DeKalb, Ill., to Chicago, Ill., and that stamp shows the vali-
dation of the order on that date by the head office, and that order is then
forwarded by the head office to us. Now, this order is usually made out
by the Manager or by the clerk of the Manager or some one in that F. W.
Woolworth store. Here is one from Wilkesbarre (Defendant’s Exhibit
29), itself, that is from the head office itself. Here is one from St. Joseph,
Mo., (Defendant’s Exhibit 25), via St. Louis, that bears the validation
stamp of the St. Louis head office. You gentlemen understand these peo-
ple are great big people, a great big syndicate, and they have to do their
clerical work according to a system that is correct. Now, then, that was
the first operation on these orders after we separated them from the
other mail, and we hand that on to our Superintendent. I am showing
you about the acknowledgment stamp, because it is important first be-
cause it shows the acknowledgment of the order, and who acknowledged
it, and secondly, shows the date on which the orders were received at my
office. To the best of my recollection, these acknowledgment cards were
given to the office boy to post, after Miss Hall had made them out.

Now, in reference to the work that I. did on these orders, starting
here with order 7187 (Defendant’s Exhibits 25 to 35), and continuing
through 7197, that is not such an easy job as you would have been led to
believe; in the first place, next to the serial number, there is a series of
initials, and those initials stand for the salesman who is credited with
the order; in other words, if a man at the end of the year wants to get
certain commissions on orders that come in, we have to very carefully
look over those orders to see to whom or to which salesman or to which
commission house or which distributing agent that order is credited, so,
therefore, it takes a good deal of judgment and knowledge to know just
to which salesman to credit, and sometimes, I can’t say that it was incor-
rect that morning, but it might have been, sometimes I have to go through
a world of papers to find just to whom a certain order is to be credited.
Then I enter in (Defendant’s Exhibit 12) the various orders here, too,
the next column shows to whom the goods are to be shipped; of course
that is not very difficult to do, that is just a mere copy. The store num-
bers are put down in case the stores have numbers, and then one must
look over the order; I notice that one of the orders is one to R. E. Kendall
(Defendant’s Exhibit 34), at Plum St., Cincinnati, 0., calling for a spe-
cial, and that has to be noted in this column here, you will notice regular
or special, notice here the word special out here opposite R. E. Kendall,
that thing has to be very carefully noted also. Now, in this column (De-
fendant’s Exhibit 12) is the order number, and that order number is the
customer’s order number, to which we have to refer always when we ship
that order. Now, in these cases like on these Woolworth orders, when
there is no order number, we put down the date with the month, so in that
way that gives it, 4-22, that was the date the order was made out, so we
can absolutely refer to it; in this column (Defendant’s Exhibit 12), is the
shipping point and the date we are going to ship it, and in this column
represents the date on which the order was received, and the month,
which is April 26th, according to the acknowledgment, corresponding to
the acknowledgment stamp. Now, after that work, after the order was
acknowledged and entered in here (Defendant’s Exhibit 12), the next
step is the filling in on the proper place on this sheet (Defendant’s Ex-
hibit 2), which has already been tendered and identified. Now, the work
done by me on that day right here, that was Saturday, Saturday is the
second day of the fiscal week, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tues-
day, Wednesday and Thursday-Saturday is the second day, and you
will notice, gentlemen, there are only two entries there (Defendant’s Ex-
hibit 7), the work not having been done since I left the factory, there are
only two entries there, and the last entry is April 26th, which was Satur-
day. Now, then, the information on this sheet is as follows: I go through
the orders and find out the number of gross of pencils which our custom-
ers order which fall in certain price groups, that is, to find the number of
gross of pencils for which the pencil factory gets 60 cents a gross, and I
put them down under the first column, the second under the column RI,
which means rubber inserted, and for which we get an average price of
80 cents, I go through the same thing and put the figures all out, in this
case, it was 102; then we have a price group on which we get an average
of $1.25, and it covers a range in price from $1.00 per gross to $1.40;
there were 116 gross of such pencils ordered with these orders which were
received that morning. The next price group are those on which we fig-
ure on an average price of $1.75 a gross, and falling within those limits
of $1.50 to $1.95 inclusive; in this case, there were 341/2 gross; then there
is a group between $2.00 and $2.95, averaging $2.50, and there was 1001/2
gross that day, then $3.00 and over, which we always figure at just $3.00,
we have goods that we get $3.25 for, and some that we get $3.50 for, but
we figure them all at $3.00, so it is a conservative estimate. The reason
this is done is this; in the pencil business, just like in all manufacturing
businesses, that is manufacturing an article that has to be turned out in
large quantities, it behooves the sales department to sell as much of your
high priced goods as possible, and as few of your cheap goods, and there-
fore, if you know how many of the cheap goods and how many of the bet-
ter grade of goods you are selling, it serves as a barometer on the class
of goods that is being sold. You can see that this job takes quite a little
figuring and quite a little judgment.

After finishing that work, I went on to the transcription of these or-
ders to these requisitions (Defendant’s Exhibits 25 to 35), and notwith-
standing an answer that has been made, I wrote these requisitions my-
self. That is my handwriting and you can read every one of them
through. Here is one F. W. Woolworth (Defendant’s Exhibit 25), I
wrote that one, and another one F. W. Woolworth (Defendant’s Exhibit
26), I wrote that one, and another one F. W. Woolworth (Defendant’s
Exhibit 29). Here is one 5 and 10 Cent Store, Sault Ste Marie (Defend-
ant’s Exhibit 31), I wrote that one, and here is F. W. Woolworth,
DeKalb, Ill. (Defendant’s Exhibit 28), and Logansport, Ind. (Defend-
ant’s Exhibit 27). That is all my handwriting; excepting the amounts
that are placed down here under the dates when the shipment of these
orders were made, which is in the handwriting of my assistant, Mr.
Schiff. This part, the amount, date, numbers, addresses, salesman, date
April 26th, and the order number, taking the date in lieu of the order
number, as I explained previously, that is all my handwriting-every-
thing except that amount there and the subsequent date, that is in my
handwriting and the work on all of those was done on the morning of
April 26th.

Miss Hall left my office on her way home at this time, and to the best
of my information there were in the building Arthur White and Harry
Denham and Arthur White’s wife on the top floor. To the best of my
knowledge, it must have been from ten to fifteen minutes after Miss Hall
left my office, when this little girl, whom I afterwards found to be Mary
Phagan, entered my office and asked for her pay envelope. I asked for
her number and she told me; I went to the cash box and took her envel-
ope out and handed it to her, identifying the envelope by the number.
She left my office and apparently had gotten as far as the door from my
office leading to the outer office, when she evidently stopped and asked
me if the metal had arrived, and I told her no. She continued on her way
out, and I heard the sound of her footsteps as she went away. It was a
few moments after she asked me this question that I had an impression
of a female voice saying something; I don’t know which way it came
from; just passed away and I had that impression. This little girl had
evidently worked in the metal department by her question and had been
laid off owing to the fact that some metal that had been ordered had not
arrived at the factory; hence, her question. I only recognized this little
girl from having seen her around the plant and did not know her name,
simply identifying her envelope from her having called her number to

She had left the plant hardly five minutes when Lemmie Quinn, the
foreman of the plant, came in and told me that I could not keep him away
from the factory, even though it was a holiday; at which I smiled and
kept on working. He first asked me if Mr. Schiff had come down and I
told him he had not and he turned around and left.

I continued work until I finished this work and these requisitions and I looked at my watch
and noticed that it was a quarter to one. I called my home up on the tele-
phone, for I knew that my wife and my mother-in-law were going to the
matinee and I wanted to know when they would have lunch. I got my
house and Minola answered the phone and she answered me back that
they would have lunch immediately and for me to come right on home. I
then gathered my papers together and went upstairs to see the boys on
the top floor. This must have been, since I had just looked at my watch,
10 minutes to one. I noticed in the evidence of one of the witnesses, Mrs.
Arthur White, she states it was 12:35 that she passed by and saw me.
That is possibly true; I have no recollection about it; perhaps her recol-
lection is better than mine; I have no remembrance of it; however, I ex-
pect that is so. When I arrived up stairs I saw Arthur White and Harry
Denham who had been working up there and Mr. White’s wife. I asked
them if they were ready to go and they said they had enough work to keep
them several hours. I noticed that they had laid out some work and I had
to see what work they had done and were going to do. I asked Mr.
White’s wife if she was going or would stay there as I would be obliged
to lock up the factory, and Mrs. White said, no, she would go then. I
went down and gathered up my papers and locked my desk and went
around and washed my hands and put on my hat and coat and locked the
inner door to my office and locked the doors to the street and started to
go home.

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

I continued on up Forsyth to Alabama and down Alabama to White-
hall where I waited a few minutes for a car, and after a few minutes a
Georgia Avenue car came along; I took it and arrived home at about
1:20. When I arrived at home, I found that my wife and my mother-in-
law were eating their dinner, and my father-in-law had just sat down and
started his dinner. I sat down to my dinner and before I had taken any-
thing, I turned in my chair to the telephone, which is right behind me and
called up my brother-in-law to tell him that on account of some work I
had to do at the factory, I would be unable to go with him, he having in-
vited me to go with him out to the ball game. I succeeded in getting his
residence and his cook answered the phone and told me that Mr. Ursen-
bach had not come back home. I told her to give him a message for me,
that I would be unable to go with him. I turned around and continued
eating my lunch, and after a few minutes my wife and mother-in-law fin-
ished their dinner and left and told me good-bye. My father-in-law and
myself continued eating our dinner, Minola McKnight serving us. After
finishing dinner, my father-in-law said he would go out in the back yard
to look after his chickens and I lighted a cigarette and laid down. After
a few minutes I got up and walked up Georgia Avenue to get a car. I
missed the ten minutes to two car and I looked up and saw in front of
Mr. Wolfsheimer’s residence, Mrs. Michael, an aunt of my wife who lives
in Athens, and there were several ladies there and I went up there to see
them and after a few minutes Mrs. Wolfsheimer came out of the house
and I waited there until I saw the Washington Street car coming and I
ran up and saw that I could catch the car. I got on the car and talked to
Mr. Loeb on the way to town. The car got to a point about the intersec-
tion of Washington Street and Hunter Street and the fire engine house
and there was a couple of cars stalled up ahead of us, the cars were wait-
ing there to see the memorial parade; they were all banked up. After it
stood there a few minutes as I did not want to wait, I told Mr. Loeb that
I was going to get out and go on as I had work to do. So I went on down
Hunter Street, going in the direction of Whitehall and when I got down
to the corner of Whitehall and Hunter, the parade had started to come
around and I could not get around at all and I had to stay there fifteen or
twenty minutes and see the parade. Then I walked on down Whitehall
on the side of M. Rich & Bros. ‘s store towards Brown and Allen; when I
got in front of M. Rich & Bros.’ store, I stood there between half past 2
and few minutes to 3 o’clock until the parade passed entirely; then I
crossed the street and went on down to Jacobs and went in and pur-
chased twenty-five cents worth of cigars. I then left the store and went
on down Alabama Street to Forsyth Street and down Forsyth Street to
the factory, I unlocked the street door and then unlocked the inner door
and left it open and went on upstairs to tell the boys that I had come back
and wanted to know if they were ready to go, and at that time they were
preparing to leave. I went immediately down to my office and opened
the safe and my desk and hung up my coat and hat and started to work
on the financial report, which I will explain. Mr. Schiff had not come
down and there was additional work for me to do.

In a few minutes after I started to work on the financial sheet (De-
fendant’s Exhibit 2), which I am going to take up in a few minutes. I
heard the bell ring on the time clock outside and Arthur White and Harry
Denham came into the office and Arthur White borrowed $2.00 from me
in advance on his wages. I had gotten to work on the financial sheet, fig-
uring it out, when I happened to go out to the lavatory and on returning
to the office, the door pointed out directly in front, I noticed Newt Lee,
the watchman, coming from towards the head of the stairs, coming to-
wards me. I looked at the clock and told him the night before to come
back at 4 o’clock for I expected to go to the base ball game. At that time
Newt Lee came along and greeted me and offered me a banana out of a
yellow bag which he carried, which I presume contained bananas; I de-
clined the banana and told him that I had no way of letting him know
sooner that I was to be there at work and that I had changed my mind
about going to the ball game. I told him that he could go if he wanted to
or he could amuse himself in any way he saw fit for an hour and a half,
but to be sure and be back by half past six o’clock. He went off down
the stair case leading out and I returned to my office. Now, in reference
to Newt Lee, the watchman, the first night he came there to watch, I per-
sonally took him around the plant, first, second and third floors and into
the basement, and told him that he would be required, that it was his duty
to go over that entire building every half hour; not only to completely
tour the upper four floors but to go down to the basement, and I specially
stressed the point that that dust bin along here was one of the most dan-
gerous places for a fire and I wanted him to be sure and go back there
every half hour and be careful how he held his lantern. I told him it was
a part of his duty to look after and lock that back door and he fully un-
derstood it, and I showed him the cut-off for the electric current and told
him in case of fire that ought to be pulled so no fireman coming in would
be electrocuted. I explained everything to him in detail and told him he
was to make that tour every half hour and stamp it on the time card and
that that included the basement of the building.

Now, this sheet here is the factory record (Defendant’s Exhibit 7),
containing the lists of the pencils in stock and the amount of each and
every number; the amount of each and every one of our pencils which we
manufacture at the end of any given week. There are no names there.
We make the entries on this sheet by trade notes. Here is a sample case
containing the pencils which are manufactured at the Forsyth Street
plant. That is just as an explanation of what these figures are.

Well, I expect you have gotten enough of a glance at them for you
know that there are a great many pencils and a great many colors, all
sorts and styles; all sorts of tips, all sorts of rubbers, all sorts of stamps
-I expect there are 140 pencils in that roll. That shows the variety of
goods we manufacture. We not only have certain set numbers that we
manufacture, but we will manufacture any pencil to order for any cus-
tomer who desires a sufficient number of a special pencil, into a grade
similar to our own pencil. Now, this pencil sheet (Def. ‘s Ex. 7) when I
looked at it about half past eleven or thereabouts on Saturday morning,
was incomplete. It had the entry for Thursday, April 24th, omitted.
Mr. Schiff had entered the production for April 18th, 19th, 22nd and
23rd, but he had omitted the entry for the 24th, and the 24th not being
there, of course it was not totaled or headed, so it became necessary to
look in this bunch of daily reports (Defendant’s Exhibits 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d)
which was handed in every day by the packing forelady, sort out the va-
rious pencils noted on there, and place them in their proper places. Be-
fore proceeding further on that, I want to call your attention to the fact
that we use this sheet (Defendant’s Exhibit 7) for two weeks. You no-
tice two weeks ending down there April 27th, April 17th, and one ending
the week later, April 24th. Mr. Schiff, I notice, put April 17th at the top
and the date corresponds to the entries here on the side; these are the
dates alongside of each entry. Now, where we have any special pencil,
as a general rule-for instance, take two 10-X special up there; we manu-
facture two 10-X special for the Cadillac Motor Company. Now, there
is a 660-X pencil (Defendant’s Exhibit 7); that 660-X pencil we call
Panama, but in this entry it is called Cracker-Jack. Now, here is an-
other 660-X special (Defendant’s Exhibit 7), ours being Panama and
this the Universal 660-X special. In other words, gentlemen, we put the
name of the customer, if he wants business in a sufficient quantity. Well,
I had to go through this report for Thursday (Defendant’s Exhibit 4a),
handed in by Miss Flowers, the forelady of the packing department, as
she said, on Friday; I had to go through it and make the entries. Now,
after I made the entries, I had to total each number for itself; that is, the
number of 10-X, 20-X, 30-X, etc. Now, I notice that both of the expert
accountants who got on the stand, pointed out two errors. While those
errors are trivial, yet there is enough of human pride in me to explain
that those errors were not mine. Those errors, one of 11/2 gross and one
of one gross, in totalling up, these totals here on the 18th and 19th-
those entries were made by Mr. Schiff. I don’t expect he meant to make
an error, but they happen to be in his handwriting. Those totals were
already down there for the various days when I got the sheet and I al-
ways take them as correct without any checking of his figures. The only
figures that I check are my own figures. I add my correct figures to his
figures and, of course, not having checked the figures, I had to assume he
entered it correctly, so I would not have known it. As I say, my usual
method is to take his figures as correct per se. Now, after I entered them
in the total, the next thing I did was to make out the job sheet; the job or
throw-outs. Now in regard to these jobs, if I recall it correctly, was the
only error that the expert accountant found in my work on the financial
sheet for that day, but it really was not an error, as I will show you. He
didn’t know my method of doing that, and therefore, he could not know
the error. When I explain to you fully the method in which I arrived at
these figures you also will see they are not in error. Now among the pack-
ing reports that are handed into the office just like Miss Eula May handed
this (Defendant’s Exhibit 4a) in from the packing room proper, there is
another room where pencils are packed, viz.: the department under the
foreladyship of Miss Fannie Atherton, head of the job department. The
jobs are our seconds or throw-outs for which we get less money, of
course, than for the first. You see that Fannie A. (Defendant’s Exhibit
4b), that is Fannie Atherton. That is the job department. Now, I took
each of those job sheets (Defendant’s Exhibit 4b) and separated them
from the rest of those sheets, finding out how many jobs of the various
kinds were packed that week. Now, this sheet (Defendant’s Exhibit 3)
shows that there were 12 different kinds of jobs packed that day. Each
of them, you will notice, has a different price. That is the number of
jobs 0-95, or the number of job 114 (Defendant’s Exhibit 3) ; that is the
number of the job, not the amount, but the number by which it is sold.
Out here (Defendant’s Exhibit 3) you see the amount of that job which
was packed; 180 gross, 1 gross, six gross, 24 gross, etc. Then you will
find the actual price we received for each. Then I make the extensions
and find the number of gross of pencils, 180 gross at 40c, of course, is $72
(Defendant’s Exhibit 3). In other words, there is the actual number of
jobs packed that day, the price we actually got for them, and the exten-
sions are accurate and the totals are correct; the total amount of gross
is totaled correctly, the total gross packed and the total amount of the
value of those gross are the two figures that are put on that financial re-
port (Defendant’s Exhibit 2), 792 gross jobs, $396.75 (Defendant’s Ex-
hibit 3), being absolutely correct, but in getting the average price, you
notice 50.1 cents down below here (Defendant’s Exhibit 3), I just worked
it approximately, because nobody cares if it costs so small a fraction-
the average price of those jobs, 50.1 cents, and six hundredths-that six
hundredths was so small I couldn’t handle it, so I stopped at the first dec-
imal. Now, in arriving at the total number of gross and the total value
of pencils, which are the two figures really important, I divided one by
the other. I also used, in getting up the data for the financial sheet here,
by the way, one of the most important sheets is this sheet here.
(Defendant’s Exhibit 3). It looks very small, but the work connected
with it is very large. Now, some of the items that appear on here are
gotten from the reports which are handed in by the various forewomen.
Now, you saw on the stand this morning Mr. Godfrey Winekauf, the su-
perintendent of the lead plant; there is a report (Defendant’s Exhibit 4c)
of the amount of lead delivered that week, two pages of it; the different
kinds of lead, No. 10 lead, No. 940, No. 2 and No. 930, and so on. Now,
here is a pencil with a little rubber stuck on the end; we only put six
inches of lead in that, and stick rubber in the rest. Now here (Defend-
ant’s Exhibit 4d) is the report of L. A. Quinn, foreman of the tipping
plant. He reports on this the amount of work of the various machines,
that is, the large eyelet machine, the small eyelet machine and the other
machines. Then he notates the amount of the various tips used that he
had made that week. Now, we have, I expect, 22 different kinds of tips,
and one of them is a re-tip, and we never count a re-tip as a production.
Now, this was made out (Defendant’s Exhibit 7) for the week ending
April 24 by Mr. Irby, the shipping clerk, that is, the amount of gross of
pencils that he ships day by day. There were shipped 266 gross the first
day, which was Friday in this case, Friday the 18th of April, 562 gross
the 2nd day, which was Saturday, a half day, the 19th of April; 784 gross
on Monday which was April 21; 1232 gross (that was an exceptional day)
were shipped on Tuesday April 22nd; 572 gross shipped on Wednesday,
April 23rd, and 957 gross, also a very large day, shipped on April 24th,
a total of 4374 gross. Now, there is another little slip of paper (Defend-
ant’s Exhibit 4aa) here that requires one of the most complicated calcu-
lations of this entire financial, and I will explain it. It shows the repack,
and I notice an error on it here, it says here 4-17, when it ought to be
4-18; in other words, it goes from 4-17 through 4-24. That repack is got-
ten up by Miss Eula May; you will notice it is 0. K’d by her. Miss Eula
May Flowers, the forelady, packed that; that is the amount of pencils
used in our assortment boxes or display boxes. That is one of the tricks
of the trade, when we have some slow mover, some pencil that doesn’t
move very fast, we take something that is fancy and put some new bright
looking pencils with them, with these slow movers. That is a trick that
all manufacturers use, and in packing these assortment boxes, which are
packed under the direction of Miss Flowers, we send into the shipping
room and get some pencils which have already been packed, pencils that
have been on the shelf a year for all we know, and bring them in and un-
pack them and re-pack them in the display box. Therefore, it is very
necessary in figuring out the financial sheet to notice in detail the amount
of goods packed and just how many of those pencils had already been
figured on some past financial report. We don’t want to record it twice,
or else our totals will be incorrect. Therefore, this little slip showing
the amount of goods which were repacked is very necessary. That was
figured by me, and was figured by me on that Saturday afternoon, April
22nd. There were 18 gross of 35-X pencils selling for $1.25; 18 gross for
$22.50. It shows right here, I figured that out. That is my writing right
down there. Eighteen gross 35-X, $1.25, $22.50; 10 gross of 930-X figur-
ing at $25.00; that added up, as you will see, to $70.00. In other words,
there were 40 gross of pencils, 36 gross of which sell in our medium price
goods; 86 gross 35-X; 10 gross 930-X, $2.50, that is a high price goods.
Therefore, the repack for that week was 36 gross medium priced goods
and 10 gross of high price goods. I will show you now where the $70.00
is and where the’36 gross is, and where the 10 gross figured in the finan-
cial sheet. There is a little sheet (Defendant’s Exhibit 7a) stuck up here
in the corner attached to the record-the factory record of pencils manu-
factured during that week. That shows the production, divided into the
following classes (Defendant’s Exhibit 7a) ; cheap goods, the very cheap-
est we make, outside of jobs, those we figure at 60 cents a gross. Then
there is the rubber insert, those we figure 85 cents a gross, and then the
job and then the medium; the medium being all goods up to a certain
grade that contains the cheap lead, and the good being all those that con-
tain a better class of lead. In this case, Mr. Schiff had entered it up to
and through Wednesday, and had failed to enter Thursday, and I had to
enter Thursday, and to figure it. This sheet (Defendant’s Exhibit 7a)
shows the total of the three classes of goods packed from day to day.
Now, I have had very few clerks at Forsyth Street, or anywhere else, for
that matter, who could make out this sheet (Defendant’s Exhibit 2) suc-
cessfully and accurately. It involves a great deal of work and one has to
exercise exceptional care and accuracy in making it out. You notice that
the gross production here (Defendant’s Exhibit 2) is 27651/2. That gives
the net production. The gross production is nothing more than the addi-
tion, the total addition, the proven addition of those sheets containing
-the pencils packed. This other little sheet (Def. ‘s Ex. 7a) behind here
represents the pencils packed the week of April 17-that week’s produc-
tion. Now, this little sheet I had to work on, showing pencils that were
repacked, going into display boxes, and the numbers, and subtracted that
from total amount 46 from 27651/2, which leaves 27191/2; in other words, I
just deducted the amount that had been taken out of the stock room and
repacked from the total amount that was stated to be packed, showing
the amount of repacked goods. Now all I had to do was to copy that off,
it had been figured once. The value of the repack was $70.00; that was
mere copying. Now, the rubber insert entries, I got those that morning,
the number of pencils packed during the week ending April 24th; that is
Thursday, April 24th; that insert rubber is a rubber stuck directly into
wood with a metal tip or ferret to hold it in. I have to go through all of
this data, that being an awfully tedious job, not a hard job, but very
tedious; it eats up time. I had to go through each one of these, and not
only have to see the number, but I have to know whether it is rubber in-
sert or what it is, and then I put that down on a piece of scratch paper,
and place it down here, in this case it was 720 gross. Then the rubber
tipping, that means tipped with rubber; that is the rubber that is used
on the medium priced pencils that have the medium prices, we ship with
the cheap shipping. I had to go through this operation again, a tedious
job, and it eats up time; it is not hard, but it is tedious. I had to go
through that again, to find out the amount of tip rubber that was used
on this amount of pencils. Then I had to go through the good pencils.
Now, it has been insinuated that some of these items, especially this item,
if I remember correctly-that when I have gotten two of the items, I can
add it all up and subtract from the total to get the third by deduction,
but that is not so. Of the pencils that still remain unaccounted for, there
are many pencils that don’t take rubber at all. There are jobs that don’t
take rubber on them, plain common pencils, going pencils that don’t have
rubber on them at all, and I have to go through all of that operation, that
tedious operation again that eats up so much time. Then there is the
lead of the various kinds that we use; there is a good lead and cheap lead,
the large lead and the thick or carbon lead, and the copying lead. That
same operation has to be gone through with again. Now this sheet (De-
fendant’s Exhibit 3) (exhibiting) is where the expert accountant said I
made a mistake. I had to go through with each of those pencils to see if
they were cheap rubber or if they were good lead or copying lead. So I
had to go through this same operation and re-add them to see that the
addition is correct before I can arrive at the proper figure. The same
way to find the good lead and the cheap lead, the large lead and the copy-
ing lead; that operation had to be gone through in detail with each and
every one of those, and the same with each of the boxes, and that is a
tough job. Some of the pencils are packed in one gross boxes and some
in half-gross boxes, and, as I say, we use a display box, and there are
pencils that are put in individual boxes, and we have to go through care-
fully to see the pencils that have been packed for the whole week, and it
is a very tedious job. Now in these boxes there is another calculation in-
volved, and then I have to find the assortment boxes, but that is easily
gotten. Then I have to find out whether they are half-gross boxes or one-
gross boxes, and then reduce them to the basis of boxes that cost us two
cents apiece; reduce them to the basis of the ordinary box that we paid
two cents a box. After finding out all the boxes, then I have to reduce
that to some common factor, so I can make the multiplication in figuring
out the cost at two cents. That involves quite a mathematical manipula-
tion. Then I come to the skeleton. Skeletons are no more than just a
trade name. They are just little cardboard tiers to keep one pencil away
from the other, that is all a skeleton is. I have to go through and find
out which pencils are skeletons. If it is a cheap pencil they are just tied
up with a cord, and there are pencils in a bunch, and there are pencils
that we don’t use the skeleton with. That must all be gone through and
gotten correctly, or it will be of no worth. Then comes the tip delivery,
which is gotten from this report from Mr. Lemmie Quinn that I showed
you before. Then there is another entry on this sheet of the tips used
and I can give you a clear explanation of the manner that I arrive at that.

You can’t use tips when you don’t have some rubber stuck in it, so I just
had to go through the rubber used to find that. Then we have what we
call ends; there are a few gross of them there. Then the wrappers. Pen-
cils that are packed in the individual one-dozen cartons don’t take wrap-
pers; they are in a box. Pencils that are packed in the display boxes
don’t take a wrapper; they just stick up in a hole by themselves. The
cheap pencils are tied with a cord and they don’t take any wrapper, so
the same operation, the same tedious operation, had to be gone through
with that to get at the number of wrappers, and then the different num-
ber of gross and the number of carton boxes used in the same way. On
the right hand side of this sheet you notice the deliveries. There is the
lead delivery from the Bell Street plant and the Forsyth Street plant.
This doesn’t mean the amount of lead used in the pencils packed for this
week only, but it shows the amount of our lead plant delivery, for infor-
mation. Then the slat delivery, that is not worked out that week; that
is not worked out simply because that is Mr. Schiff’s duty to work that
out and that is a very tedious and long job and when I started in to do
that I couldn’t find the sheet showing the different deliveries of slats
from the mill, so I let that go, intending to put that in on Monday, but on
Monday following I was at the police station.

I took out from this job sheet (Defendant’s Exhibit 3), the correct
amount of gross packed-791 as figured there-correct value $396.75, as
shown on this sheet, and the average is that one, that I didn’t carry out
to two decimal places; I didn’t carry it to but one. Then from the pay
roll book I got the pay roll for Forsyth Street and Bell Street, and then
as a separate item took out from the pay roll book total, separate the
machine shop, which that week was $70.00. The shipments (Defendant’s
Exhibit 6), were figured for the week ending April 24th on this sheet, as
far as I-oh, you notice the entry of the 24th; those are those invoices,
the first piece of work that I explained to you, sitting up there; I ex-
plained that from the chair, and couldn’t come down here; that’s the
piece of work that I explained to you how we did it in triplicate. That’s
the work that I did that morning, and completed, as I told you, that each
of the invoices was wrong, and I had to correct them as I went along,
simply because I needed it on the financial, and there’s where I entered
it on the sheet as shipments; (Defendant’s Exhibit 6) ; I needed that so
as to make the total; and that’s where I entered it-(Defendant’s Ex-
hibit 6-shipments, the 24th, on this sheet (Defendant’s Exhibit 6), dur-
ing the afternoon $1,245.57, and totalling it up, the pencil factory shipped
that week $5,438.78. Those amounts you see are entered right in there,
and the amount of shipments is gotten from this report $4,374.00 handed
in by Mr. Irby, and the value of the shipments are gotten from this sheet,
the last entry on which I had to make.

Then the orders received. The entry of the orders received that
day involved absolutely no more work on my part than the mere transfer
of the entries. On this big sheet (Defendant’s Exhibit 2), I have here
the orders received are in terms of “total gross” and “total value,” and
we need that to compare the amount of shipments with the amount of
orders we are receiving to see whether we are shipping more than we are
receiving, or receiving more than we are shipping. That amount is given
here. Down there it tells you the total amount of dollars and cents of all
the orders received, total gross, and the average. The average is impor-
tant, though it is usually taken over on a separate paper on Friday morn-
ing to Mr. Sig Montag so that he knows how sales for the week have come
out long before he receives the financial. He didn’t receive the financial
usually until Monday morning, when I go over there.

Now one of the most intricate operations in the making up of the
financial report is the working out of the figures on that pencil sheet, as
shown by that torn little old sheet here, (Defendant’s Exhibit 3), that
data sheet. Now with this in hand, and with that pencil sheet record of
pencils packed (Defendant’s Exhibit 7), the financial report is made out.
This sheet (Defendant’s Exhibit 2), the financial, I may say is the child
of my own brain, because I got it up. The first one that ever was made
I made out, and the fact that there is a certain blue line here, and a cer-
tain red line there, and a black line there, and certain printing on it, is
due to me, because I got this sheet up myself. On one side you notice
” Expense, ” or two main headings ” Expense,” ” Materials.” Together
they comprise the expense for the week. On the other side, like the debit
and credit sides of a ledger, is the “Value,” ” I Gross Value” of the goods,
which have been packed up during a given week. Down here below you
will notice “Less Repacked.” You remember the repacked, that I told
you about, the pencils taken out of stock and re-packed to make them
move better. That value is deducted, so that it won’t allow error to en-
ter into this figure. Then we take off 12 per cent. down at the bottom.
That 12 per cent. allows for freight allowances, cash discounts, and pos-
sibly other allowances, and gives us the net value or the net amount of
money for those pencils, which the treasury of the Pencil Company re-
ceives in the last analysis.

On the other side is the materials, the cost of materials, that went
into the making of those pencils, based on the amounts and kinds of pen-
cils, which, of course, as in this instance, comes from the data sheet.

The first item under “Expense” items is “Labor,” and the labor is
divided, as you all know, into the two classes, direct and indirect. The
direct labor is that which goes directly into the making of the pencils
themselves, and the indirect constitutes the supervising, shipping, office,
clerical help, and so forth. These figures are brought directly from the
pay roll. The indirect labor, however-as in this case $155.00-is an
empirical figure, a figure, which we have found out by experiment to be
the correct figure, and we arbitrarily decide on it, and keep it until such
time as we think we ought to change it and then change. The burden
that a business has to carry is the fixed charges, the expense that it car-
ries, irrespective of whether it will produce two gross or 200,000 gross,
like rent, insurance, light, heat, power and the sales department. The
sales department expense usually goes on whether the salesman sells lit-
tle or big bills; his salary goes on and his expense goes on. Rent, heat,
light, power, sales department men, and all that, is figured out, as you
could find by looking back, continuously from week to week, and there is
no work other than jotting it down to figure in this total.

The repair sundries is also arbitrary at $150.00. The machine shop,
however, is available. It appears alongside of “Investment.” “Invest-
ment” is crossed out, and “Machine Shop” written in. There is a rea-
son for that. The time was at the inception of our business when every
machine built by us was so much additional added to the value of our
plant. In other words, it was like investing more money in it, in the
plant, but the time came, when we quit making machines, and then we
simply kept them in repair, and we charged that to expense, crossing out
“Investment” and putting down “Machine Shop” as an expense item.

The material is arrived at on the basis, gross, net. The gross basis
is the total amount of pencils packed, as per the packing reports handed
in by Miss Eula May Flowers, and the net basis is the total amount, total
gross, packed by report of Miss Eula May Flowers less the amount of re-
packed, of which I have spoken. In this case the gross amount was 2,851
gross, net 2,8301/2 gross, the smaller being the net figure. The slats are
figured at 22 cents per gross, and that’s simply taking the 2,8301/2 gross
down to the slat item, and multiplying that by 22 cents, and putting it
down to the materials. Then from the figures derived from the packing
reports we figure rubbers used according to the character or grade of
the pencil manufactured; 61/2 cents cheapest, 9 cents medium, 14 cents
high grade. Then comes the tips. The tips is simple, gotten by adding
together the amounts of rubber used in ferrules, the medium rubber, and
the better class of rubber. In other words, it’s gotten by adding together
the rubber at 9 cents a gross, and the rubber at 14 cents a gross, and add-
ing together the total amount of gross used. And you see it says “mate-
rials,” and it is reckoned at 10 cents; in other words, the materials used
in making the tips in that tip plant we figured at 10 cents a gross, and
the labor is included in that pay roll item up above. Then there is 25
gross of these medium ends.

Then the lead, which is used, is taken from this sheet, multiplying
15 cents for the better lead and 10 cents for the cheaper lead. Then 5
cents a gross has been figured out after months of careful keeping track
of what we use to include such materials as shellac, alcohol, lacquer, ani-
line, waxent, and oils-that’s oils used in manufacture, not for lubrica-
tion of transmission or machinery. It also includes that haskolene corn-
pound, of which we have heard so much. That’s included in this 5 cents
per gross.

Then comes the boxes at 2 cents a gross, then assortment boxes at
an average of 4 cents a gross; then come wrappers at one cent a gross;
that is the number of wrappers used in wrapping up one gross of pencils
are worth one cent. Then cartons, boxes, holding one gross of pencils,
figured at 28 or 18 cents. Then down below “pay roll Bell Street,
$175.21.” Then show what was delivered, just a plain copy of what I
have on this sheet. I have been looking at the sheet for the week ending
April 17th, but it is practically the same way. I have here down on the
bottom of this financial (Defendant’s Exhibit 2) made out on the 26th
what’s delivered, good and cheap. There is no entry there. You will re-
member I said I didn’t work that out. I put that out there preparatory
to working that out Monday morning before I would take it over. Then
it tells tips delivered from Mr. Quinn’s report.

Now on the right side you will notice this entry, “Better grades,
gross, net.” From this small sheet we get total of better grades, 710
gross. Then right below it says 700 gross net. There are 710 gross,
and on that repacked sheet I called out there 10 gross good goods
repacked, therefore the difference of 10 gross. Then we look on down
this pencil sheet, cut down each and every one of the items accordingly
-you will notice in some places I marked some items, “142 1-2 2-10-X”
-and so on down the sheet. In this case there were 29 or 30 different
items, all of which had to have the prices correctly traced down, exten-
sions correctly made, checked, re-checked, added up, and totaled, and
checked back, and there pack had to be deducted, after which the 12 per
cent. had to be figured out, and deducted, giving net value of the produc-
tion for that week. Then we take the net value of the production that
week, and from it take the total amount of expense, and materials used,
the expense including labor, rent, light, insurance, and so forth, and, if
this expense is greater than the value of the pencils, then the factory has
operated that week at a loss. In this case a deficit shows, showing that
that week we operated at a loss. The shipments were gotten off down
there from this sheet. Those are my initials on the top.

Now, besides the making of this large sheet (Defendant’s Exhibit
2) proper, there is in the making of the financial report three other
sheets, that I usually make out. Now one of those little sheets, that are
usually made-and I want to call your attention to the fact that I didn’t
typewrite this; I just filled these figures in; I am no typewriter; I cannot
operate a machine; I have two or three dozen of those every now and
then typewritten together, and keep them in blank in my desk; I didn’t
typewrite those on that day, or any other day; I just filled those figures
in those blanks-this is the sheet (Defendant’s Exhibit 11), called the
comparison sheet between 1912 and 1913, which is nothing more nor less
than taking the vital figures, the vital statistics of one week of 1913, and
comparing them with the same week of 1912, to see how we have im-
proved or gone backward every week one year apart. Of course the put-
ting of these down involves going back into the proper week in this
folder, and getting that out. However, I noticed the week in 1912 corre-
sponding with the week of April 24th in 1913, was a week of 45 hours in-
stead of 50 hours.

In addition to that, I made out two condensed financial reports, (De-
fendant’s Exhibits 43 and 46), that is, give the main figures. I didn’t
typewrite this sheet, either; as I say, I cannot operate a machine. I just
filled in the figures, which have to be picked out from this large financial
report, fill them in for the week ending-that does not show the date it
was made, but it shows for the week ending April 24th, the production
in dollars, the total expenditure in dollars, the result, which in this week,
as I wrote in “deficit”I in dollars; shows the shipments, which in this
week were very good, and the orders received, which were gotten from
that great big sheet. These were enough figures for a director or stock-
holder of the company to receive, and are practically the only figures he
is interested in. He don’t care to hear how much we make of this pencil
or that pencil. The only thing he is interested in is dividends, if we are
able to give them to him. One of these sheets I always make out and mail
to Mr. Oscar Pappenheimer (Defendant’s Exhibit 46), who was formerly
a member of the Board of Directors, though he is not now. The other
sheet (Defendant’s Exhibit 43), I always invariably send to my uncle,
Mr. M. Frank, no matter where he is, who is president of the company.
On this particular Saturday, my uncle had during the week ending April
26th, gone to New York, stopping at Hotel McAlpin, preparatory to tak-
ing his annual trip abroad for his health, he being a sick, feeble old man.
When I made out that financial, I really made out two small ones, and I
put one (Defendant’s Exhibit 46), in an envelope, addressed it to Mr.
Oscar Pappenheimer, care Southern Furniture Company, Atlanta, Geor-
gia; the other one (Defendant’s Exhibit 43) was put in this envelope,
which you see right here, and sent to my uncle, Mr. M. Frank, together
with a letter, (Defendant’s Exhibit 42), which I wrote him, after having
finished the financial sheet, the sheet showing the comparison of vital
statistics for the same weeks of 1912 and 1913, and after having com-
pleted these two small condensed financial reports. I wrote that letter
(Defendant’s Exhibit 42) to my uncle, and I sent him that report (De-
fendant’s Exhibit 43), and also sent a price list, to which I referred in
that letter; hence the size of the envelope, (Defendant’s Exhibit 44). I
am going to show you one of those price lists. Its a great big sheet when
it is folded up, it is much too large for the ordinary size; hence the rea-
son I used a great big envelope like that. I addressed that letter to my
uncle, Mr. M. Frank, care Hotel McAlpin, Greely Square, New York,
N. Y., as has been identified.
This ends practically the work on the financial. After finishing the
financial, I wrote these letters, and sealed them, and placed them aside to
post. After finishing the financial, I folded this big report up (Defend-
ant’s Exhibit 2), and put it with the comparison sheet (Defendant’s Ex-
hibit 11) for the week of 1912 and the same week of 1913 in a large envel-
ope, addressed it to Mr. Sig Montag, General Manager of the Pencil Com-
pany, and put it under my inkwell, intending to take it over on the morn-
ing of Monday following.

I then came to the checking up of the cash on hand and the balancing
of the cash book. For some reason or other there are no similar entries
in this book after those of that date. That’s my handwriting (Defend-
ant’s Exhibit 40), and I did that work on Saturday afternoon, April 26th,
as near as might be between the hours of 5:30 and 5 minutes to 6:00.
Now in checking up it didn’t take me an hour and a half. I did that in
about 25 minutes. In checking up the cash the first thing to do is to open
the cash box. We have a little coin bag in there, and there was in cash
actually on hand that day about $30.54; that’s all there was. That’s all
there could have been, and that $30.54 was to the best of my recollection
composed of about three dollars in one dollar bills, about four or five dol-
lars in quarters and halves, and the balance dimes, nickels, and one-cent
pieces. That’s some job to count that, not only to count it, but to sepa-
rate the different denominations, and stack it up into stacks of a dollar.
I did that, stacked them up, checked them, and re-checked them, and I
took a piece of paper-haven’t that paper-and jotted down the amounts.
To that had to be added the amount that was loaned. In this case there
was only one loan, that which I loaned to Mr. White that afternoon. That
would eventually come back to the cash box. If there had been any errors
in the pay roll the night previous, I would have had to make it good from
the cash box, and it would have gone under the item of” extra pay roll.”
I don’t know whether that occurred this week or not. However, I added
up the total cash I actually had on hand then-$28.54-and that $2.00
loaned to Mr. White brought it up to $30.54, the actual amount which the
cash book phowed. Now on the left-hand side of this book, the debits for
the week between April 21st, which was Monday, previous to April 26th,
it being a record simply of the petty cash used by us, showed that we had
a balance on hand the Monday morning previous of $39.85. On April
22nd we drew a check for $15.00, and on April 24th we drew another one
for $15.00. I mean by that that we would draw a check for $15,00, and go
over to Mr. Sig Montag to sign it; so that during that week all we got
from the treasury was $30.00, and $39.85 already on hand, made $69.85,
which was the total amount we had to account for. When we spend, of
course we credit it. There once was a time, when, as we paid out money,
we would write it down on this book. We found it was much better, how-
ever, to keep a little voucher book (Defendant’s Exhibit 10) and let each
and every person sign for money they got, and we have not only this
record (Defendant’s Exhibit 40) but this record on the receipt book (De-
fendant’s Exhibit 10). The first entry on this is 15 cents there-on the
19th of April the National Pencil Company gave 15 cents to Newt Lee
for kerosene (Defendant’s Exhibit 10). Newt Lee’s name is there, but
he didn’t write it. I wrote it; my initials are on it. He was there when
he got the money, but I thought he couldn’t write, and I signed his name.
Whenever I sign anybody’s name, my initials are under it. The next
item is 75 cents for typewriter rent (Defendant’s Exhibit 10) ; next item
$2.00 drayage 24th of April. That is Truman McCrary’s receipt-he
has a very legible handwriting, and one of the little stamps stamped on
there. The next item is for cases; some negro signed his name down
there. So on throughout the book (Defendant’s Exhibit 10), cases, ex-
press, drayage, postage, parcels post, etc. Now, after counting the
money, finding how much actual cash there was in the cash box, the next
thing I do is to take this little voucher book, and lumped the different
items that were all alike together. This sheet (Defendant’s Exhibit 41)
has been identified and explained, and you notice that there were four
items of drayage grouped together, the total being $6.70. I just extend
that over to the right there $6.70. Then I don’t have to put drayage
down in this book (Defendant’s Exhibit 40) four times; just make one
entry of drayage for the four times we paid drayage together, which
gives the same total, and makes the book a great deal neater. So on
throughout, five items of cases, two items of postage, two items of par-
cels post, one item of two weeks’ rent on an extra typewriter, 45 cents
for supplies for Mr. Schneegas’ department, foreman on the third floor,
85 cents for the payment of a very small bill to King Hardware Com-
pany, $11.50 to a tinsmith for a small job he had done, 5 cents for thread,
and ten cents for carfare one item. Then this young man, Harold
Wright, of whom I spoke, omitted from the pay roll. I added this up,
and that was $39.31, and transferred it from here (Defendant’s Exhibit
41) to there (Defendant’s Exhibit 40). I then made the balance in the
usual way, checking it against the money on hand, that I had in the cash
box that night, and after checking and re-checking it, and finding no
money missing from any source that we could trace, found that it was
$4.34 short of the cash box, which was due to shortage in pay roll in the
past three months.

4:35 P. M.

I finished this work that I have just outlined at about five minutes to
six, and I proceeded to take out the clock strips from the clock which
were used that day and replace them. I won’t show you these slips, but
the slips that I put in that night were stamped with a blue ink, with a
rubber dating stamp, “April 28th (Defendant’s Exhibit 1), at the bot-
tom, opposite the word “date.” Now, in reference to these time slips
and the reason that the date April 28th was put on these slips, which was
put in the clocks that night-Saturday night-no one was coming down
to the factory on Sunday, as far as I knew, or as far as custom was, to
put the slips into the clocks, and, therefore, we had to put the slips into
the clock dated with the date on which the help were coming into the
factory to go about their regular duties and register on the Monday
following, which, in this case was April 28th. Now on one of these slips,
Newt Lee would register his punches Saturday night, and on Sunday
night he would register his punches on the other. His punches on Mon-
day night would be registered on two new slips that would be put into
clock on Monday night. As I was putting these time slips into the clock,
as mentioned, I saw Newt Lee coming up the stairs, and looking at the
clocks, it was as near as may be six o’clock-looking straight at the clock;
I finished putting the slip in and went back to wash up, and as I was
washing, I heard Newt Lee ring the bell on the clock when he registered
his first punch for the night, and he went down stairs to the front door to
await my departure. After washing, I went down stairs-I put on my
hat and coat-got my hat and top coat and went down stairs to the front
door. As I opened the front door, I saw outside on the street, on the
street side of the door, Newt Lee in conversation with Mr. J. M. Gantt,
a man that I had let go from the office two weeks previous. They seemed
to be in discussion, and Newt Lee told me that Mr. Gantt wanted to go
back up into the factory, and he had refused him admission, because his
instructions were for no one to go back into the factory after he went
out, unless he got contrary instructions from Mr. Darley or myself. I
spoke to Mr. Gantt, and asked him what he wanted, he said he had a
couple of pairs of shoes, black pair and tan pair, in the shipping room.
I told Newt Lee it would be alright to pass Gantt in, and Gantt went in,
Newt Lee closed the door, locking it after him-I heard the bolt turn in
the door. I then walked up Forsyth Street to Alabama, down Alabama
to Broad Street, where I posted the two letters, one to my uncle, Mr. M.
Frank and one to Mr. Pappenheimer, a few minutes after six, and con-
tinued on my way down to Jacobs’ Whitehall and Alabama Street store,
where I went in and got a drink at the soda fount, and bought my wife a
box of candy. I then caught the Georgia Avenue car and arrived home
about 6:25. I sat looking at the paper until about 6:30 when I called up
at the factory to find out if Mr. Gantt had left. I called up at 6:30 be-
cause I expected Newt Lee would be punching the clock on the half hour
and would be near enough to the telephone to hear it and answer it at
that time. I couldn’t get Newt Lee then, so I sat in the hall reading un-
til seven o’clock, when I again called the factory, this time I was success-
ful in getting Newt Lee and asked him if Mr. Gantt had gone again, he
says, “Yes,” I asked if everything else was alright at the factory; it was,
and then I hung up. I sat down and had supper, and after supper, I
phoned over to my brother-in-law, Mr. Ursenbach, to find out if he would
be at home that evening, I desired to call on him, but he said he had an-
other engagement, so I decided to stay home, and I did stay home read-
ing either a newspaper or the Metropolitan magazine that night. About
eight o’clock I saw Minola pass out on her way home. That evening, my
parents in law, Mr. and Mrs. Emil Selig, had company, and among those
present were Mr. and Mrs. Morris Goldstein, Mr. and Mrs. M. Marcus,
Mrs. A. E. Marcus and Mrs. Ike Strauss; Mr. Ike Strauss came in much
later, something after ten o’clock, I believe. I sat reading in the hall
until about a quarter to ten, when I lighted the gas water heater prepar-
atory to taking a bath, and then continued reading in the hall; at 10:30
I turned out the gas, went into the dining room, bade them all good night,
and went upstairs to take my bath, a few minutes later my wife followed
me upstairs.

(Here the jury took a recess).

I believe I was taking a bath when you went out-on Saturday
night; and after finishing my bath, I laid out my linen to be used next
day, my wife changed the buttons from my old shirt to the shirt I was to
wear the following morning, and I retired about eleven o’clock. The
next day, Sunday, April 27th, I was awakened at something before seven
o’clock, by the telephone ringing. I got out of bed-was tight asleep, it
awakened me-but I got out of bed, put on a bath robe and went down to
answer the telephone, and a man’ s voice spoke to me over the phone and
said-I afterwards found out this man that spoke to me was City Detec-
tive Starnes-said “Is this Mr. Frank, superintendent of the National
Pencil Company ?” I says “Yes, sir,” he says, “I want you to come
down to the factory right away,” I says, “What’s the trouble, has there
been a fire?” He says, “No, a tragedy, I want you to come down right
away; ” I says, “All right,” he says,” I’ll send an automobile for you,”
I says, “All right,” and hung up and went upstairs to dress. I was in
the midst of dressing to go with the people who should come for me in the
automobile, when the automobile drove up, the bell rang and my wife
went down stairs to answer the door. She had on-just had a night dress
with a robe over it. I followed my wife-I wasn’t completely dressed at
that time-didn’t have my trousers or shirt on, and as soon as I could
get together-get my trousers and shirt on-I went down stairs-fol-
lowed my wife in a minute or two. I asked them what the trouble was,
and the man who I afterwards found out was detective Black, hung his
head and didn’t say anything. Now, at this point, these two wit-
nesses, Mr. Rogers and Mr. Black differ with me on the place where the
conversation occurred-I say, to the best of my recollection, it occurred
right there in the house in front of my wife; they say it occurred just as
I left the house in the automobile; but be that as it may, this is the con-
versation: They asked me did I know Mary Phagan, and I told them I
didn’t, they then said to me, didn’t a little girl with long hair hanging
down her back come up to your office yesterday sometime for her money
-a little girl who works in the tipping plant?” I says, “Yes, I do re
member such a girl coming up to my office, that worked in the tipping
room, but I didn’t know her name was Mary Phagan.” “Well, we want
you to come down right away with us to the factory;” and I finished
dressing, and as they had said they would bring me right away back, I
didn’t have breakfast, but went right on with them in the automobile,
made the trip to the undertaking establishment very quickly-I mean,
they made the trip down town very quickly, and stopped at the corner of
Mitchell and Pryor Streets, told me they were going to take me to the
undertaker ‘s first, that they wanted me to see the body and see if I could
identify the little girl. I went with them to the undertaking establish-
ment, andone of the two men asked the attendant to show us the way into
where the body was, and the attendant went down a long, dark passage-
way with Mr. Rogers following, then I came, and Black brought up the
rear; we walked down this long passageway until we got to a place that
was apparently the door to a small room-very dark in there, the attend-
ant went in and suddenly switched on the electric light, and I saw the
body of the little girl. Mr. Rogers walked in the room and stood to my
right, inside of the room, I stood right in the door, leaning up against the
right facing of the door, and Mr. Black was to the left, leaning on the
left facing, but a little to my rear, and the attendant, whose name I have
since learned was Mr. Gheesling, was on the opposite side of the little
cooling table to where I stood-in other words, the table was between
him and me; he removed the sheet which was covering the body, and took
the head in his hands, turned it over, put his finger exactly where the
wound in the left side of the head was located-put his finger right on it;
I noticed the hands and arms of the little girl were very dirty-blue and
ground with dirt and cinders, the nostrils and mouth-the mouth being
open-nostrils and mouth just full of saw-dust and swollen, and there
was a deep scratch over the left eye on the forehead; about the neck there
was twine-a piece of cord similar to that which is used at the pencil fac-
tory and also a piece of white rag. After looking at the body, I identified
that little girl as the one that had been up shortly after noon the day pre-
vious and got her money from me. We then left the undertaking estab-
lishment, got in the automobile and rode over to the pencil factory. Just
as we arrived opposite the pencil factory, I saw Mr. Darley going into
the front door of the pencil factory with another man, whose name I
didn’t know; we went up to the second floor, the office floor, I went into the
inner office, hung up my hat, and in the inner office I saw the night watch-
man, Newt Lee, in the custody of an officer, who I think was detective
Starnes-the man who had phoned me. I then unlocked the safe and
took out the pay roll book and found that it was true that a little girl by
the name of Mary Phagan did work in the metal plant, and that she was
due to draw $1.20, the pay roll book showed that, and as the detective had
told me that someone had identified the body of that little girl as that of
Mary Phagan, there could be no question but what it was one and the
same girl. The detectives told me then they wanted to take me down in
the basement and show me exactly where the girl’s body was found, and
the other paraphernalia that they found strewed about; and I went to
the elevator box-the switch box, so that I could turn on the current, and
found it open. In reference to that switch box being open or shut-it
was open on that occasion, however-I had given instructions to the fac-
tory to keep it open, and those instructions were given because a member
of the fire department had gone through all that part of the city, and the
National Pencil Company, among others, and told us that no switch box,
no box in which an electric switch was situated, could be locked up, but
had to be open, so it could be easily accessible in case of fire, so they
wouldn’t run any risk of electrocuting anybody, or if they wanted to
move quickly, they could throw it on and start the elevator-you couldn’t
lock it up, the firemen wouldn’t know where the key was. However, I
turned on the switch, started the motor, which runs the elevator, going,
then Mr. Darley and a half dozen more of us and the detectives got on
the elevator; I got on the elevator and I started to pull the rope to start
the elevator to going, and it seemed to be caught, and I couldn’t move it,
I couldn’t move it with a straight pull, and couldn’t get it loose, so I
jumped out, we all got off, and I asked Mr. Darley to try his hand-he’s
a great deal larger man and a great deal stronger man than I was-so he
was successful in getting it loose-it seemed like the chain which runs
down in the basement had slipped a cog and gotten out of gear and needed
somebody to force it back; however, Mr. Darley was successful in get-
ting it loose, and it started up, and I got on and the detectives got on and
I caught hold of the rope and it worked alright.

In the basement, the officers showed us just about where the body
was found, just beyond the partition of the Clark Woodenware Company,
and in behind the door to the dust bin, they showed us where they found
the hat and slipper on the trash pile, and they showed us where the back
door, where the door to the rear was opened about 18 inches. After look-
ing about the basement, we all went back upstairs and Mr. Darley and
myself got some cords and some nails and a hammer and went down the
basement again to lock up the back door, so that we could seal the factory
from the back and nobody would enter. After returning upstairs, Mr.
Darley and myself accompanied Chief Lanford on a tour of inspection
through the three upper floors of the factory, to the second floor, to the
third floor and to the fourth floor, we looked into each bin, and each par-
tition, and each dressing room and each work room, and even passed
through the metal room and looked into that very dressing room that
has figured so prominently in this trial, and neither Mr. Darley nor my-
self noticed anything peculiar on that floor, nor did Sergeant Lanford,
Chief of the Atlanta detectives, notice anything peculiar. We then re-
turned to the front, and took out of the clock the slip on which Newt Lee
had punched the evening previous, and that clock slip, of course was
dated April 28th (Defendant’s Exhibit 1).

I removed the clock slip from the clock, and in the center of the
sheet, between the top and bottom, I remember the No. 133 and the num-
ber 134, 1 wrote on it “Taken out 8:26 A. M.” (Defendant’s Exhibit 1),
and two lines under it, with a casual look at that slip, you can’t see it.

I can see it. When looking casually at that slip (Defendant’s Ex-
hibit 1), you see nothing, and by the way, this sheet has been identified, it
is the one to which reference has been made so many times, and if you
will look at it, you will see the date, April 28th, which we put on there on
the evening of Saturday, April 26th, but if you will look opposite those
numbers 133 and 134 (Defendant’s Exhibit 1), and look very carefully,
you can see where there has been erased from it what I put on there that
morning in pencil to identify it, the words “taken out 8-26,” and two
lines, which it seems has been erased, but they couldn’t erase it carefully
enough, they even erased some of the printed line which runs across that
sheet. This is the sheet that I took out on Sunday morning, and looked
at the clock to notice what time it was, and I laid it up against the dial of
the clock, the glass face of the clock, and wrote down there the time which
the clock then registered. I told them the sheet was just like you see it
there, and I brought it to the office and Chief Lanford put it in his pocket;
I then went into the office and got another time slip and dated it April
28th, similar to this one which was taken out, and which one it would re-
place, and I put it back into the time clock to be used by the night watch-
man that night and by the help when they came to work on Monday morn-
ing. After taking this slip out, Mr. Darley and myself casually looked
over the slip to see if there were any errors, and we noticed over there
that no successive numbers had been skipped, that is, the numbers on
that slip are arranged successively, one, two and three, and the time
alongside of each one, and there was no single line skipped, but we didn’t
notice the actual time shown by the punch, we only noticed that the suc-
cessive punches were made at the time which the punches themselves
showed. After putting a new slip in the clock, we all went out of the fac-
tory and went downstairs and locked the door, and I was going to go
down to the office, to police headquarters, because the officers said they
wanted to show me some notes which they said were found near the body
and the padlock and staple which they showed me had been withdrawn,
and which they said had been taken down to the station the first time
they had Newt Lee down there.

Now, gentlemen, I have heard a great deal, and so have you, in this
trial, about nervousness, about how nervous I was that morning. Gen-
tlemen, I was nervous, I was very nervous, I was completely unstrung,
I will admit it; imagine, awakened out of my sound sleep, and a morning
run down in the cool of the morning in an automobile driven at top speed,
without any food or breakfast, rushing into a dark passageway, coming
into a darkened room, and then suddenly an electric light flashed on, and
to see the sight that was presented by that poor little child; why, it was
a sight that was enough to drive a man to distraction; that was a sight
that would have made a stone melt; and then it is suspicious, because a
man who is ordinary flesh and blood should show signs of nervousness.
Just imagine that little girl, in the first blush of young womanhood, had
had her life so cruelly snuffed out, might a man not be nervous who
looked at such a sight? Of course I was nervous; any man would be ner-
vous if he was a man. We went with the officers in the automobile, Mr.
Rogers was at the driving wheel, and Mr. Darley sat next to him, I sat on
Mr. Darley’s lap, and in the back was Newt Lee and two officers. We
rode to headquarters very quickly and on arrival there Mr. Darley and
I went up to Chief Lanford’s office where I sat and talked and answered
every one of their questions freely and frankly, and discussed the mat-
ter in general with them, trying to aid and to help them in any way that
I could. It seemed that, that morning the notes were not readily acces-
sible, or for some other reason I didn’t get to see them, so I told them on
leaving there that I would come back that afternoon, which I ultimately
did; after staying there a few minutes, Mr. Darley and myself left, and
inasmuch as Mr. Darley hadn’t seen the body of the little girl, we went
over to Bloomfield’s on Pryor Street and Mitchell, and when we went in-
to the establishment, they told us somebody was busy with the body at
that time and we couldn’t see it, and we started to leave, when we met a
certain party with whom we made arrangements to watch the building,
because Newt Lee was in custody at that time. Mr. Darley and I then
went over to Montag Brothers to see if any of the Montags had come
down town that morning, we arrived at their place, and found the same
was locked, and that nobody was down there. We walked from Montag’s
place on Nelson Street down to Mitchell and Forsyth Streets, where I
bade Mr. Darley good-bye, and I walked down Mitchell Street to Pryor,
where I caught a Georgia Avenue car and rode to the house of Mr. Sig
Montag, our General Manager, corner of Glenn and Pryor Streets, and
called on Mr. Montag and discussed with him at length and in detail what
I had seen that morning and what the detectives had to say. After my
conversation with him, I returned to my home at about a quarter to
eleven, my home was 68 E. Georgia Avenue; I washed up and had my
breakfast in company with my wife, in the dining room, and while I was
eating breakfast, I told my wife of the experience I had had that morn-
ing. After I finished my breakfast, I left the house and went around to
the home of Mr. Wolfsheimer, and at Mrs. Wolfsheimer’s house we
found quite a company of people, and the conversation turned largely
on what I had seen that morning; also, among those who were present,
were Mrs. L. G. Cohen, Mrs. M. G. Michael, Mrs. Carl Wolfsheimer,
Julian Michael, Philip Michael, Miss Helen Michael, Miss Virginia Sil-
verman, Miss May Lou Liebman, Julian Loeb and Herman Loeb. After
staying there about an hour with my wife, I went in her company to visit
the home of my brother-in-law, A. E. Marcus, whose home is situated on
Washington Street opposite the Orphans’ Home; on our arrival there,
the nurse Lucy told us that no one was at home, and we could find them
probably at the home of Mrs. Ursenbach; we then went over to the Ur-
senbach house, which is situated on the corner of Washington and Pul-
liam Streets, and visited at that place, and saw Mr. and Mrs. A. E. Mar-
cus, Mr. and Mrs. Chas. Ursenbach, Harold Marcus, Mr. and Mrs. Ben
Wiseberg. Of course, the conversation was about the little girl that had
been killed in the pencil factory basement that morning, of which fhey
had heard, and we discussed it generally, although it was at that time as
much a puzzle to me as it was apparently to everybody else. After stay-
ing here until about one o’clock or a little after, I returned with my wife
to my home at 68 E. Georgia Avenue, where we took our lunch together
with my parents-in-law, with Minola McKnight serving. After dinner,
read a little while, and finally caught the ten minutes of three Georgia
Avenue car going down town. I got off at the corner of Pryor and
Mitchell Streets, and went into the undertaker Bloomfield ‘s, where I saw
a large crowd of people nearby on the outside; on entering I found quite
a number of people who were working at the pencil factory, among whom
were Mr. Schiff, Herbert Schiff, N. V. Darley, Wade Campbell, Alonzo
Mann, Mr. Stelker, and Mr. Zyganke. I chatted with them a few min-
utes, and I noticed that the people who were going in to see the body were
standing in line and moving in, and that others from the factory were
going in and I thought I would go in too and pay my respects, and I went
and stood in line, and went into the room again and staid a few minutes
in the mortuary chamber; the little girl had been cleaned up, her hair
had all been cleaned and smoothed out, and there was a nice white sheet
over the rest of her body. I returned to the front of the undertaking es-
tablishment, and stood chatting with Herbert Schiff and Mr. Darley un-
til the party with whom we had made arrangements came up, and we gave
them the keys with instructions as to watching the plant that night. Then
Mr. Darley and Mr. Schiff and myself went down to police headquarters
and went up into Chief Lanford’s office, and the three of us stood talking
there, answering all sorts of questions that not only chief Lanford, but
the other detectives would shoot at us, and finally Mr. Darley said he
would like to talk to Newt Lee; then he went into another room, and I
presume they brought Newt Lee up from the cell, so he could talk to him.
After Newt Lee was gone, the detectives showed us the two notes and the
pad back with still a few unused leaves to it, and the pencil that they
claimed they had found down in the basement near the body. Of course,
Mr. Schiff and myself looked at those notes and tried to decipher them,
but they were written exceedingly dim, and were very rambling and in-
coherent, and neither of us could recognize the handwriting, nor get any
sense out of them at all. One of these notes (State’s Exhibit Y) was
written on a sheet of pencil pad paper, the same kind as that of this sheet
which still remained on the pad back; the other (State’s Exhibit Z) was
written on a sheet of yellow paper, apparently a yellow sheet from the
regulation order pad or order book of the National Pencil Company; this
sheet was a yellow sheet with black ruling on it, and certain black print-
ing at the top. These are the two notes (State’s Exhibit Y and Z) (indi-
cating papers). At the top of these notes where it showed the series and
date, and you can see it has either been worn out or rubbed out (Defend-
ant’s Exhibit Z), but the date was originally on there, and down below
here is the serial number; now, both of those notes were written as
though they had been written through a piece of carbon paper and the
date said Jan. 8, 1911; the order number is so faint or erased here that I
can It even see what that is, but there is no trace of a date on this one at
all, but it was there distinctly visible when Mr. Schiff and myself looked
at it. We continued answering any questions that the detectives wished
to put to us looking to a possible solution of the mystery, when Mr. Dar-
ley came in and said if they didn’t want him any further, he would go off,
that he had an appointment. A few minutes thereafter, Mr. Schiff and
myself left police headquarters, and went down Decatur Street to Peach-
tree Street, and down Peachtree Street over the viaduct to Jacobs’ Ala-
bama and Whitehall Street store, and went in, and each of us had a drink,
and I bought a cigar for each of us at the cigar counter. Mr. Schiff had
an appointment to meet some friends of his at the Union Depot that af-
ternoon, and it was a little too early, so we took a walk around by the
pencil factory, walking up Alabama to Forsyth Street and down Forsyth
Street on the side opposite from the factory, to the corner of Hunter and
Forsyth, where we noticed the morbid crowd that had collected out in
front of the factory; we stood there about a minute or two and then con-
tinued walking, and then went up East Hunter Street back to Whitehall
Street, and back Whitehall to the corner of Whitehall and Alabama,
where Mr. Schiff waited until I caught an Alabama Street or Georgia
Avenue car and returned to my home. I returned to my home about a
quarter to four, and found there was no one in, as my wife had told me
that if she wasn’t at home, she would probably be at the residence of Mr.
Ursenbach, I proceeded over there, coming up Washington Street in the
direction of the Orphans’ Home, and on Washington Street, between
Georgia Avenue and the next street down, which I believe is Bass Street,
I met Arthur Haas and Ed Montag and Marcus Loeb, who stopped me
and asked about things they had heard about the little girl being dead in
the pencil factory, and I stopped and discussed it with them, and I was
about to leave them when Henry Bauer came along in his automobile and
stopped where I was and he asked me what I knew about it, and I had to
stop and talk with him; and I finally got loose from him and went over to
the home of Mr. Ursenbach on the corner of Pulliam and Washington
Terrace, and when I arrived there, I found Mr. and Mrs. A. D. Marcus,
Mr. and Mrs. Charlie Ursenbach, and my wife, and a little later Mr. and
Mrs. Sig Selig came in. Here again the subject of conversation was
what I had seen that morning and what the detectives had told me, and
what I had told them and how the little girl looked, and all about it, as
far as I knew. I stayed there until about 5 o’clock, when Mr. Ike Haas,
the Vice-President of the pencil factory, telephoned me to come over to
his house, and I thereupon went over there, and on arriving at Mr. Haas’
home, which is situated on Washington Street right across the way from
the Orphans’ Home, I talked to him about what I had seen that morning,
and what I could deduce from the facts that were known and what the
detectives had told me. I stayed there until about 6 o’clock. On arrival
at Mr. Haas’ I saw there his wife, Mrs. Haas, his son, Edgar Haas, and
a cousin of my wife’s, Montefiore Selig. My wife had left word with
Mrs. Haas that I should call for her at the residence of Mr. Marcus,
which is next door, or just a few doors away, and I went by and called
for my wife at six o’clock and a few minutes before seven my wife and I
left the residence of Mr. Marcus and started down Washington Street
towards Georgia Avenue on our way home. On our way home, we met
our brother-in-law, Mr. and Mrs. Ursenbach, going to the house from
which we had just left. We reached home about seven or a little after
for supper. After supper, I started to read the paper; between 8 and
8:30, I phoned up to my brother-in-law, Alex Marcus, and asked him if
he would come down, but he said he thought he would not that evening,
on account of the rain. I continued reading there in the hall that night
or evening. There was company at the house of my father and mother-
in-law, among the company being the following people, to the best of my
recollection, Mr. and Mrs. Paul Lippman, Mr. and Mrs. Ike Strauss and
Mr. and Mrs. Carl Wolfsheimer. About ten o’clock, all the company
left, and I went upstairs with my wife and retired about ten o’clock.
The next morning, I arose about seven o’clock, and washed and
shaved and dressed, and while I was so occupied, the door bell rang, and
my wife again answered the door, and there were two detectives down
there, one was John Black, and the other, I believe, Mr. Haslett, Haslett
of the city detectives; I finished dressing and went downstairs, and they
told me they wanted me to step down to headquarters with them, and I
told them I would, but I stopped and got my breakfast, finished dressing
and got my breakfast before I went with them. We walked from my
home on Georgia Avenue down to Washington Street down to police
headquarters, walking the whole way. On the way down, I asked detec-
tive Haslett what the trouble down at the station house was, and he said:
“Well, Newt Lee has been saying something, and Chief Lanford wanted
to ask you a few questions about it;” and I said: “What did Newt Lee
say;” “Well, Chief Lanford will tell you when you get down there.”
Well, I didn’t say anything more to him, went right along with him, and
when I got down to police headquarters, I sat in one of the outer offices
that the detectives use, it wasn’t the office of Chief Lanford, he hadn’t
come down yet, that was about between 8 and 8:30 when I got down there.
Well, I waited around the office possibly an hour, chatting and talking to
the officers that came in and spoke to me, but I still didn’t see anything
of Chief Lanford; and bye and bye, probably after an hour, half past
nine perhaps, Sig Montag and Herbert Haas, a couple of my friends,
came up and spoke to me; I was conversing with them, and possibly at
10 o’clock I saw Mr. Luther Rosser come up, and he said: “Hello boys,
what’s the trouble?” And Mr. Haas went up to him and spoke to him,
and they were talking together and a few minutes later Chief Lanford,
who had in the mean time arrived and who seemed to be very busy run-
ning in and out answering telephone calls, came in and says: “Come
here,” and beckoned to me; and I went with him and went into his room,
in his office, and while I was in there, to the best of my recollection, any-
how it is my impression now, that this very time slip (Defendant’s Ex.
1), on which at that time that “taken out at 8:26,” with the two lines un-
der it, had not been erased, was shown to me, and in looking over it and
studying it carefully, I found where the interval of an hour had occurred
three times during the time that Newt Lee had been punching on that
Saturday night, April 26th. When I had first looked at it, I only noticed
that every line had a punch mark on it, but I didn’t notice what time the
punch marks themselves were on; this time I studied the slip carefully,
it was the same slip I had taken out of the clock, Chief Lanford or one of
the officers handed it to me at police headquarters, which I absolutely
identified with the writing which was on it, which you can readily see if
you look now, even though it has been erased. There seemed to be some
altercation about Mr. Rosser coming in that room, and I heard Mr. Ros-
ser say: “I am going into that room, that man is my client;” that was
the first intimation I had that Mr. Rosser was going to look after my in-
terests in this matter. Chief Beavers stated that he wanted me to give
him a statement, and he said: “Mr. Frank, will you give us a state-
ment’?” And I said: “Certainly, I will give them a statement,” I con-
sidered it only right that anybody that was at that factory that day
should give the police a statement, telling who he had seen, where he had
gone and what he had done; and I gave them a statement freely and un-
reservedly, while I had no idea that I had to make a statement at that
time, I did give it to the very best of my ability, freely, and answered
every question that was put to me. Mr. February was sitting on the op-
posite side of the table from where I was sitting, Chief Lanford
was sitting at a desk, and Mr. Rosser was sitting quite a distance
away, probably twenty-five feet, sitting in the front window with his
back to us. After I had given the statement, several of the officers
came into the room, among them being Chief Beavers, and Chief Beav-
ers and Chief Lanford and Mr. Rosser were apparently having a sort of
conversation, and I overheard Mr. Rosser say: “Why, it is -preposter-
ous, a man who would have done such a deed must be full of scratches
and marks and his clothing must be bloody.” I imagine Mr. Rosser must
have had an inkling that they were suspicious of me, and as soon as I
heard that, I turned and jumped up and showed them my underclothing
and my top shirt and my body, I bared it to them all that came within the
range of their vision, I had everything open to them, and all they had to
do was to look and see it. After that, Mr. Rosser insisted that two of the
detectives, Mr. Black and another detective, accompany Mr. Haas, Mr.
Herbert Haas, and myself to my home and look over my soiled clothing
for the past week, which I anticipated had not been given to the wash-
woman. They complied with this request; Mr. Black and another detec-
tive and Mr. Haas and myself went over to the corner of Hunter and
Washington Streets, and caught the Washington Street car and rode to
Georgia Avenue and went to my home, and on this car my mother-in-law
was sitting, returning to her home from town. On reaching 68 E. Geor-
gia Avenue, I found there my wife’s grandmother, Mrs. Cohen, and my
father-in-law, Mr. Selig. The detectives immediately went upstairs to
my room with Mr. Haas and myself, and I took the laundry bag in which
my soiled laundry is always kept and emptied it out on the bed, and they
examined each and every article of clothing that I had discarded that
past week, and I again opened the clothing which I was then wearing,
and which was the brown suit which I have here, this brown suit (Defend-
ant’s Exhibit 49) is the same suit I wore that Saturday, April 26th, and
Monday April 28th, and I have worn that suit continuously since then
until the weather became so hot, and it has neither been pressed nor
cleaned since then, and I show it to you for your examination. The de-
tectives were evidently perfectly well satisfied with what they had seen
there, and of course they left without any further remarks with Mr.
Haas. I went downstairs and conversed with my folks down there until
dinner time, which was served to my father-in-law and my mother-in-
law and my wife and myself b-y Minola McKnight. About that time, Mr.
and Mrs. Wolfsheimer came in and conversed with us, Mr. Wolfsheimer
telling me that he would take me down town that afternoon in his auto-
mobile. After dinner, I telephoned down to the office and telephoned to
Mr. Schiff, and told him to get Mr. Montag’s permission for the Pencil
Company to put on a detective, preferably a Pinkerton detective, to
work with and assist the city detectives in ferreting out the crime, as an
evidence of the interest in this matter which the National Pencil Com-
pany was taking, I thought it was no more than we ought to do, and I
also told Mr. Schiff I would be down town between half past two and
three. After conversing with my folks, I went around the corner to Mr.
Wolfsheimer’s house and got in his automobile, and he took me down
town to his place of business, which is situated on Whitehall Street near
Mitchell, and I got out of the automobile there and walked over to the
Forsyth Street plant of the pencil factory, and on going into the office, I
saw the following men there: Mr. Herbert Schiff, Mr. Wade Campbell,
Mr. Darley-Mr. Holloway was out in his place in the hall, and Mr. Stel-
ker and Mr. Quinn and Mr. Ziganke, these foremen were sitting around
there because we had shut down there, as they told me, due to the fact
that the plant was wholly demoralized, the girls were running into hys-
terics, they couldn’t stick at their work, they were crying and going on
over what had happened there. I spoke to the boys who were there in
the office about the happenings of that morning, of course, at more or
less length. Then Mr. Quinn said he would like to take me back to the
metal department on the office floor where the newspapers had said that
Mr. Barret of the metal department had claimed he had found blood
spots, and where he had found some hair. Mr. Quinn took me to the lit-
tle lathe back in the metal department, and explained to me that Mr. Bar-
rett had told him just the same as he said here, that those strands of hair
were so few in number that he didn’t see them until he turned the handle
and they wound around his fingers, and moreover that the position of the
handle of the tool which that handle actuates on that tool, that small
lathe, was in the same relative position to the work in the lathe as when
they left it on Friday evening previous to that Monday. They then took
me over to the place in front of the dressing room where it was claimed
the blood spots were found. Now, I examined those spots, I didn’t ex-
amine them standing up, I didn’t depend on the light from the windows,
but I stooped right down to those spots, and I took a strong electric flash
lamp that we had around there and looked at them and examined them
carefully, and I made a certain conclusion after that examination. Now,
gentlemen, if there is anyone thing in and about a factory, after my
seven years of practical experience in factories, that I do know, it is the
care and condition of factory floors. Now, take that metal plant, for in-
stance, that plant, as you know, is a place where we reform and shape
and spin sheet brass, and of course, of necessity, we use a great deal of
lubricant there; now, the lubricant that is used on this eyelet machine,
these large machines that change the sheet metal from a ribbon into a
shape, we use that form of lubricant which is known as haskoline com-
pound; now, the main ingredients of that compound are, for practical
purposes, soap and oil, and in use, it is diluted to a great extent with
water so it can flow easily onto the tools or onto the metal, so that the
tools that they use it on won’t get brittle or smeared up, and that has-
koline compound is carried to these little machines in the metal room,
right almost up to that dressing room, and that haskoline remains on
them and sticks to them, and you are apt to find that haskoline com-
pound on the floor there anywhere around in that metal room near any
of those machines, and when it is spilled on the floor, it is not scoured
up, but it is just swept up with a broom. Moreover, a point that has not
been brought out, so far as I know, right opposite that dressing room is
kept the scrap brass, the scrap barrels in which the scrap metal from the
eyelet machines is put, and that is full of haskoline compound, that metal
being put into the barrel of course, with the fluid on it, it flows to the bot-
tom and is apt to get out of the bottom of that barrel onto the floor. But,
getting back to the floor of the metal room, there is a constant spilling of
lubricants, and, as I say, it is composed largely of soap and oil, and that
floor, by actual experiment, is covered to a thickness varying from a
quarter to a half inch, that is, you can scrape away that much before
you get down to the original color of the wood; moreover, on top of that
grease soaked floor, there is dirt more or less, and then somebody comes
along with a water sprinkler and sprinkles it to sweep it up, and they go
over the top of that, it don’t sink into the floor, and the result is there is
coat after coat of grease and dirt on that floor. Now, with reference to
those spots that are claimed to be blood that Mr. Barrett found, I don’t
claim they are not blood, they may have been, they are right close to the
ladies’ dressing room, and we have had accidents there, and by the way,
in reference to those accidents, the accidents of which we have had rec-
ords, are not the only accidents that have happened there; for instance,
a person cuts a finger; that is an accident, we give first aid to the injured
in the office, and we don’t have any report on that, the only reports we
have are of those accidents that incapacitates the health, where they de-
mand the money for the time that they have lost due to the accident, and
we will have our Employers’ Liability Insurance Company to pay the
employees, but where people just cut their fingers and they go back to
work, we don’t make any record of that, and we have people cutting their
fingers there very often, and when they cut their fingers, their line of
travel is right by that place where Mr. Barrett found those spots, right
to the office. Now, we use paint and varnish around there, a great deal
of it, and while I don’t say that this is not blood, it may be, but it could
also have been paint, I have seen the girls drop bottles of paint or var-
nish and have them break there on the floor, I have seen that happen
right close to that spot, but the main point about it is this, gentlemen:
when I got down and looked at it, you could have scratched away from
the top of those dark stains an accumulation of dirt that was not the ac-
cumulation of a day or two days or three days or three weeks, but it was
at least three months, from off the top of those spots, without touching
the spot itself. Moreover, that white stuff was unquestionably, in my
opinion, haskoline compound, and it was dry and it had to be put on, be-
cause it showed all evidences of having been swept, so it had to be put on
the wood in a liquid state; if that had been fresh red paint, or if that had
been fresh red blood, and that haskoline compound, that soap in it, which
is a great solvent, should have been put on there in a liquid state, it
would not have showed up white, as it showed up then, but it would have
showed up either pink or red, and where the spot of blood was, or what-
ever it was, that stuff was white, and not pink or red.

I returned after making this examination from which I noticed two
or three or four chips had been knocked up, the boys told me, by the
police that morning; I returned to my office and gathered up what
papers I had to take over to Montag Brothers, and I took over the finan-
cial report which I had made out the Saturday afternoon previous, and
I talked it over with Mr. Sig Montag. I had a good long conversation
with Mr. Montag with reference to the occurrences that morning and we
decided that since the papers had stated that I was being detained at
headquarters, it would be best to let my uncle, who was ill, and who is an
elderly man, being over 70 years of age, and who was on the point of
taking a trip to Europe, and I didn’t want him to be unnecessarily
alarmed by seeing in the papers that I was detained, and I wrote a tele-
gram to Mr. Adolph Montag informing him that I was no longer in cus-
tody, that I was all right, and that he could communicate that to may un-
cle. That was so that my uncle should not get hold of an Atlanta paper
and see that I was in custody and be unnecessarily alarmed.

I returned from Montag Brothers to the pencil factory, being ac-
companied by one of the traveling men, Mr. Hein, Mr. Sol Hein, and on
my arrival at the factory I went up into the office and distributed the
various papers all over the factory to be acted on the next day. In a few
minutes Mr. Harry Scott of the Pinkerton detectives came in and I took
him aside into my office, my private office, and spoke to him in the pres-
ence of Mr. N. V. Darley and Mr. Herbert Schiff. I told him that I ex-
pected that he had seen what had happened at the pencil factory by
reading the newspapers and knew all the details. He said he didn’t read
the newspapers and didn’t know the details, so I sat down and gave him
all the details that I could, and in addition I told him something which
Mr. Darley had that afternoon communicated to me, viz.: that Mrs.
White had told him that on going into the factory at about 12 o’clock
noon on Saturday, April 26th, she had seen some negro down by the ele-
vator shaft. Mr. Darley had told me this and I just told this to Mr. Scott.
After I told Mr. Scott all that I could, I took him around the building,
took him first back to the metal room and showed him the place where
the hair had been found, looked at the machinery and at the lathe, looked
at the table on which the lathe stands, and the lathe bed and the floor un-
derneath the lathe, and there wasn’t a spot, much less a blood spot un-
derneath. I showed him the other spot in front of the dressing room,
and I took him to the fourth floor and showed him where I had seen
White and Denham a little before one the first time and about three the
second time. Then I took him down into the basement and made a thor-
ough search of the basement, and that included an examination of the
elevator well which was at bottom of elevator shaft, and I noticed Mr.
Scott was foraging around down there and he picked up two or three or
may be four articles and put them in his pocket, and one of them I spe-
cially noticed was a piece of cord exactly like that which had been found
around the little girl’s neck. We then went back and I showed him where
the officer said the slipper had been found, the hat had been found and
the little girl’s body was located. I showed him, in fact, everything that
the officers had showed us. Then I opened the back door and we made a
thorough search of the alleyway and went up and down the alleyway and
then went down that alleyway to Hunter Street and down Hunter to
Forsyth and up Forsyth in front of the pencil factory. In front of the
pencil factory I had quite a little talk with Mr. Scott as to the rate of the
Pinkerton Detective Agency. He told me what they were and I had Mr.
Schiff to telephone to Mr. Montag to find out if those rates were satis-
factory. He phoned back the answer that he would engage them for a
few days at any rate. Mr. Scott then said: “Well, I don’t need any-
thing more,” and he says “The Pinkertons in this case, according to
their usual custom in ferreting out the perpetrator of this crime will
work hand in hand with the city officers.” I said: “All right, that suits
me.” And he went on his way. About that time my father-in-law
joined the group over in front of the factory and after talking for some
time my father-in-law and I left and we arrived home about 6:30 I
should judge, and found there my mother-in-law and my wife and Min-
ola McKnight, and we had supper. After supper my two brothers-in-
law and their wives came over to visit with us and they stayed until
about 10 o’clock, after which my wife and I retired. On Tuesday morn-
ing I arose sometime between seven and seven-thirty, leisurely dressed
and took my breakfast and caught the 8:10 car coming towards town,
the Georgia Avenue car, and when I went to get on that car I met a
young man by the name of Dickler and I remember paying the fare for
both of us. When I arrived at the pencil factory about 8:30, I imme-
diately entered upon my routine work sending the various orders to the
various places in the factory where they were due to go, and about 9:30
I went on my usual trip over to Montag Brothers to see the General Man-
ager. After staying over there a short while I returned in company with
another one of their traveling men, Mr. Jordan. At the corner of For-
syth and Hunter Street I met up with a cousin of my wife’s, a Mr. Selig,
and we had a drink at Cruickshank’s soda fount at the corner of Hunter
and Forsyth. Then I went up into the factory and separated the papers
I had brought back with me from Montag Brothers, putting them in the
proper places, and sending the proper papers to the different places. I
was working along in the regular routine of my work, in the factory and
about the office, and a little later detectives Scott and Black came up to
the factory and said: “Mr. Frank, we want you to go down to headquar-
ters with us,” and I went with them. We went down to headquar-
ters and I have been incarcerated ever since. We went down to head-
quarters in an automobile and they took me up to Chief Lanford’s office.
I sat up there and answered any questions that he desired, and I had
been sitting there some time when detective Scott and detective Black
came back with a bundle under their arm. They showed me a little piece
of material of some shirt, and asked me if I had a shirt of that material.
I looked at it and told them I didn’t think I ever had a shirt of that de-
scription. In the meantime they brought in Newt Lee, the night watch-
man brought him up from a cell and showed him the same sample. He
looked at it and immediately recognized it; he said he had a shirt like that,
but didn’t remember having worn it for 2 years, if I remember correctly,
that is what he said. Detectives Scott and Black then opened the pack-
age they had and disclosed the full shirt (State’s Exhibit F) of that ma-
terial that had all the appearance of being freshly stained with blood,
and had a very distinct odor. Newt Lee was taken back to the cell.
After a time Chief Langford came over to me and began an examination
of my face and of my head and my hands and my arms. I suppose he was
trying to hunt to see if he could find any scratches. I stayed in there un-
til about 12 o’clock when Mr. Rosser came in and spoke to the detectives,
or to Chief Beavers. After talking with Chief Beavers he came over to
me and said that Chief Beavers thought it better that I should stay
down there. He says: “He thinks it better that you be detained at head-
quarters, but if you desire, you don’t need to be locked up in a cell, you
can engage a supernumerary policeman who will guard you and give you
the freedom of the building.” I immediately acquiesced, supposing that
I couldn’t do anything else, and Mr. Rosser left. Now, after this time,
it was almost about this time they took me from upstairs down to the
District Sergeant’s desk and detective Starnes-John N. Starnes, I
think his name is, came in and dictated from the original notes that were
found near the body, dictated to me to get a sample of my handwriting.
Have you got those photographs there? (Photographs handed to the
defendant). I wrote this note (State’s Exhibit K) at the dictation of
Mr. Starnes, which was given to me word by word, and of course I wrote
it slowly. When a word was spelled differently they usually stopped-
take this word “buy” for instance, the detective told me how that was
spelled so they could see my exact letters, and compare with the original
note. Now I had no hesitation in giving him a specimen of my handwrit-
ing. Now, this photograph (State’s Exhibit K), is a reproduction of the
note. You see, J. N. Starnes in the corner here, that is detective Starnes,
and then is dated here, I put that there myself so I would be able to rec-
ognize it again, in case they tried any erasures or anything like that. It
is a photographic reproduction of something that was written in pen-
cil, as near as one can judge, a photographic reproduction of the note
that I wrote. Detective Starnes then took me down to the desk sergeant
where they searched me and entered my name on the book under a charge
of suspicion. Then they took me back into a small room and I sat there
for awhile while my father-in-law was arranging for a supernumerary
police to guard me for the night. They took me then to a room on the
top of the building and I sat in the room there and either read maga-
zines or newspapers and talked to my friends who came to see me until
-I was about to retire at midnight. I had the cover of my cot turned
back and I was going to bed when detective Scott and detective Black, at
midnight, Tuesday, April 29th, come in and said: ” I Mr. Frank, we would
like to talk to you a little bit. Come in and talk to us.” I says: “Sure,
I will be only too glad to.” I went with them to a little room on the top
floor of the headquarters. In that room was detective Scott and detec-
time Black and myself. They stressed the possibility of couples having
been let into the factory at night by the night watchman, Newt Lee. I
told them that I didn’t know anything about it, that if I had, I certainly
would have put a stop to it long ago. They said: “Mr. Frank, you have
never talked alone with Newt Lee. You are his boss and he respects you.
See what you can do with him. We can’t get anything more out of him,
see if you can.” I says: ” All right, I understand what you mean; I will
do my best,” because I was only too willing to help. Black says: “Now
put it strong to him, put it strong to him, and tell him to cough up and
tell all he knows. Tell him that you are here and that he is here and that
he better open up and tell all he knows about happenings at the pencil
factory that Saturday night, or you will both go to hell.” Those were
the detective’s exact words. I told Mr. Black I caught his meaning, and
in a few minutes afterwards detective Starnes brought up Newt Lee
from the cell room. They put Newt Lee into a room and hand-cuffed
him to a chair. I spoke to him at some length in there, but I couldn’t get
anything additional out of him. He said he knew nothing about couples
coming in there at night, and remembering the instructions Mr. Black
had given me I said: “Now, Newt, you are here and I am here, and you
had better open up and tell all you know, and tell the truth and tell the
full truth, because you will get us both into lots of trouble if you don’t
tell all you know,” and he answered me like an old negro: “Before God,
Mr. Frank, I am telling you the truth and I have told you all I know.”
And the conversation ended right there. Within a minute or two after-
wards the detectives came back into the room, that is, detective Scott
and detective Black, and then began questioning Newt Lee, and then it
was that I had my first initiation into the third degree of the Atlanta
police department. The way that fellow Black cursed at that poor old
negro, Newt Lee, was something awful. He shrieked at him, he hol-
lered at him, he cursed him, and did everything but beat him. Then
they took Newt Lee down to a cell and I went to my cot in the outer room.

Now before closing my statement, I wish to touch upon a couple of
insinuations and accusations other than the one on the bill of indictment,
that have been leveled against me so far during the trial. The first is
this, the fact that I would not talk to the detectives; that I would not see
Jim Conley. Well, let’s look into the facts a few minutes and see whether
there was any reason for that, or if there be any truth in that statement.

On Sunday morning, I was taken down to the undertaker’s estab-
lishment, to the factory, and I went to headquarters; I went to head-
quarters the second time, going there willingly without anybody coming
for me. On each occasion I answered them frankly and unreservedly,
giving them the benefit of the best of my knowledge, answering all and
any of their questions, and discussing the matter generally with them.
On Monday they came for me again. I went down and answered any and
all of their questions and gave them a statement which they took down
in writing, because I thought it was right and I was only too glad to do
it. I answered them and told them all that I know, answering all ques-
tions. Tuesday I was down at police station again, and answered every
question and discussed the matter freely and openly with them, not only
with the police, but with the reporters who were around there; talked to
anybody who wanted to talk with me about it, and I have even talked
with them at midnight when I was just about to go to bed. Midnight
was the time they chose to talk to me, but even at such an outlandish hour
I was still willing to help them, and at their instigation I spoke to Newt
Lee alone, but what was the result ? They commenced and they grilled
that poor negro and put words into his mouth that I never said, and
twisted not alone the English, but distorted my meaning. I just decided
then and there that if that was the line of conduct they were going to pur-
sue I would wash my hands of them. I didn’t want to have anything to
do with them. On the afternoon of May 1st, I was taken to the Fulton
County Tower. On May 3rd detectives Black and Scott came up to my
cell in the tower and wanted to speak to me alone without any of my
friends around. I said all right, I wanted to hear what they had to say
that time. Then Black tore off something like this: “Mr. Frank, we are
suspicious of that man Darley. We are watching him; we have been
shadowing him. Now open up and tell us what you know about him.” I
said: “Gentlemen, you have come to the wrong man, because Mr. Dar-
ley is the soul of honor and is as true as steel. He would not do a crime
like that, he couldn’t do it.” And Black chirped up: “Come on, Scott,
nothing doing,” and off they go. That showed me how much reliance
could be placed in either the city detectives or our own Pinkerton detec-
tives, and I treated such conduct with silence and it was for this reason,
gentlemen, that I didn’t see Conley, surrounded with a bevy of city detec-
tives and Mr. Scott, because I knew that there would not be an action so
trifling, that there was not an action so natural but that they would dis-
tort and twist it to be used against me, and that there was not a word
that I could utter that they would not deform and twist and distort to be
used against me, but I told them through my friend Mr. Klein, that if
they got the permission of Mr. Rosser to come, I would speak to them,
would speak to Conley and face him or anything they wanted-if they
got that permission or brought Mr. Rosser. Mr. Rosser was on that day
up at Tallulah Falls trying a case. Now, that is the reason, gentlemen,
that I have kept my silence, not because I didn It want to, but because I
didn’t want to have things twisted.

Then that other implication, the one of knowing that Conley could
write, and I didn’t tell the authorities.

Let’s look into that. On May 1st I was taken to the tower. On the
same date, as I understand it, the negro Conley was arrested. I didn’t
know anybody had any suspicions about him. His name was not in the
papers. He was an unknown quantity. The police were not looking out
for him; they were looking out for me. They didn’t want him, and I had
no inkling that he ever said he couldn’t write. I was sitting in that cell
in the Fulton County jail-it was along about April 12th, April 12th or
14th-that Mr. Leo Gottheimer, a salesman for the National Pencil Com-
pany, came running over, and says “Leo, the Pinkerton detectives have
suspicions of Conley. He keeps saying he can’t write; these fellows over
at the factory know well enough that he can write, can’t he?” I said:
“Sure he can write. ” “We can prove it. The nigger says he can’t write
and we feel that he can write.”‘ I said: “I know he can write. I have re-
ceived many notes from him asking me to loan him money. I have re-
ceived too many notes from him not to know that he cannot write. In
other words, I have received notes signed with his name, purporting to
have been written by him, though I have never seen him to this date use
a pencil.” I thought awhile and then I says:” Now, I tell you; if you will
look into a drawer in the safe you will find the card of a jeweler from
whom Conley bought a watch on the installment. Now, perhaps if you
go to that jeweler you may find some sort of a receipt that Conley had to
give and be able to prove that Conley can write.” Well, Gottheimer took
that information back to the Pinkertons; they did just as I said; they got
the contract with Conley’s name on it, got back evidently to Scott and
then he told the negro to write. Gentlemen, the man who found out or
paved the way to find out that Jim Conley could write is sitting right
here in this chair. That is the truth about it.

Then that other insinuation, an insinuation that is dastardly that it
is beyond the appreciation of a human being, that is, that my wife didn’t
visit me; now the truth of the matter is this, that on April 29th, the date
I was taken in custody at police headquarters, my wife was there to see
me, she was downstairs on the first floor; I was up on the top floor. She
was there almost in hysterics, having been brought there by her two
brothers-in-law, and her father. Rabbi Marx was with me at the time. I
consulted with him as to the advisability of allowing my dear wife to
come up to the top floor to see me in those surroundings with city detec-
tives, reporters and snapshotters; I thought I would save her that humil-
iation and that harsh sight, because I expected any day to be turned loose
and be returned once more to her side at home. Gentlemen, we did all
we could do to restrain her in the first days when I was down at the jail
from coming on alone down to the jail, but she was perfectly willing to
even be locked up with me and share my incarceration.

Gentlemen, I know nothing whatever of the death of little Mary
Phagan. I had no part in causing her death nor do I know how she came
to her death after she took her money and left my office. I never even
saw Conley in the factory or anywhere else on that date, April 26, 1913.

The statement of the witness Dalton is utterly false as far as com-
ing to my office and being introduced to me by the woman Daisy Hopkins
is concerned. If Dalton was ever in the factory building with any woman,
I didn’t know it. I never saw Dalton in my life to know him until this

In reply to the statement of Miss Irene Jackson, she is wholly mis-
taken in supposing that I ever went to a ladies’ dressing room for the
purpose of making improper gaze into the girls’ room. I have no recol-
lection of occasions of which she speaks but I do not know that that
ladies’ dressing room on the fourth floor is a mere room in which the girls
change their outer clothing. There was no bath or toilet in that room,
and it had windows opening onto the street. There was no lock on the
door, and I know I never went into that room at any hour when the girls
were dressing. These girls were supposed to be at their work at 7 o’clock.
Occasionally I have had reports that the girls were flirting from this
dressing room through the windows with men. It is also true that some-
times the girls would loiter in this room when they ought to have been
doing their work. It is possible that on some occasions I looked into this
room to see if the girls were doing their duty and were not using this
room as a place for loitering and for flirting. These girls were not sup-
posed to be dressing in that room after 7 o’clock and I know that I never
looked into that room at any hour when I had any reason to suppose that
there were girls dressing therein.

The statement of the negro Conley is a tissue of lies from first to
last. I know nothing whatever of the cause of the death of Mary Pha-
gan and Conley’s statement as to his coming up and helping me dispose
of the body, or that I had anything to do with her or to do with him that
day is a monstrous lie.

The story as to women coming into the factory with me for immoral
purposes is a base lie and the few occasions that he claims to have seen
me in indecent positions with women is a lie so vile that I have no
language with which to fitly denounce it.

I have no rich relatives in Brooklyn, N. Y. My father is an invalid.
My father and mother together are people of very limited means, who
have barely enough upon which to live. My father is not able to work.
I have no relative who has any means at all, except Mr. M. Frank who
lives in Atlanta, Ga. Nobody has raised a fund to pay the fees of my
attorneys. These fees have been paid by the sacrifice in part of the small
property which my parents possess.

Gentlemen, some newspaper men have called me “the silent man in
the tower,” and I kept my silence and my counsel advisedly, until the
proper time and place. The time is now; the place is here; and I have
told you the truth, the whole truth.


In reply to the statement of the boy that he saw me talking to Mary
Phagan when she backed away from me, that is absolutely false, that
never occurred. In reply to the two girls, Robinson and Hewel, that they
saw me talking to Mary Phagan and that I called her” Mary,” I wish to
say that they are mistaken. It is very possible that I have talked to the
little girl in going through the factory and examining the work, but I
never knew her name, either to call her “Mary Phagan,” “Miss Pha-
gan,” or “Mary.”

In reference to the statements of the two women who say that they
saw me going into the dressing room with Miss Rebecca Carson, I wish
to state that that is utterly false. It is a slander on the young lady, and
I wish to state that as far as my knowledge of Miss Rebecca Carson goes,
she is a lady of unblemished character.


Brief Analysis of Frank’s Testimony

Some interesting pages of Leo M. Frank’s trial testimony given to the Jury, when Frank mounted the stand on August 18th 1913, concerning Mary Phagan and his whereabouts. These pages are from the official record The State of Georgia v Leo M. Frank, Brief of Evidence, 1913.

At the police station on Monday, 28 April 1913, Leo M. Frank made statement to Newport A. Lanford, Chief of Detectives, concerning the time Mary Phagan arrived in his second floor office, saying Phagan arrived between 12:05 to 12:10, maybe 12:07. Read the original Leo M. Frank statement from the Brief of Evidence 1913: State’s Exhibit B.

Pages 185 and 186 of the Leo M. Frank Trial Brief of Evidence describes and captures the events between noon, when Leo M. Frank was working in his second floor office, and 1:10 PM, when he left his second floor office to go home for lunch (Southerners at the time called what we call today lunch using the word Dinner). Frank describes himself leaving his office one time with certainty from noon to 1:10 PM, when he went upstairs to the 4th floor, to ask Mrs. Arthur White to leave, and tell Mr. Arthur White and Harry Denham that he would be locking up the Pencil Factory Building (checking on their work and progress status).

When his memory was fresh, Leo M. Frank originally told the police on Monday, April 28 1913, that Mary Phagan arrived between 12:05 to 12:10, see: State’s Exhibit B. However, he would change the time of her arrival after it was discovered Monteen Stover was waiting for her pay envelope in Frank’s empty office from 12:05 to 12:10. On August 18th 1913, Leo Frank, changes his story and describes Mary Phagan coming to his office approximately 10 to 15 minutes after Miss Hall left his office (Miss Hattie Hall left the factory at about noon when the church bells tolled). Therefore, according to Frank’s alternative or different account, it can be estimated that Mary Phagan came into Leo Frank’s office between 12:10 and 12:15, a rough arrival span of time 5 minutes in length.

12:05 to 12:10 PM, Saturday, 26 April 1913

In response to Monteen Stover’s testimony, Leo M. Frank made a statement to the Trial Jury about unconsciously going to the bathroom to use the toilet or to urinate, it was extremely damaging. Because in order to go into the Men’s or Women’s bathroom on the second floor (which is down the hall from Frank’s second floor office), one has to go into and through the metal room. To get to the bathroom in the metal room one has to pass the dressing room to get into the bathroom, where the Men’s and Women’s bathroom is separated by a partition. See State’s Exhibit A and Second Floor Aerial View in the 1913 Brief of Evidence.

Frank specifies the time of a possible bathroom visit after Noon when the twelve O’clock whistle blew.

Frank by saying he may have unconsciously gone to the bathroom, has himself traveling to and through the very specific place where factory employees identified a big 5 inch diameter fan shaped blood stain on the floor and hair on the Lathe handle. An employee who worked the machine said there was no way there could be hair on the handle of his machine when he left on Friday evening. Another employee testified that he swept metal room clean and did not remember a blood stain with haskolene smeared on it in front of the dressing room (dressing room is inside the metal room).

At the 4 week long trial, the prosecution had spent 3 weeks bringing forward police, detectives and factory employees to describe murder evidence in the second floor metal room at the time of Leo Frank’s August 18th 1913 testimony to the trial Jury.

Leo Frank gave the prosecution what amounted to a confession and because of this, Leo Frank had entrapped himself beyond escape.

12:20 PM, Saturday, 26 April 1913

Then Frank alleged Lemmie Quinn came into his office hardly 5 minutes after Mary Phagan had departed from his office, putting the time Lemmie arrived at about 12:20.

Leo Frank and Lemmie Quinn — one week after — Leo Frank was arrested on Tuesday, April 29, 1913, “remembered” and made the newfangled claim Lemmie Quinn allegedly returned to the factory at 12:20, leaving a gaping hole of 12:03 to 12:19 concerning Mary Phagan’s whereabouts.

Leo Frank is Quoted as Saying in his Trial Testimony:

She [Mary Phagan] had left the plant hardly five minutes when Lemmie Quinn, the
foreman of the plant, came in and told me that I could not keep him away
from the factory, even though it was a holiday; at which I smiled and
kept on working. He first asked me if Mr. Schiff had come down and I
told him he had not and he turned around and left.

Does that sound fabricated or contrived? Looking for Mr. Schiff?? Mr. Schiff who testified and prided himself NEVER being absent or late in his 5 years of employment at the pencil factory, just so happens to be absent on a state holiday, April 26, 1913 when he was supposed to be there?!. Was Mr. Schiff supposed to be at work on April 26, 1913, likely NOT and it is equally likely Lemmie Quinn never came back to the factory looking for Mr. Schiff at 12:20. The statement of Lemmie Quinn sets off our highly refined bullshit detectors to red alert.

12:35 PM, Saturday, 26 April 1913

Frank does not remember Mrs. White coming into his office at 12:35, though Frank gives her the benefit of the doubt and says it was so. Mrs. White remembers startling Leo Frank while he was at the safe door, allegedly putting Mary Phagan’s purse in there as Jim Conley would suggest as to where the Purse of Mary Phagan temporarily disappeared to.

12:50 PM, Saturday, 26 April 1913

Frank puts himself upstairs on the 4th floor at 10 minutes to 1PM speaking with the only 3 people in the building, two laborers Mr. Arthur White and Mr. Harry Denham, and one wife Mrs. Arthur White, according to the best of Frank’s recollection and knowledge. Telling everyone he was locking up the building and leaving, but when Mrs. White went down to his office, Frank was relaxing at his desk and did not put on his hat and coat.

More Inconsistencies in Leo Frank story

On page 187 of the official record, Frank says he called his brother in law to cancel their appointment to go to the baseball game. Frank said the reason he canceled was because he had too much work to do. Why is Frank behind on his work? What work does Frank actually have to do at the factory on a Saturday evening on a Holiday? Frank at a different time during the investigation at the Coroners Inquest Jury, said he canceled the appointment to go to the ball game because of inclement weather, implying fear of getting sick (catching a cold).

Is Frank suggesting he has clean up work to do? or office work? The question one asks is why if Frank has so much work to do does Frank allege he took 1.5 hours to get back to the office after he finished eating lunch? Why does Frank say he went to look at the parade if he also claims he has so much work to do and if he is worried about the inclement weather and catching a cold (implying getting sick) why is he out and about in the non-existent “inclement weather”?

More than one Bathroom Visits Revealed

Frank is unsure of his unconscious bathroom between 12:05 and 12:10, but he clearly remembers his bathroom visit just before Newt Lee arrives at the factory a few minutes before 4pm on page 188 of the official record. Why does Leo M. Frank sorta forget some bathroom visits, yet remember others? How often did Frank go to the bathroom which requires passing through the metal room? By Frank’s statements he puts himself twice in the second floor metal room, Frank seems to be making it really easy for the prosecution.

4pm, Saturday, 26 April 1913, Newt Lee Arrives

Leo Frank said he told Newt Lee that he had work to do and assertively sent him out, and instructed him to come back at no later than 6:30 PM. Frank certainly seemed to have a lot of work to do on a Saturday Holiday when no one is expected to work. This gives Frank an additional 2.5 hours for either “office paper work” or murder clean up. Strangely during the testimony of Frank, he describes how Newt Lee neglected his work, and was supposed to carefully inspect the basement and other floors every half hour.

Newt Lee likely neglected his job of very carefully inspecting the basement every half hour, so when Leo Frank call the factory at 6:30 PM and again at 7:00 PM to see if everything was alright and if Newt Lee found the body, it likely left Leo perturbed. Leo Frank calling the factory on a Saturday was something he had never done before with Newt Lee before which tended to be another variable of suspicion against the superintendent. Newt Lee testified that Frank wanted to know if everything was okay at the factory. Was Frank expecting Newt Lee to discover the body? Most Likely. Frank says he was checking to see if a former employee he had fired, J.M. Gantt, but allowed to get his shoes (chaperoned with Newt Lee) had left the building. Though Newt Lee said Frank never asked about the former employee. This was a contradiction of word between Newt Lee and Leo Frank, the Jury likely took the side of Newt Lee, because the defense Lawyers could not break down Newt Lee as an unreliable witness on the stand late July 1913.

Steve Oney suggested if Freud had been watching and listening to Leo Frank’s testimony, he would have said Leo Frank was trying to hide something (People vs. Leo Frank, 2009)

Frank continued to talk about the minutiae of the work he had to do that day. During Franks 4 hour testimony, he had spent nearly 3 to 3.5 hours of it going over incomprehensible pencil mathematical computations to the Judge and Jury. Leo Frank spent less than 30 minutes to an hour talking about the important details that the Jury needed and wanted to hear, which was evidence to substantiate an alibi, an alibi which makes it an impossibility, that Frank was in the second floor bathroom and metal room murdering Mary Phagan.


Read the Bibliography Page

Primary Sources:

Available for review and download, please visit: Leo M. Frank, Plaintiff in Error, vs. State of Georgia, Defendant in Error. In Error from Fulton Superior Court at the July Term 1913. Brief of Evidence 1913. See: Internet Archive version 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

Brief of Evidence 1913: State’s Exhibit B

Map of the second floor: Second Floor Aerial View

Brief of Evidence, in the Leo M. Frank Murder Trial.

Argument of Hugh M. Dorsey in the Leo M. Frank Murder Trial also on a review of the Argument of Hugh M. Dorsey

Secondary Sources:

The Murder of Little Mary Phagan By Mary Phagan-Kean, the Great Grand Niece of Mary Phagan.

The People vs. Leo Frank, Ben Loeterman and Steve Oney (2009)

Fair Usage Law

April 10, 2011   Posted in: Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, B'nai B'rith, Holocaust, Holocaust Denial, Holocaust Revisionism, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism, Leo Frank, White Nationalism, White Supremacism, Zionism  Comments Closed

The People v Leo Frank by Ben Loeterman

The People v Leo Frank Film, Short Summary Review:

The People v Leo Frank is truly an unforgivable and profoundly dishonest Jewish propaganda film, which like every other Jewish media treatment created in the last 100+ years on the subject of Jews, predominantly cherry picks, spins and manipulates facts on behalf of Jews and against Gentiles, exalting them as jaded stoics in the Gentile world, in this particular case, transfiguring him from a Jewish pedophile, rapist and strangler — a convicted murderer affirmed by the entire U.S. legal system over two years — into an innocent holy religious martyr and stoic hero scapegoated into a mini Jewish holocaust from 1913 to 1915.

The worst part about the docudrama is not only the outright re-writing of history on the Leo Frank case to the benefit of Leo Frank and exaggerating Jewish victimhood, but this propaganda film is less overt in its essence, perpetuating an ugly century-old Jewish ethnoreligious blood libel smear against European-Americans associated with the Leo Frank case, suggesting European-Americans are without reason blindly prejudiced anti-semites, who orchestrated a vast anti-Jewish conspiracy to railroad and frame an innocent nice Jewishboy, Leo Frank, for the most unjust reasons possible: anti-Semitism!

Doorway into the Psychology of the Collective Jewish Mind

The Leo Frank case has become a deeply insightful doorway into the collective Jewish hivemind, Jewish gene patterns and Jewish behavior, revealing that Jews are eternally neurotic ego, tribal and race obsessed people, forever accusing everyone else of being anti-semites or participating in anti-semitism, when in fact they are generally racist in their beliefs about non-Jews.

From the highest consciousness of the Gentile point of view, the ultimate conclusion of the Leo Frank case and the endless Jewish media circus created around it over the last 100 years, is it reminds us historically, that Jews as a race and a religion forever thrive on waging vicious cultural and race wars against Gentiles.

The People v. Leo Frank, Long Winded Review:

You just read the brief summary and review of this docudrama movie, if you would like the long winded and loquacious version, continue reading.

Pseudo-Scholarly Docudrama, The People v. Leo Frank

The People v. Leo Frank tells the self-deceiving and one-sided Jewish version of the Mary Phagan tragedy, perpetuating myths about the Leo Frank case in the style of a fictionalized docudrama, giving the false impression of respectable academic credibility and 3rd person scholarly neutrality. Ultimately when the film is distilled to its essence it is nothing more than an arrogant, base, crass and insolent pack of half truths, outright lies, conspiracy theories and antisemitic smears directed at European-Americans. The People v. Leo Frank is another reminder that Jews are genetically innate narcissistic obsessed and relentless in waging tribal and culture warfare against European-Americans.

There can be no forgiveness for a people who have attempted to turn a prominent Jew and president of B’nai B’rith, from a pedophile, rapist and strangler into a martyr of a Gentile inspired anti-semitic conspiracy. They use Leo Max Frank this pedophile and sexual predator, the president of Bnai Brith who inspired the birth of the spy agency ADL of B’nai B’rith, to wage a genetic race war against Gentiles. Annihilate the metaphorical collective European-American Immune System.

Preaching to the Choir and Creating New Converts, The People v. Leo Frank

The People v. Leo Frank might be best described as serving two important purposes for the Jews and Leo Frank partisans (Frankites), one, it provides an up-to-date, as of 2009, Jewish media regurgitation, creatively spun, for reinforcing the 100 year old Jewish position on the Leo Frank case, and second, it makes a pretty good attempt at being a successful proselytizing propaganda video for recruiting new Frankites. For more information on what a “Frankite” is, read Tom Watson’s publication called Watson’s Magazine issues Jan, March, August, September and October 1915.

100 Years of Lies: The People v Leo Frank

The People v. Leo Frank is like every other film created by Jews about Jews, mostly half-corny, mellow dramatic, self-aggrandizing, egotistical, narcissistic, self-deceiving, self-serving, ennobling and emotionally exalting. Like countless others, the film is yet another broken-record rendition by the Jewish media circus, creating another representation of the heroic and Promethean Jew, struggling stoically for justice and Freedom trapped within the eternally antisemitic and hostile Gentile world.

Most people are wondering, why are Jews always trying to move into Gentile countries and live

Fair Usage Law

April 5, 2011   Posted in: Anti Racism, Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, B'nai B'rith, Holocaust Revisionism, Israel, Jerusalem, Jewish, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism, Leo Frank, Multicultural News, Race Relations, Racism News, White Nationalism, White Supremacism  Comments Closed

Jewish American Heritage Month » B'nai B'rith International …

Fighting hatred and prejudice has long been a basic tenet of B’nai B’rith, which was founded in 1843 to help new Jewish immigrants fight the hatred and prejudice they faced in their …

Go here to see the original:
Jewish American Heritage Month » B'nai B'rith International …

Fair Usage Law

April 3, 2011   Posted in: Jewish American Heritage Month  Comments Closed

Fun & Interesting Facts About The Holocaust

Adolf Hitler was one of the main causes for World War II because of the Holocaust . The Holocaust is the name that has been given to the killing of around 11 million people, most of them being Jewish

Facts About The Holocaust
I Have Lived A Thousand Years: Growing Up In The Holocaust (Mass Market Paperback, 234 Pages)I Have Lived A Thousand Years: Growing Up In The Holocaust by Livia Bitton-Jackson. Get it from Amazon.

A sad event in the world’s history began in the 1930’s in Germany. Adolf Hitler was one of the main causes for World War II because of the Holocaust. The Holocaust is the name that has been given to the killing of around 11 million people, most of them being Jewish. The Holocaust began in 1933 and lasted throughout the entire war, and ended in 1945. History provides accurate details about the Holocaust, but many are less known than others.
Mass killings of Jewish people in concentration camp. Some in the photos were caring their infants and children as young as 2 to 3 years old. Nazi soldiers would walk among the dead bodies with machine guns and shot anyone that may survived the first round of killings. Credit: 1
Millions of shoes and glasses belonging to the victims of the holocaust. Credit: 1
A plan for a gas chamber in Auschwitz, a letter stating the current capacity of all crematoriums in Auschwitz is about 5000 people per day and a letter authorizing the ‘resettlement of the Jews’, which in fact is actually an order to execute the Jews. Credit: 1, 2, 3
Adolf Hitler. Picture of him as a child and when he was in power. Adolf Hitler started World War 2 and it all began with hatred and discrimination towards the German Jews. European Jews numbered about 9 million and by the end of the Holocaust, two thirds of European Jews have died. Credit: 1, 2

The Start of the Holocaust

The rest of the world did not know about the Holocaust right away. In fact, German’s tried to hide the Holocaust especially during the 1936 Olympics, which were held in Berlin, Germany. Anti-Jewish signs were removed from the streets until the Olympics were over, but they were immediately reestablished after their completion. One of the largest and most well known ghettos was the Warsaw Ghetto, which was established in 1940. Another type of prison for Jews was the concentration camp. The first was Dachau near Munich in Germany, and another Auschwitz, both served as labor and death camps.

Important Events During the Holocaust

An important night during the Holocaust is known as ‘Kristallnacht’ or ‘Night of the Broken Glass’. This event occurred in November 1938, and refers to the night when many Jewish homes and establishments were destroyed. The ghettos that were originally supposed to contain Jewish people, were emptied in 1941, and the people were then moved to concentration camps.

After the War

Thankfully, there were some survivors of the Holocaust. These survivors have been crucial to the compiling of information about the Holocaust, including descriptions of life within concentration camps. Many of the survivors’ stories have been the basis for books and movies that have established the Holocaust history, and most importantly, have helped us remember the lives that were lost during that horrible time. Also, there are many memorials to the Holocaust, including the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., which houses over 9,000 oral history reports from survivors, numerous artifacts and photographs, and a register of a couple hundred thousand survivors.

Follow this link:
Fun & Interesting Facts About The Holocaust

Fair Usage Law

March 28, 2011   Posted in: Holocaust, Holocaust Denial, Holocaust Revisionism, Israel, Jerusalem, Jewish, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism  Comments Closed

The People v. Leo Frank

Watch the People v. Leo Frank

The People v Leo Frank Film, Short Summary Review:

In terms of a brief review and summary of the People v Leo Frank, it is ultimately an unforgivable and profoundly dishonest Jewish propaganda film, which like every other Jewish-position (Frankite) film and book created in the last 100+ years on the subject, predominantly cherry picks, spins and manipulates facts on behalf of Leo Frank, exalting him, transfiguring a Jewish pedophile, rapist and strangler – a convicted murderer affirmed by the entire U.S. legal system – into an innocent and stoic hero of anti-Jewish injustice.

The worst part about the docudrama is not only the outright re-writing of history on the case to the benefit of Leo Frank and Jewish victimhood, but this propaganda film is less overt in its essence, perpetuating an ugly century-old Jewish ethnoreligious blood libel smear against European-Americans associated with the Leo Frank case, suggesting European-Americans are without reason blindly prejudiced anti-semites, who orchestrated a vast anti-Jewish conspiracy to railroad and frame an innocent Jew, Leo Frank, for the most unjust reasons possible.

The Leo Frank case has become a deeply insightful doorway into the collective Jewish mind, revealing that Jews are eternally an ego, tribal and race obsessed people, forever accusing everyone else of being anti-semites when it benefits them.

From the Gentile point of view, the ultimate conclusion of the Leo Frank case and the endless Jewish media circus created around it, is it reminds us historically, Jews have waged an eternal cultural and race war against Gentiles and that we either fight to the bloody death in a no holds bar world war or we peacefully separate for good. There is no 3rd option, allowing them to live together with us in our countries only causes us the most profound suffering possible by this self-tortured people.

The People v. Leo Frank, Long Winded Review:

You just read the brief summary and review of this docudrama movie, if you would like the long winded and loquacious version, continue reading.

Pseudo-Scholarly Docudrama, The People v. Leo Frank

The People v. Leo Frank tells the self-deceiving and one-sided Jewish version of the Mary Phagan tragedy, perpetuating myths about the Leo Frank case in the style of a fictionalized docudrama, giving the false impression of respectable academic credibility and 3rd person scholarly neutrality. Ultimately when the film is distilled to its essence it is nothing more than an arrogant, base, crass and insolent pack of half truths, outright lies, conspiracy theories and antisemitic smears directed at European-Americans. The People v. Leo Frank is another reminder that Jews are genetically innate ego obsessed and relentless in waging racial, tribal and culture warfare against European-Americans. There can be no forgiveness for a people who has turned a prominent Jew and president of B’nai B’rith, from a pedophile, rapist and strangler into a martyr of Gentile anti-semitism and then used this pedophile to wage a culture and race war against Gentiles.

Preaching to the Choir and Creating New Converts, The People v. Leo Frank

The People v. Leo Frank might be best described as serving two important purposes for the Jews and Leo Frank partisans (Frankites), one, it provides an up-to-date, as of 2009, Jewish media regurgitation, creatively spun, for reinforcing the 100 year old Jewish position on the Leo Frank case, and second, it makes a pretty good attempt at being a successful proselytizing propaganda video for recruiting new Frankites. For more information on what a “Frankite” is, read Watson’s Magazine issues Jan, March, August, September and October 1915.

100 Years of Lies: The People v Leo Frank

The People v. Leo Frank is like every other film created by Jews about Jews, mostly half-corny, mellow dramatic, self-aggrandizing, egotistical, narcissistic, self-deceiving, self-serving, ennobling and emotionally exalting. Like countless others, the film is yet another broken-record rendition by the Jewish media, creating another representation of the heroic and Promethean Jew, struggling stoically for justice and Freedom amongst the eternally antisemitic and hostile Gentile world.

Most people are wondering, why are Jews always trying to move into Gentile countries and live amongst Gentiles when they are always accusing them of being racist and anti-Semitic? The answer is because the sum total of Jewish Identity is the mellow dramatic theme replayed historically, represented by a neurotic Jewish love-hate and homo-erotic sadomasochistic relationship with Gentiles – the Jew cries out in pain as he slaps you, runs away and calls you an anti-Semite.

What The People v. Leo Frank Really is: an Attempt to Rehabilitate a Pedophile, Rapist and Murderer

The People v Leo Frank was created for the purpose of attempting to rehabilitate Leo Frank from what he will forever be remembered as, first, a little man with a very small penis who suffered from a napoleon complex and who abused his power, rank, authority and position as a high-profile factory boss. Second, Leo Frank will always be remembered as a child-molester, child abuser, pedophile, adulterous whore monger, child rapist, strangler and convicted murderer.

A Rehabilitation and Reminder to Jews that Gentiles are all Conspiratorial Monsters

The inane rehabilitation attempts on behalf of Leo Frank by the Jewish community will not only attempt to transfigure him from the most loathsome type of man, into the highest and most noble, but Frank will take on a new permanent role as a high holy Jewish religious figure, one to be added to the Jewish holy books.

A New Cultural Icon is Born

After 100 years of propaganda by the Jews, Leo Frank has become a new cultural chapter in the spiritual and religious texts of Judaism, a stoic victim who was persecuted and railroaded, martyred by a wide spread antisemitic conspiracy and an injustice U.S. legal system. The end result is Leo Frank has become the spiritual patron fatherly symbol and martyr of antisemitism in the United States.

Did you know Leo Frank CONFESSED to the murder of Mary Phagan?

Ironically, Leo Frank virtually confessed to strangling Mary Phagan during his murder trial statement he made to the judge and jury on August 18, 1913. If you study the Leo Frank case and read the closing arguments of Hugh M. Dorsey and Frank Arthur Hooper at the trial which are available within American State Trials Volume 10 (X) 1918, and then read Tom Watson’s crystal clear analysis of the Leo Frank murder confession in the August and September 1915 issue of Watson’s Magazine, you will learn why the Jews despise Tom Watson with such foaming at the mouth fanaticism, simply put, because Watson articulated the Leo Frank murder confession so deliciously. Jews are forever trying to suppress the fact that Leo Frank confessed to the murder at his trial on August 18, 1913.

The People v Leo Frank Pretends to be Neutral and Deceives the Public

The film mostly feigns neutrality, by presenting itself as a legitimate docudrama, but for those who have studied the details of the Leo Frank Case, the film is nothing more than the most grotesque example of re-writing history on the Leo Frank case as of 2009, almost a century after the murder of Mary Phagan and the lynching of Leo Frank.

More specifically, how it was done

Presenting the Leo M. Frank Case in a pseudo scholarly manner is achieved by interspersing throughout the storyline carefully selected sound bites, and edited segments of face to face interviews, from numerous people who are knowledgeable about the Leo M. Frank case and Southern history. The story is then woven through a contrived and dishonestly biased path, in a way to leave people in doubt about Leo M. Frank’s real guilt and ultimately feeling righteously indignant about the possible antisemitic railroading he suffered. This aggressively promoted position presented to a duped public is the century old Jewish defense side of the Frank case and it represents a blood libel smear created by Jews against European-Americans.

The Perfect Fall Guy: Leo Max Frank

The Jews claim Leo M. Frank was also wrongfully framed and railroaded as an innocent Jew in the wrong place at the wrong time, by a blindly bigoted people looking for anyone to punish to quench the anger over the murder of Mary Phagan. The claim by Jews is the negro Jim Conley was not worthy enough, because he was black and a janitor.

Weird Jewish Race Obsessions: White Racists Secretly Love Guilty Black Rapists Who Strangle Little Girls, but not Innocent White Jews

The Jews and Leo Frank partisans (Frankites), like Elaine Marie Alphin, make the absurdly outrageous claim that racial separatist White Southerners would rather chose to blame for murder a well educated “innocent” White Jew named Leo Frank, who created hundreds of jobs for the community, over an uneducated alcoholic “guilty” Negro sweeper.

This insolence insult is the Jewish way of instigating of a global race war between the descendants of Europeans and Jews.

Gentiles hate Jews so much, they let them live in their countries.

This anti-Semitic conspiracy is one the Jews believe has been going on for more than 5,000 years, despite the fact the European non-Jew founded United States and has given Jewish people more opportunities, wealth and success than any other country in the last 5,000 years – not even Israel can make this claim of offering Jews so much wealth, power and success.

Meet Some of the Frankites like Steve Oney

The Jewish position on the Leo Frank Case is an opinion which tends to spin, manipulate, embellish and contradict the real facts and evidence of the case, with numerous types of published texts re-writing history, including various books and articles by Oney, Dinnerstein, Alphin, Goldfarb, Golden and many other Frankites that dishonestly tell their openly biased and history re-written versions of the Leo Frank story. These books are unanimously written from the Jewish position and leave out huge volumes of damaging facts against Frank. None of them talk about the Leo Frank murder confession of August 18, 1913.

The Wailing Wall: The Eternal Successful Victim

The Jewish and defense position about the Leo Frank Case embraces racial victim-hood and persecution with somber infantile and childish emotions of us vs. them, turning the Case into a mellow dramatic mini Holocaust of sorts and Tom Watson the precursor of Adolph Hitler.

Jewish Supremacism

To see the true power of the Jewish community, they turned out corrupt Georgian Governor John M. Slaton in 1915, like a high-priced hooker, making him trade his soul for a satchel of shekels. Slaton commuted the death sentence of Leo Frank to life in prison, having him transferred to a minimum security facility and ensuring his cell was comfy and cozy with nice cotton bedding, a radio and wind-up record player. See: Slaton’s written remarks and justification concerning the commutation he made on behalf of Leo M. Frank and how Slaton actually compares Leo Frank to Jesus Christ and himself to the Governor Potius Pilate (you have to read it to believe it) in a pathetic attempt to sooth the rightfully enraged Christian public, but the toady appeal was totally transparent and ultimately back fired. 5,000 people marched on the home of Slaton and if it had not been for the national guard shielding him from the protesters, Slaton would have gotten his own dose of justice.

Governor John Slaton was a Part Owner of the Law Firm Representing Leo Frank

John M. Slaton, betrayed the Constitution he swore to uphold and violated his oath of office in the most brazenly obvious way. When Slaton became a senior legal partner and part owner of the law firm representing Leo M. Frank as the legal defense team, Slaton did what basically amounted to commuting the sentence for one of his own business clients, Leo M. Frank.

The Distorted Jewish Mind

All of the numerous Hollywood style films produced by Jews have unanimously reflected the rehabilitation views of the Jewish community at large for more than one hundred years and it shows the true ugliness of Jewish media control. By using their vast media clique to re-write history and shit on the truth, the Jewish controlled media has turned a pedophile rapist and strangler into the leader of a new sect of Judaism called Frankaism.

“Based on a True Story”, Code word for Jewish Spun Propaganda

This film although biased, is based partly on a true story about the real life strangulation of 13 year old little Mary Phagan on that infamous Saturday in the early teens of the 20th century, right in the heart of Atlanta, Georgia. The 85 minute film highlights and briefly covers selective parts of the events in this case and carefully leaves out volumes the important facts against Frank.

Film topics covered include the murder investigation by the Police of Atlanta, Georgia and the Pinkerton Detective Agency hired by the National Pencil Company, both the unanimous decisions of the Coroners Inquest Jury and Grand Jury Indictment are not covered. For your information, a Coroner’s inquest Jury of seven men voted 7 to 0 (Coroner plus 6 Jury men), to have Leo Frank held for murder and reviewed by a Grand Jury for the strangulation of Mary Phagan. A Grand Jury of 21 men which included 4 Jewish members voted unanimously 21 to 0 to indict Leo Frank for the murder of Mary Phagan, and then a court of 13 men, a Judge and a Jury of 12 men, voted unanimously 13 to 0 to convict Leo Frank of murder. A grueling 2 year appeals process essentially affirmed all the earlier unanimous decisions from the trial verdict of 13 to 0, Grand Jury verdict of 21 to 0 and Inquest verdict of 7 to 0.

In the film the trial is partially covered, but spun in favor of Leo Frank. The conviction and death sentence judgment are barely highlighted. Even worse, the movie failed to really cover the cheesy, slapstick and frivolous 2 years of grueling tooth-and-nail appeals by Leo M. Frank. The Majority decisions of every single court level, from the Superior and Supreme Court of Georgia, Federal District Court and United States Supreme Court issued majority decisions that essentially amounted to the entire United States Court System upholding the verdict of the Judge and Jury.

Meet Steve “BalOney” Oney

The Governor’s controversial commutation was spun nicely with Steve BalOney’s bullshit in the shaft theory, turning Jim Conley’s Poo-Poo in the elevator shaft into the smoking gun (or the steaming pile) to exonerate Leo Frank. The mob lynching was covered, but not the interesting conversations on that 4 hour night drive leading to Leo M. Frank’s lynching.

Jewish Supremacist Power to Pardon a Child Molester, Rapist, Abuser and Murderer

The story concludes with the aftermath and eventual highly political Jewish power broker pardon WITHOUT EXONERATION of Leo Max Frank in 1986.

Yes, after a zillion legal reviews, everyone supports the verdict of the Jury. No one, not even Governor Slaton disturbed the verdict of the Jury.

Over a dozen appellate Judges affirmed the guilty verdict, and all of these Judges had studied the trial testimony and evidence meticulously, as their job fully required of them by the Law and Constitution of the United States. What the film left out was that in the calm quiet quarters, where no false accusations of mob terror could even remotely be possible, every appellate decision affirmed the guilt of Leo Frank from the Superior Court, State Supreme Court, District Court and United States Supreme Court.

What the film leaves out, is the virtual murder confession Leo Frank made on the witness stand on August 18, 1913, when Leo Frank told a packed court room of 200 people, a Judge and Jury, that he might have “unconsciously” gone to the bathroom in the metal room, during the time of the murder and put himself in the very place the prosecution spent 29 days trying to prove was the real scene of the murder – the infamous metal room.

Jewish Film Production and Consultation:

The 1913 Mary Phagan cold case murder crime story ultimately resulting in the mob lynching of Leo Frank in 1915, is re-created, filmed and creatively spun by Jewish producer and director Ben Loeterman. Steve Oney, Jewish author of ‘The Dead Shall Rise’ (a book alleging the total sum of the ‘Leo Frank Case’ was a vast Antisemitic conspiracy and that Conley did it) acted as chief consultant for the storyline and he also served as assistant director. Steve BalOney Oney is interviewed extensively throughout the docudrama speaking face to face with the viewers of the film through his metaphorical hexagram rose colored glasses, about his carefully selected version of the historical events. Oney even gets to play an extra in recreated dramatized scenes.

A Noble Lawyer Corrupted by Jewish Money and Pressure

The story is narrated with a period southern accent in the first person by a fictionalized version of prosecution team member, lawyer William Smith, who represents at the trial one of the star witnesses, factory sweeper Jim Conley (The man the Jews accuse of really committing the murder). Through the course of the fictionalized film, William Smith becomes more and more convinced Jim Conley was the actual murderer after the commencement of the murder trial, even though the entire appeals process to exhaustion affirmed Leo Frank’s conviction.

Smith eventually becomes senile, succumbing to a degenerative brain disease, but before dying of dementia and brain damage, he scrawls a kindergarten style barely legible death bed confession, that he believes Leo Frank is actually an innocent man of good character. This is despite the overwhelming evidence against Frank in real life from the ‘Leo Frank Murder Trial Brief of Evidence’, which is available for download from

The People v. Leo Frank Film Begins:

The film story starts momentarily in 1915 with a dreamy Leo Frank in a black and white prison jump suit, winding up an old fashioned record player, sighing, leaning and silently cooing like a gay love bird, listening to opera and then “William Smith”, the fictionalized narrator in an obnoxiously slow drawl speaks of the strength of Leo Frank’s marriage (yet his wife Lucille Selig Frank specifically mandated she did not want to be buried with her pedophile adulterous husband and her wish was fulfilled). Then the movie flashes back to the pencil factory basement at sometime around 3:00 to 3:15 AM on Sunday, April 27th 1913 where the lantern beholden night watch, Newt Lee, finds the dead body of Mary Phagan, a little girl who had been killed the afternoon on the day before, April 26th 1913, at 12:05 to 12:10, maybe 12:07.

From there the true story deviates on in a fictionalized Jewish manner unfolding on the infamous day, Saturday, April 26th, 1913, Confederate Memorial Day. There is brief discussion about the Southern holiday being celebrated, as in reality the few remaining Confederate veterans a the time would march through Atlanta, Georgia, or ride in slow moving vintage cars with the tops down as they wave to cheering crowds of onlookers and Southern patriots.

The story continues with defensive embellishment and half-truths about the specific events leading to and after the disappearance and murder of Mary Phagan. The entire purpose of the film is to leave you doubting that Leo Frank committed the murder, the spin and half-truths used to achieve this are done up exceptionally well. This is another Jewish Hollywood deceptive propaganda film at its best.

Read the Official Brief of Evidence

The Brief of Evidence in the Leo Frank Murder Trial ratified by both the prosecution and defense team tells the real story of Leo M. Frank’s guilt without all the Jewish bias, it is available online on and

The nexus of the story is after Phagan walks alone into the virtually empty pencil factory at just minutes after noon on April 26th, 1913. Phagan had been temporarily laid off on the previous Monday, because metal supplies had been fully depleted and not replenished yet. Phagan went to the factory to pick up her final pay of $1.20 and find out if the metal shipment had arrived yet or when it would arrive. Leo Frank was the last person to admit seeing her alive before she was killed by him.

Frank Lured Phagan into the Metal Room to Find Out

Frank lured Phagan into the Metal room when Mary asked him if the supplies of metal had come in yet, Frank told her he didn’t know, using that statement to lure her into the metal room. The aggressive sexual predator Leo Frank attempted to make a move on her, she resisted and he beat and raped her, then followed by strangling her, so she would not report it to her parents or the police. Mary was murdered just down the hall from Frank’s 2nd floor office in the metal room, and her blood stains and hair were found there, and a bad attempt had been made to cover them up by Leo Frank.

Leo Frank told Jim Conley to move the body of Mary Phagan to the basement, and then gave Conley $200 to stuff her in the basement furnace, but Jim stopped short of putting the body into the oven. Frank requested the money back and promised it to Jim Conley later if he would stuff the body of Phagan into the cellar oven.

On the way to the Pencil Factory: 11:45 to Noon, April 26th

Before Mary got off the trolley at noon to go into the pencil factory, she had agreed to meet up with her friend sitting with her, co-worker and neighbor George Epps, they had planned to watch the Confederate parade together at two o’clock in the afternoon. Mary had told Epps that Frank had winked at, made inappropriate and aggressive sexual advances toward her, which naturally scared her.

More than a Dozen Female Employees Testified to Frank’s Aggressive Sexual Tendencies

Epps words would take on significant importance, when more than a dozen teenage girls employed by the pencil factory would come forward to say Frank was a sexual predator and had a really bad character for lasciviousness.

The Sweeper and Former Book Keeper

Two male employees testified that they had participated in some capacity in Leo Frank’s whoring escapades, one as a lookout and the other a whoring participant. Leo Frank was using and allowing others to use the factory for whoring purposes.

April 26th, 2pm to Twilight

Epps watched the parade alone from two to four o’clock wondering why Mary stood him up. At night, Epps who lived just around the corner from the Phagan residence, ran over to her house the evening of April 26th, asking why Mary stood him up. It turns out that Mary Phagan was missing since the late morning of April 26th 1913. Phagan was last seen by her mother at 11:30AM finishing lunch, just as Mary was leaving her home that very morning to catch the Trolley to go to the pencil factory and get her pay from Leo Frank.

April 27th, 3:15 AM in the Morning

The next day, in the early hours of April 27th, 1913 at three o’clock in the morning, the African American night watch Newt Lee goes to the basement of the Pencil Factory to use the “negro toilet” and after finishing up his business, he discovers the slumped body of a little girl in the gloom. She is found on a garbage pile strangled with a cord dug into her neck, her face was ground and soiled with dark soot, her undergarments were torn and bloodied. There is no evidence of a struggle taking place in the basement, she seemed to be dumped there according to the police investigation.

April 26th, 4PM

Earlier in the day, Newt Lee had arrived early to work at the request of Frank, and when Newt arrived, Frank who was normally calm, cool and collected, came bustling out of his office frantically and made newt leave the factory for another 2 hours, so Frank could presumably finish up the last part of the clean up job. Newt said he was tired and asked if he could please sleep in the packing room, but Frank refused and told him to go out on the town and have a good time. Frank practically pushed his employee Newt Lee out of the factory for another 2 hours.

April 27th, 3AM

Three O’clock in the morning, after discovering the dead body, the nightwatchman Newt Lee then attempted to call Leo Frank for almost 10 minutes, because Frank was the superintendent of the factory and after Newt Lee the night watch had no success, he then calls the police and one of the biggest scandals in U.S. history rocks the nation and Jewish community.

Back to the biased Jewish propaganda movie:

After arresting and questioning several people, the movie contends, the police begin to hone in, narrow their focus and allegedly scapegoat the “Northern Industrialist Jew” Leo Frank, who is Mary Phagan’s boss at the pencil factory. A clean cut, married man, president of B’nai B’rith, and well connected in Jewish circles, Frank is questioned and statements are taken.

Two Faces: One for the Public and One Behind Closed Doors

Frank is a well educated Cornell educated engineer from New York City and is a prominent and high profile member of the Atlanta Jewish community and Jewish philanthropic circles, which represented an important part of his exterior mask reputation. However his behind closed doors character was that of a sexual predator and whore monger, as revealed by over a dozen female child labor employees who formerly worked at the factory. Frank was regularly using the factory for trysts with child prostitutes and propositioning his teenage and pre-teen employees with money for sex.

Strange Behavior After the Murder

Leo Frank was the last person to admit seeing Mary Phagan alive at noon in his office and several people who came in and out of the factory after the murder had presumably occurred, reported Franks behavior was very unusual, weird and suspicious that afternoon, like the nightwatchman fall guy. Frank’s body language had betrayed him, he was acting very nervous after the murder and was aggressive in getting people to leave the factory, like the nightwatchman fall guy.

Frank had a weak alibi and a poor defense:

Frank’s murder trial becomes a free-for-all may-lay of racial stereotypes, prejudice, bigotry and racism from his own defense team against the African American janitor who had admitted to being an accessory after the fact of the murder. The Frank legal defense team also resorted to blaming religious bigotry, race hatred and Antisemitism as the reason Leo Frank was brought to trial. The Jewish community and powerful Jewish groups would continue these accusations, especially the ADL of B’nai B’rith, even today, these accusations are still made continuously.

Frank is finally found guilty by an alleged “mob terrorized” and “intimidated” Jury which is “eager to convict”, largely on the “perjury” of the state’s coached star witness, Jim Conley and several other factory girls who testify Leo Frank has a bad character for aggressive sexual predatory behavior, child molestation and lasciviousness.

Jim Conley the Real Murderer?

The People v Leo Frank is the latest Leo Frank dramatization by the Jewish community, like many contemporary treatments and media films of the subject, allege Jim Conley to be the real murderer and Leo Frank the fall guy of global antisemitism. Even though the trial testimony and evidence overwhelmingly points to Frank’s guilt.

Frank’s lawyers appeal the murder conviction as many times as legally possible, through every level of the court system all the way up to the US Supreme Court several times. The state and federal court judges review the evidence and testimony, they overwhelmingly vote to NOT disturb the Jury’s verdict and in affirming Frank’s guilt again and again, the accusations of Antisemitism continue even to this day.

Fully Exhausted ALL appeals

After fully depleting and exhausting all appeals and options in the court system, the Leo Frank Defense team is left with one last final option. Leo M. Frank requests a commutation from the Georgia Governor (a complete conflict of interest and betrayal of political oaths as Governor) John M. Slaton, who was a law partner and part owner of the law firm representing Leo Frank at his murder trial, committed one of the worst and most audacious acts of nepotism in US history.

National Letter Writing Campaign

Throughout the trial and appeal process, The New York Times, big money figures and the Jewish Community unite, leading a nationwide crusade with various national and regional newspapers to publicly create the false impression the people of the United States wanted Frank to be exonerated. Meanwhile, a successful marketing campaign from the Jewish community leads to a massive letter writing campaign outside of Georgia, flooding the Georgia Governors mailbox with tens of thousands of letters asking him to commute Leo Franks death sentence. The success of the letter writing campaign is a testament to the organized success of the overtly clannish Jewish Community and their adroit ability to use their big money effectively, but it was seen by the people of the South and in the State of Georgia at the time as undue and vile outside meddling, fanning the flames of rage and resentment.

June 21 1915

At the eleventh hour, the outgoing Governor of Georgia, John M. Slaton in what might be described as criminal cronyism taken to the extreme and a gross conflict of interest, concluded against the Coroners Jury, Grand Jury, murder trial Jury, the state, district and federal court system.

After Slaton finally receiving countless thousands of fan letters requesting mercy for Leo Frank and “discovering new evidence”, Governor John M. Slaton felt that Frank overwhelmingly had not received a fair trial and commutes Frank’s death sentence to life in prison during his last days of office as Governor on June 21st, 1915 (just one day before Leo Frank is to be executed by hanging).

Leo Frank Gets Shanked

A prisoner named Greene, uses a seven inch butcher knife and slashes Leo Frank’s throat, because of the heat and humidity, the wound is slow to heal.

August 16 1915

One hot and humid night in the pitch of darkness on August 16th, 1915, an elite group, some of Georgia’s most prominent men, break into the prison with the alleged help of the prison officials and guards, then successfully abduct Leo Frank. They drive him all through the night to an oak grove near Mary Phagan’s hometown.

After driving all through the night, exhausted, the sun begins to rise. The final destination is Frey’s Mill, Frank is taken from the vehicle in his handcuffs and shackles, a noose is put around Frank’s neck, and the small table on which he has been hoisted onto is kicked out from under him. That same day morbid gawkers come by in packs, flocks and droves to rip pieces of cloth off of Leo Franks swinging, dangling and twisting body, as souvenirs. One person is said to have stomped on Leo Frank’s face after he was cut down from the tree.

Grandpa Senile

Just 69 years after the 1913 murder trial, a senile Alonzo Mann with a mountain of medical bills comes forward to the press after pressure from a Jewish partisan from the ‘Tennessean Newspaper’ and Mann confesses that he witnessed Jim Conley (the alleged real murderer) carrying the body of Mary Phagan, presumably down to the basement, instead of using the elevator. The testimony offered nothing new, because Jim Conley admitted at the trial to being an accessory after the murder, and admitted he was asked by Frank to move the body to the basement.

With Alonzo Mann long deceased in 1986, the Anti-Defamation League could now use Mann’s affidavit to secure Leo Frank with a highly political posthumous pardon, however the board did not exonerate Leo Frank of the murder. And because Mann was dead, no one could ask him any questions or cross examine him. It was a shady and Pyrrhic victory for the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, Jewish community and all the other Jewish groups involved in attempting to get full exoneration, but failed.

Leo Frank is still guilty today, but the Jewish Community makes it seem like his pardon was an exoneration.

THE PEOPLE v LEO FRANK weaves a story with recollections, commentary, interviews and a rich treasure trove of selected archival documents and images. Will Janowitz (The Sopranos) is Leo Frank and Seth Gilliam (The Wire) plays Jim Conley, with a script drawn and spun selectively from the Trial Records.

Download The People v Leo Frank, 2009

Watch the People v. Leo Frank

Fair Usage Law

March 2, 2011   Posted in: AIPAC, Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, B'nai B'rith, Jewish, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism, Leo Frank  Comments Closed

Featured Article: The Jewish Democrat

The Jewish Democrat

This guest post was written by K. Nani, who has a social worker degree and is planning on extending her education by using the resources at

In the 2008 presidential election, 75% of Jewish Americans voted for the liberal candidate, Barack Obama. Aside from African-Americans, 95% of whom voted Democratic, Jews were the ethnic group most fervently supporting the liberal candidate. The high number should have come as no shock. Historically, Jewish Americans have zealously voted democratic, and they’ve done so at similar to the ones from the past presidential election.

But what was surprising about this particular election is that it seemed they were voting against their best interests, more so than ever. Republican candidate John McCain long had a history of supporting Israel, an endeavor Obama does not back so emphatically. Also, Jews are one of the more financially prosperous minority groups in the United States, yet they voted against their own financial interests, choosing the liberal who wanted to repeal the Bush administration’s tax-cuts for the wealthy.

The 2008 election is certainly not the first time Jews have voted against their best interests by voting democratic. Some critics point out that it is as if Jews equate “Judaism” with “liberalism.” How they got there is far more complex.

In the controversial, compelling novel Why Are Jews Liberals?, neoconservative author Norman Podhoretz traces the roots of Jewish liberalness all the way back to the Crusades. All the atrocities of medieval times as the result of persecution — the Crusades, disenfranchisment, the Inquisition, exile — were conducted out of an intolerance for the Jewish religion by devoutly Christian authorities. Couple that with the Dreyfus Affair and Nazism and it’s no wonder Jews are wary of conservatives, particularly Christian ones.

But to point to events hundreds of years old as the root of modern Jewish liberalism would be too far-sighted. The post-World War II wave of Jewish immigration has more to do with it I think. Jewish immigrants aligned themselves with the Democratic party because of its similarity to the progressive parties they supported in Europe. Many Jews were budding socialists and saw, through the New Deal and other post-depression measures, a party more in line with those aims. They went with what was familiar, and what had served their best interests in the past. Also, Democrat President Harry Truman helped immensely in the creation of the Israeli State. His was the party that supported Israel first, even if their support has waned over the years.

During the Civil Rights movement, the Democratic party stood up for the oppressed minorities of the nation. An end was put to legal discrimination and harassment. This was most certainly a cause dear to any Jew’s heart. Rather than a government party encouraging and even running persecution based on ethnic grounds, this time, the liberals actively worked to start to put an end to it. On a historical level, the effort resonated with the American Jewish community.

Though one of the generally wealthier sectors of the population, Jews continue to vote against their pocketbooks. One large reason for this: Jewish families insist on higher education for their children. Following the widespread trend, those who are more educated overwhelmingly have liberal tendencies and vote for progressive candidates. More Jews attend college than in other ethnic groups, and so vote Democratic.

Lastly, it is only normal for children to have the same political views as their parents. Having been taught progressive tendencies since a young age, this doctrine is ingrained in their political conscience. Today, Jewish Americans follow the views — and teachings — of those who came generations before them. Jewish liberalness is influenced by factors stemming from mere decades ago, but also just as much by events that took place over the last several hundred years.

Fair Usage Law

February 25, 2011   Posted in: Affirmative Action News, AIPAC, Anne Frank, Anti Racism, Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, Ashkenazi, B'nai B'rith, Christian, Discrimination News, Egypt, Gaza, Golan Heights, Holocaust, Holocaust Denial, Holocaust Revisionism, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jerusalem, Jewish, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism, Leo Frank, Multicultural News, Palestine, Race Relations, Racism News, Racist News, Republic of Turkey, Sephardic, Syria, Tel Aviv, West Bank, White Nationalism, White Supremacism, Zionism  Comments Closed

The Biography of Leo Frank (1884 to 1915)

Leo Max Frank, also stylized as Leo M. Frank, Leo Frank or just Frank


(April 17, 1884 – August 17, 1915)

From Brooklyn, New York, to Atlanta, Georgia

Leo M. Frank was a Jewish-American factory superintendent and engineer, born in Cuero, Texas, but raised and educated during his most formative years in Brooklyn, New York City, in 1908 he permanently moved to Atlanta, Georgia. In 1902, Frank matriculated to Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, one of the State’s premiere Ivy League institutions. After graduating with a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from his Alma Matter in June of 1906, Leo Frank drifted on and off through associated and affiliated jobs over numerous months, without ever fully connecting with any kind of constancy and durability. However Frank’s youthful instability and employment uncertainty was all about to change, when an unexpected career opportunity was presented to Frank by his wealthy uncles Moses in October 1907. Frank traveled from NYC to Atlanta, meeting with family and discussing a potential lucrative pencil manufacturing venture, one that would entice Frank and radically change the course of his life forever.

Life Changing Sojourn

On returning to New York City after a two day train ride from Terminal Station in Atlanta to Penn Station in New York City, Leo Frank prepared himself to embark on a weeks long sojourn across the cold Atlantic Ocean to northern Europe, where he traveled and briefly met with family in various bordering countries. In January 1908, Leo Frank began a 9 month pencil manufacturing apprenticeship in Germany. Upon completion of his training,  crossed the Atlantic for his last time, returning to New York City and then shortly thereafter, traveled by train to Atlanta, Georgia, where he permanently relocated.

The National Pencil Company in the Heart of Atlanta Georgia.

Leo Frank was hired on August 10th, 1908 by his wealthy Uncle, Moses Frank and thus begin a new career at the National Pencil Company, a newly invested part-owned family business, one that Frank had prepared for diligently, during his training stint in Europe. On September 1st Leo Frank became the high profile Superintendent of the factory, becoming broadly responsible for overseeing quality management, order fulfillment, shipping, accounting, time card management, employment resourcing and directly paying off employee salaries each week on Saturday at noon.

A Jewish Wedding

In 1910 Frank married into the Selig clan, a prominent Jewish family, who generations who helped establish the highly assimilated Jewish Community in Atlanta. Mrs. Josephine Selig, carried the maiden name of Cohen, from her grandfather Levy Cohen (who helped found the first synagogue in Atlanta), the elite Jewish Priest Caste “blood-line” and because traditional Jewish law puts greater emphasis on the maternal line in determining ones Jewishness, Lucille, despite carrying the Jewish last name of Selig, was for all intensive purposes of higher degree in terms of her bloodline rank within the Jewish community.

Leo Frank the Rising Star

After marrying into an elite family, an ambitious work-hard and play-hard Leo Frank shined like a rising star, appearing and manifesting great potential to be a leader and prominent member of the Jewish Community, and he was honored as such, eventually reaching its zenith, when Frank was elected and became B’nai B’rith President. To be elected President of B’nai B’rith is one of the highest honors the elite and wealthy members in the inner circle of the Jewish community can bestow on one of their own.

B’nai B’rith and Pedophilia 20th and 21st Century

The biggest dirty little secret of the Jewish community is the pervasive problem of pedophilia that is swept under the rug or ignored. In modern times B’nai B’rith members have exhibited an ongoing, current and troubling history of pedophilia, including harboring child pornography (search on google for Bill Surkis of B’nai B’rith Canada and Child Pornography 2010 to see the slap on the wrist Jews get for pedophilia rape videos), and Leo Frank would be part of that early legacy, revealing the historical pedophile tendencies of the B’nai B’rith past. 19 factory employees in 1913 would disclose that Leo Frank was an aggressive sexual predator and child molester, one who often made inappropriate sexual innuendos and propositioned numerous pre-teen and teenage child laborers for sexual favors. Leo M. Frank offered many of the children working at his factory short term opportunities to prostitute their bodies in exchange for money, as a temporary escape from their near slave wages as they worked for pennies an hour.

It was also discovered the pencil factory was being used at various times as a rendezvous for whoring, including after hours partying and orgies, under the winking eye of Leo M. Frank, who himself regularly entertained numerous in-call prostitutes. The Pencil Factory was a sweat shop by day, and a rendezvous place for pedophilia and whoring on various afternoons, evenings and weekends.

The National Pencil Company Small Conglomerate

There were three factories that made up the National Pencil Company, two factories Leo M. Frank managed, the Forsyth final production manufacturing plant and the Bell pencil lead production facility, they were known as grueling sweatshops that employed White Gentile, poverty stricken pre-teen and teenage girls and boys; these children from poor families, often worked ten to twelve hour shifts during the day, five to six days a week, in horrendous conditions and for meager wages.

April 26th 1913, Celebrated Southern Holiday, Confederate Memorial Day Georgia

In a shuttered factory on Confederate Memorial Day, Saturday, April 26, 1913, Leo Frank, claimed to have payed off thirteen year old Mary Phagan, one of his factory child laborers who had been laid off the previous Monday (April 21, 1913) when supplies intermittently ran out. At 12:02 pm, Frank lured Mary Phagan into the metal room, which was just down the hall opposite from his office, where Phagan had worked for slightly more than a year. On the false pretense of seeing if the metal supplies had arrived or not, and thus determining whether or not Phagan would have her job back on the following Monday, Leo Frank made his final attempt.

Once inside the metal room with Phagan, Frank quietly closed the door shut and securely locked it, and using Phagan’s laid-off, unemployed state and potential job prospects on Monday, as a species of coercion and manipulation, Frank bluntly demanded sex from Mary Phagan, that is, if she wanted her job back, but when Phagan resisted him and tried to escape, Leo Frank grabbed her and pounded her in the face with his angry fist, then bludgeoned, raped and garroted her with a cord.

To be fair, Frank might not have had premeditated murder in his heart when he tricked Phagan to go back with him into the metal room, but in his overpowering attempt to turn her out, he knew unconsciously he had no choice but to permanently silence Phagan, because if Phagan had reported that he violently forced himself on her, in those days and in Dixie, their was the risk of mob vigilante justice, which at times included castration and lynching for rapists, and even if Frank did not hypothetically end in that fate, he knew either way his career, reputation and marriage would have been permanently ruined.

Mary Phagan’s strangulation became a national scandal once it discovery hit the media’s press and it became a cause celeb for the Jewish community which feared being disgraced because a high profile member of their community had committed such a disgraceful act and heinous crime. According to Leo Frank’s own statements and behaviors which amounted to virtual admissions on April 27, April 28 (See State’s Exhibit B in the Brief of Evidence 1913), April 30, and August 18th (see the unconscious bathroom segway confession), the beating, pedophile-rape and child-murder of Mary Phagan, occurred between “12:05 to 12:10, maybe 12:07” or possibly “12:10 and 12:15”, and with the absolute time range basically being 12:05 to 12:15.

Mary Phagan’s Last Breath Between 1205 to 1215

After Leo Frank murdered Mary Phagan, Frank asked his lackey Negro custodian and watchdog, Jim (James) Connolly, to dump the body in the rear of the basement in front of an oversized large furnace, with the unspoken intention of later asking Connolly to stuff Mary Phagan in the oven to cremate her. When Frank and Connolly went back to Leo’s second floor office, Frank asked Connolly to ghost write unheard-of and never before created murder notes, as if they were being written by Mary Phagan while she was in the middle of being raped and killed by the Nightwatchman, an honest Negro employee who had not arrived to work yet, but would be at the factory in the late afternoon to begin his security guard rounds.

Blame it on the Night Watch

The contrived murder notes evolved the Mary Phagan cold case into one of the most shocking and embarrassingly botched attempts in U.S. history, by a Jew trying to frame and railroad the heinous crime on an innocent Negro, Leo Frank’s graveyard shift employee, an African American named Newt Lee, who was setup to be the fall guy and scapegoat for Phagan’s murder. Later at the trial, Newt Lee, who had been working at the factory as the nightwatchman for 3 weeks, would have some very interesting sworn testimony to provide about Leo M. Frank’s unusual behavior on that infamous day of April 26 1913. It was testimony that even Leo Frank would not counter or explain away during his August 18, 1913 trial testimony.

Down payment of a Half Pack of Cigarettes, Two Paper Dollars and Two Silver Quarters, $200 promised

Frank offered a later post-payment of $200 to Jim Connolly, if Connolly would go downstairs stuff the dead body of Mary Phagan into the giant cellar oven and burn the evidence, but Connolly was leery and hesitant, saying he would only do it if Frank helped. For some reason Frank wanted Connolly to do it by himself and would not help him. Frank told Conley that if he didn’t get caught and if Connolley would do the job, he would pay him the money during the week.

Frank gave Connolly a small down payment of cash and smokes, but Connolly left the factory with the $2.50 and a half-pack of cigarettes, that Frank had given him as a small down payment on the $200 bribe offering. Frank sternly, firmly and directly ordered Connolly to come back later and finish the clean up job, including specific hints that Connolly must finish the makeshift crematorium work of burning Phagans body if he wanted the $200. Jim Connolly didn’t accept or reject the job, but got spooked, left the factory and went drinking across the street before going Home and falling asleep. Had Connolly done what his criminal Jewish Master had told him to do, this article might not exist today. Frank left the factory to go home for a late lunch between 1:10 and 1:20, arriving at his home at about 1:30, he was nautious, stayed for about 10 minutes, didn’t eat anything and then left to go back into town. Frank had silently prayed to himself, hoping that Conley was doing the erasure of evidence deed.

Butterflies in his Stomach

Leo Frank returned to the factory after his late “lunch” and waited around for Jim Connolly to return promptly, on the promise of $200 in Greenbacks, that is if Jim would incinerate the body, but when Connolly never came back that late afternoon, Frank became nautiously terrified and more nervous, agitated, frenetic and excited, and in a last pitched act of desperation, Frank snatched the contrived murder notes he had dictated to Connoly to scrawl up earlier and scattered them next to Phagan’s body in the gloom of the basement. It is not clear, why Frank did not attempt to stuff the bloody body of Phagan into the oven himself and attempt to destroy the evidence. It might have been because the basement was absolutely filthy and covered wall to wall in black charred soot and cinders. Frank cautiously would have avoided getting unnecessarily dirty and stain himself in a way he could not explain away when he went home. Honey, why does your handsome suit have some blood and soot stains on it? Oh, I don’t know pumkin, just a busy day on the job on this quiet holiday at the office.

Frank then went back upstairs to possibly resume a poorly and partly consummated clean up job in the metal room, but it is unlikely he would have made much effort, for the same reasons he had for the basement. A clean up job which included smearing and rubbing haskolene into the blood stains left by Mary Phagans head when she dropped on the floor, it was a cover up attempt to hide the murder evidence as best as possible, but the blood clearly showed through the bungled erasure attempt. It was likely that Frank had the Janitor do the half-assed clean up job and that he did a half-hearted poor job or was just simply unable to hide the soaked in blood stains on the floor.

The Night Watch or the Night Witch Arrives


When Newt Lee finally arrived at work at 4pm, Frank was bustling with nervousness, frantic, agitated, frenzied and excited. Frank ordered Newt Lee to leave the factory, have a good time and come back at 6PM or 6:30PM, with the hopes Jim Connolly would hopefully come back for the potential $200 bribe offering. Though Newt Lee was exhausted because he had to come into work early at Frank’s request on Friday and Newt Lee asked Frank if he could please sleep in the packing room for an hour or two, but Frank wouldn’t let him stay and was insistent that Newt Lee leave the factory and go out and have a good time – Leo Frank practically pushed Newt Lee out of the factory.


When Newt came back at 6PM, Leo Frank left briskly, and became terrified with horror when on the way out he ran into a former employee named Gantt that had known Mary Phagan and her family quite well, but Frank was relieved when he discovered that the former employee was there just only wanted to collect his shoes he left there in the factory previously and was not looking for the perplexingly missing Mary Phagan. Frank lied in a non-chalant manner to the former employee saying he had seen the Negro Connoly sweep them out of the factory, Frank was trying to get rid of him without seeming overly concerned, but Gantt outmaneuvered Frank and convinced him to let him go in to the factory and Frank obliged with the caveat that Newt Lee must accompany him during the whole time. Gantt, found his shoes in the packing room, and left the building with Newt Lee closely following and monitoring. Newt Lee, then locked the front door and began his rounds.


When Frank got home at 6:30pm he immediately called the factory but no one picked up and then he called again at 7:00pm and Newt Lee finally picked up, Frank in a brisk frazzled voice asked if everything was Alright at the factory and when Newt Lee said Yes, Frank said goodbye and slammed the phone. Frank had never called the factory on a Saturday or any day for that matter before, to check up on things, according to Newt Lee. Frank said he called to see what the status was concerning Gantt, but Newt Lee said Frank did not ask about Gantt. Frank was calling the factory to see if Newt Lee discovered the body of Phagan, because Newt Lee was supposed to check every square inch of the factory during his rounds, but once the factory was locked up, Newt might have not gone all the way back into the basement or at all. Leo Frank in his August 18 1913 trial testimony would make subtle complaints against Newt Lee for not finding the body sooner, hence throwing more suspicion on his two never before made phone calls to the factory at 6:30 and 7:00 PM.

April 27 1913

At 3:10AM Newt Lee went to recline on and make a deposit in the Negro Toilet located in right-back area of the basement, and upon finishing his business, when Lee stood up, he spotted a twisted body dumped on a sawdust and cinder pile near the furnace. When he approached the dead body, he noticed that her dress was pulled up and her underwear was torn and pulled down, soaked in blood and urine, and a cord was dug snug and deep into the tender flesh of her neck. Newt Lee got the hell out of dodge as quickly as he possibly could and called Leo Frank for nearly 10 minutes straight, but alas there was no answer, finally giving up on ringing Frank, Newt Lee called the police station at 3:28AM and one of the biggest scandals of the early 20th century was about to unfold.

Half Passed Three in the Morning the Investigation Begins

The Police and Detectives were on the scene within minutes in their model T fords running, they were let in by Newt Lee who waited by the front door for them to arrive, and they went down the hatchway, descended the diagonal ladder with latterns and flash lights, beginning their investigation. They noticed drag marks from the front of the elevator and lead all the way to the cinder / saw dust pile in front of the furnace. They found had to pull down a stocking to confirm the girl was White, because she had been dragged in the dirty floor. They found the contrived murder notes. Later that same morning and day, observing, and questioning countless associated and affiliated people, they immediately contacted an apprehensive Leo M. Frank at the crack of dawn because he was a senior level manager of the factory who had been at the shuttered factory that day. Frank resisted going with the police when they arrived because he wanted some Coffee and breakfast before going out with them, and Frank was very nervous, pale, trembling, fumbling with himself and was hung over badly with a hoarse voice. He fired questions at the police so quickly they didn’t have a chance to answer.

Frank Incriminated Himself

When Frank gave a number of incriminating statements, was betrayed by his body language and made several foolish mistakes and blunders that totally gave himself away, the intuitive police and detectives became very suspicious, with the result of Frank becoming prime suspect number one. After questioning Leo Frank and numerous other people, everything seemed to conclusively point in the direction of Leo M. Frank. Two days later, Leo Frank was arrested and detained on the morning of Tuesday, April 29 1913 at 11AM and later, he was indicted and finally his conviction on April 25 1913, which was affirmed by the Trial Judge the next day on August 26, 1913. It was this highly publicized event at the end of the trial that became one of the pre climaxes of the Leo M. Frank case, followed by a lynching 2 years later and in all, would define how Leo M. Frank would forever be remembered.

Leo M. Frank Remembered in U.S. and World History

Leo M. Frank is remembered as the unconvincing-liar, adulterous pedophile whore monger, lascivious sexual predator, creepy child molester, licentious freak, violent pedophile-rapist, dead child mutilator, vicious strangler and murder-framer, whose arrest, indictment and conviction for the strangulation murder of thirteen year old little Mary Anne Phagan on April 26th 1913 between 12:05 and 12:15, maybe 12:07, inspired and brought out into the open, again, the full extent of the Jewish peoples ongoing historical tendencies for ravenous and perfidious tribalism; Jewish inspired race war instigation; Jewish criminal behavior in witness tampering, bribing, and threatening; and loathsome self-deception used against Gentiles.

Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (1913) and Jewish Supremacism was Born in the conviction of Leo M. Frank

The Leo M. Frank conviction became the impetus and directly inspired the founding of the treacherous and perfidious spy and espionage group that has been masquerading as a civil rights group for nearly 100 years, known as the infamous Anti-Defamation League ADL of B’nai B’rith in Oct 1913. In many ways the ADL of B’nai B’rith has similar metaphorical parallels with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, as the ADL of B’nai B’rith works relentlessly to destroy the metaphorical immune systems of White countries. (see Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith)

The indictment and conviction of Leo M. Frank became directly responsible for the formation of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, one of the most dangerous Jewish spy and espionage agencies in the world born from the deadly and subversive B’nai B’rith, a Jewish Supremacist collective masquerading as a Jewish fraternal organization.

Jews Teach Gentiles They are Incompatible with White Countries

The ADL founding and Jewish community historical claims, state that Leo M. Frank’s conviction was an Anti-Semitic railroading and framing, part of a wide and vast Anti-Jewish conspiracy from Gentiles who eternally hate Jews. This claim of the Jews goes against the reality that Gentiles always permit and allow Jews to come into their successful countries and prosper, until Gentiles learn and become aware of the genetically innate behavior of Jews.

After the death of Leo M. Frank, the Jewish Community elevated him to the status of high holy religious icon making him a Jewish martyr of Anti-Semitism, however for non-Jews, Frank has became an ugly reminder and symbol of the hate, contempt and emnity the Jewish Community historically and eternally holds for Gentiles who allow Jews in their countries.

One Hundred Years of Jewish Supremacism, Hate and Lies
1913 to 2013

The ADL of B’nai B’rith along with a national campaign led by Jewish groups have claimed and pushed to the world for a century that Leo M. Frank was convicted because of a vast race hatred Anti-Jewish conspiracy, this statement by the Jewish community is still pushed today after 100 years of an unrelenting Jewish psychological warfare against Gentiles, through every means of the press and mass media.

This self-deception is despite years (1913 to 1915, 1986) of Leo M. Frank trial legal review by every level of the state and federal court systems, the Jewish Supremacists have twisted the Case into a kind of egocentric sadomasochistic aggrandizement. The final verdict of 100 years of Jewish Supremacism by the ADL of B’nai B’rith is that Jews are unable to live peacefully in Gentile societies. Moreover, in terms of 1000 years of Jewish Supremacism, that Jews are forever and eternally incapable of living with Gentiles without instigating war against them or causing them to war amongst each other.

European-American Awakening to Jewish Supremacism

A permanently lucid moment occurred for the Host European-Americans as they became enlightened, self-aware and conscious of the Parasitic Jewish ethnoreligious collective which revealed its genetic secret of ultra-extreme unified tribalism, as if each Jew was a cell in a collective and borderless global Jewish body, acting as a single militant-army-people, a totally unified sleeper cell of International Jewish people united as a Virus against a European American Immune system. Leo Frank reminded White people that the Jews have an eternal undeclared ethnoreligious race war secretly declared against all non-Jews.

Appeals – Majority and Unanimous Decisions Affirm Murder Conviction by the Trial Jury

After the murder trial ended on August 26th 1913, Leo M. Frank commenced two embarrassing and estopel years (1913 to 1915) of Jewish Supremacism, with numerous half-serious half-baked legal appeals made to the Georgia Superior Court, Georgia Supreme Court, United States District Court and United States Supreme Court, every court carefully and meticulously studied and reviewed the murder trial testimony and evidence, every single court affirmed the murder conviction, with only 4 dissenting judges out of more than a dozen affirming Judges. See: Primary Sources Section.

As of 2013, Leo Max Frank is now forever and irrevocably PERMANENTLY GUILTY, by the ultimate unanimous Majority Decisions of the entire United States Legal System, which chose not to disturb the Trial Juries Conviction, and this fact brought doubt to the Jewish Defense position that an Anti-Semitic Mob climate terrorized the trial court into a conviction. The proof was that every court unquestionably 100% free of so called Mob Terror was able to review the facts, evidence and testimony in the case through a calm intuitive and legal lens by seasoned Judges, they affirmed the conviction as black letter, binding and settled law. Leo M. Frank had fully exhausted every possible appeal at every level of the State, District and Federal court systems by the Spring of 1915 on April 19th. Even the Georgia State Prison Board rejected a request for clemency on June 9th. On April 19th 2015, 100 years of absolute conviction of Leo M. Frank will be celebrated.

Emotional Appeals

With every possible court appeal fully exhausted, Leo M. Frank’s last hope was using the flush bankroll of his legal defense fund which was made possible by advertising magnate A.D. Lasker and Adolph Oct the owner of the New York Times. With a swollen treasury of hundreds of thousands of dollars, a vast Jewish political bribery and manipulation machine had been unleashed across the United States and even some major cities throughout Europe. The Governor of Georgia was flooded with 100,000 template letters in support of Leo M. Frank from people who never read the official trial record in the case which included: facts, testimoney and evidence. See Brief of Evidence in Primary Sources.

Last Hope

Frank had one last hope. A well greased Christian JewGoy (Gentile partisan of Jewish Supremacism), the criminal Governor of the State of Georgia, John Marshall Slaton who was in office from June 28, 1913 to June 26, 1915. Slaton would save the life of Leo Frank at the eleventh hour, as Frank was on Death Row registered to be lynched on June 22nd 1915 by Sheriff Mangum.

Commutation and Clemency June 21st 1915.

Well before the dramatic soap opera of the eleventh hour on the infamous day of June 21st 1915, the treacherous and criminal Governor of Georgia, John M. Slaton, was made a senior law partner in the very firm representing and defending Leo M. Frank at his July 28th 1913 to August 26th murder trial.

June 21st 1915, The 11th Hour.

On June 21 1915, one day before Leo M. Frank was to be hanged to death, John M. Slaton, when at the exit as an outgoing Governor of Georgia, in an absolutely gross conflict of interest, commuted the death sentence of Leo M. Frank to life in prison. The clemency was based on a half-baked hokey commutation order that insulted the intelligence of the elite of Georgia, Southerners, Legal Scholars, Judges, Lawyers and the people of the United States of America, when the commutation was compared against the dry leaves of the 1913 Brief of Evidence.

July 17 1915 – Leo M. Frank Gets Shanked

An inmate slashed the throat of Leo M. Frank using a butchers knife. The wounds were slow to heal in the boiling and humid heat. Those wounds would split open again later.

August 17 1915 – Knights of Mary Phagan, Founding Fathers of the Third and Current Ku Klux Klan (KKK)

Two months later after the commutation, Leo M. Frank, was abducted from Prison by a group of men from the State of Georgia’s highest social, legal and political strata, they Knighted themselves as the Knights of Mary Phagan, they drove Frank 175 miles to Cobb County, and Lynched him near an intersection at Frey’s Mill. A mature oak tree helped fulfill the most perfectly executed slow strangulation lynching of Leo M. Frank, that is just after the dawn dew kissed a glorious rising sun on August 17th 1915.

Failed Exoneration – 1983

The Jewish Supremacists, ADL and other Jewish groups attempted a Coup De Grace against the United States Supreme Court, District Court, Supreme Court of Georgia and Superior Court of Georgia, when they sought full exoneration for Leo M. Frank of the April 26th 1913 Strangulation of Mary Phagan. They based their official submission to the Board of Pardons on an affidavit of a senile old man named Alonzo Lonnie Mann who had been Leo M. Frank’s original office boy, who at 83 years old in 1983 had a mountain of medical bills and gave a contrived story about seeing Connolly carrying Mary Phagan to the basement.

The Badly Performed Jewish Hoax was denied.

Pardon without Exoneration – 1986

However the insideous effrontery did not stop, In 1986, the metaphorical Jewish AIDS Virus known as the ADL of B’nai B’rith and other racially conscious and treacherous Jewish Groups were able to pressure the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles, to Pardon (Forgive) Leo M. Frank, but the board stopped short of exonerating (overturning Frank’s murder conviction) him of the strangulation of Mary Anne Phagan on April 26th 1913, sometime between the ten minutes of 12:05 and 12:15, maybe 12:07.

Binding Legal Precedent, Black Letter Law and Settled Law is the Murder Conviction of Leo M. Frank

After the conviction, every level of the United States appellate courts and judicial review systems from 1913 to 1915, 1983, 1986, affirmed the murder conviction of Leo M. Frank as absolute and unchangeable. To date Leo M. Frank has NOT been exonerated of the murder of Mary Phagan and the Jewish Community still wages it’s unrelenting pathological hatestorm campaign of lies, distortion, manipulation, spin, bias and half-truths over the Leo M. Frank trial, spinning the case through a wide spread media circus of absolute mendacious monopolistic manipulation (see the parallel of the contemporary Jewish position on the case as compared with the past). The years 2013 to 2015 will mark 100 years of a Jewish Hate Storm Against Gentile Culture.

* 1 Leo M. Frank the Venerated Patron Martyr of B’nai B’rith and the ADL of B’nai B’rith
* 2 Background to Jewish Historical Importance of Leo M. Frank
* 3 The Early Years of Leo M. Frank
* 4 Education – Public Schools, College Prep at Pratt Institute, Cornell University: 1902 to 1906
* 5 Employment 1906 to 1913
* 6 1910 – Marriage of Mr. Leo Max Frank Marries Miss Lucile Selig
* 7 April 26th 1913
* 8 April 27th 1913
* 9 Police and Detective Investigation – April 27th 1913 Sunday
* 10 Tuesday April 29 1913
* 11 Coroners Inquest Jury, Wednesday, April 30 1913
* 12 Grand Jury
* 13 Trial of Leo M. Frank
* 14 Appeals Process 1913 to 1915
* 15 Detailed Chronology of Appeals and Events
* 16 John Marshall Slaton, Commutation / Clemency, June 21st 1915
* 17 Leo Frank Gets Shanked July 17 1915
* 18 Lynching of Leo Frank – August 17 1915
* 19 August 18, 1913, Lucille Selig Frank Leaves Atlanta to Bury Leo M. Frank in New York City
* 20 Alonzo “Lonnie” Mann – 1982 / 1983
* 21 Failed Pardon
* 22 Posthumous Pardon without Exoneration – March 11 1986
* 23 False Accusations of Anti-Semitism by Jewish Community
* 24 See Also
* 25 Leo Frank Bibliography
o 25.1 Primary Sources on the Leo Frank Case
o 25.2 Secondary Sources on the Leo Frank Case
* 26 Secondary Sources Biased in favor of Jewish Community & Defense Positions
* 27 Historical Archives
* 28 Video
o 28.1 Videos taking the Jewish Community & Defense Positions
* 29 Music
* 30 Media News
* 31 Fiction
* 32 Newspaper Articles
* 33 Interesting Links
* 34 Tom Watson
* 35 ADL Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith
* 36 Discussion Forums
* 37 Lynching Site
* 38 Georgia State & Government Web Sites

Leo M. Frank the Venerated Patron Martyr of B’nai B’rith and the ADL of B’nai B’rith

Leo M. Frank was president of the Atlanta, Georgia, Gate City Lodge 144 Chapter of B’nai B’rith which had about 500 members and his August 25th 1913 conviction for murder was the impetus that led to the founding of the criminal spy and espionage organization known as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith, the League was started with $200 by its founding father Sigmund Livingston in October 1913. See the Anti-Defamation League article on Metapedia.

Jew York City

Headquartered in New York City, the ADL of B’nai B’rith has became one of the premier Jewish spy and espionage agencies, masquerading as a Civil Rights group. The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith has made great inroads during the last 100 years undermining and destroying White Western Civilization through manipulative programming of law enforcement and political officials, enabling changes to the legal system which tend to work against preserving and protecting the creative Gentile gene pool. The ADL has criminally spied on lawful citizens and groups, including smearing and ruining the lives and careers of countless individuals who speak out against Jewish Supremacism and Jewish Terrorism. The ADL of B’nai B’rith are regarded as global smear and defamation mongers, including using the legal system against people to silence them. The ADL of B’nai B’rith is for all intensive purposes the Subversive social and left wing political wing in the United States of the right wing Israeli Mossad in Canada, USA and White Nations in General.
Background to Jewish Historical Importance of Leo M. Frank

The Leo M. Case is extremely important in the study of Jewish Evolutionary Strategy and History, because it has revealed and provided more proof about a historical pattern of the Jewish Community. Moreover, the Jewish Communities subtle and overt political and social war against Gentiles that has been raging for thousands of years, has at times throughout history been mostly subtle, by proxy or incognito, but during times of perceived conflict, their unending dirty war reaches relentless boiling and raging crescendos.

A Unique Chapter Amongst Thousands of Years, Thousands of Chapters of Betrayal and Treason

The Leo M. Frank Case also revealed a common theme and pattern recorded over the decades and centuries in the history of the Jewish people, that being, their collective, genetically innate, unrelenting and treacherous criminal behavior on behalf of their ethnoreligious kin. In this never ending story, filled with uncountable chapters, they forever use every means of bribery, big money, emotional appeal, subversive organizing, media and underhanded political coercion, in an attempt, to free a guilty member of their own race and most of the time attack Gentile Culture and White Gene Pools.

More than a Man, Less than a God. 100 Years of Martyrdom.

The Jewish Community, Jewish groups and ADL, along with their partisans, have spent every generation over the last 100 years transfiguring and transmutating Leo M. Frank from a violent pedophile-rapist-murderer and instead elevated him into a Jewish ethnoreligious Martyr of Anti-Semitism.

Jewish Media Control

For 100 years, the Jewish People and their partisans have been spinning and distorting the Leo M. Frank Case to the general public by every media means, as an Anti-Jewish miscarriage of justice, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Volumes of testimony and evidence supporting the guilt of Leo Frank has resulted in the affirmation of Frank’s conviction by over a dozen Judges and numerous Court Tribunals at every level of the United States Legal System who were authorized to review and Judge the case. These facts are never included in the dozens of books, articles, videos, movies, plays and other media the Jewish Supremacists have created in the last 100 years concerning the Leo M. Frank Case. See Leo M. Frank Secondary Sources.

Introduction is Complete

The Early Years of Leo M. Frank

Leo M. Frank’s Parents

Meet the Franks. Rudolph Frank was a Jew born in Germany (possibly trained as a Physician) who immigrated into the United States and Rachel Jacobs Frank was born of German-Jewish parents in New York City. [1]

Not uncommon at the time, an arranged Jewish marriage was organized and formed between an older gentleman and a young lady. Rudolph Frank and Rachel Jacobs married in 1881,[1] Rudolph “robbed the cradle” and was 16 years Rachel’s senior (ironically, Leo M. Frank was 16 years Mary Phagan’s senior when he raped and murdered her in 1913). Some years after Franks parents married they had two children.

Early Family Life – 1880’s to 1910’s

Leo M. Frank was born in Cuero, Texas (the small town was also known as Paris Texas) on April 17th 1884,[1] it was located about 100 miles from San Antonio. Before the Frank family left Texas, Rudolf Frank, served as the local postmaster and his mother Rachel (Rae) Frank, a young home maker.

1884. Back in the Summer of 1884.

At the height of the summer of 1884 a major change was about to take place, a move which at the time would have taken weeks of travel. The family relocated to Brooklyn, New York and little Leo M. Frank was barely three months old. Rudolph took a job in NYC as a traveling salesman. Some years later a sister, Marian Frank, was born in Brooklyn in the later half of 1886.
Education – Public Schools, College Prep at Pratt Institute, Cornell University: 1902 to 1906

Frank spent his most formative years growing up in NYC, he was educated at public schools and the Pratt Institute in Brooklyn. After graduating high school in Spring of 1902, Leo M. Frank attended Cornell University in Ithaca, NY. From the Fall of 1902 till his college graduation ceremony in June of 1906, Frank studied Mechanical Engineering and dabbled in numerous hobbies.[1] During Frank’s college years at his Alma mater, he engaged in chess, bridge, tennis, and played basketball for his class team. During his free time Frank engaged in fraternal activities and practiced amateur photography. The 1906 Cornell yearbook has Frank listed as a member of the Cornell Society of Mechanical Engineering (CSME). Frank was also a member of the Cornell Congress and the H. Morse Stephens debate. [1]
Employment 1906 to 1913


Frank took a job in the summer of 1906 as a draftsman for the B.F. Sturtevant (Sturdivant) Company in Hyde Park, Massachusetts, 6 months later he returned to New York.


In 1907 Frank began work for the National Meter Company of Brooklyn NY as a testing engineer and draftsman for about 10 months. Though Leo M. Frank was Ivy League educated at Cornell University, the best University New York had to offer, he was unable to hold down a steady job for more than ten months. Though that was about to change.

1907, 1908 to 1913, Big Opportunities in the South, briefly in 1907, and five years during 1908 to 1913.

Leo Frank’s millionaire uncle, Moses Frank, had suggested to Leo M. Frank that he should become involved in a potentially lucrative opportunity in the management of a pencil factory sweatshop in Atlanta, Georgia, that Moses had just invested in.

1907 October – Life Changing Event

In the middle of October 1907 his uncle, Moses Frank and associates, invited Frank to Atlanta and suggested that he come to work for the National Pencil Company in Atlanta. Frank agreed and after spending 2 weeks in Atlanta, returned to NYC momentarily and then traveled to Europe. In December 1907 Frank began a 9 month apprenticeship in Germany, to study pencil manufacturing at Eberhard Faber.

Today Eberhard Faber is a name found commonly on pencils, pens and erasers in contemporary times. Faber built the first U.S. pencil factory in 1861. Faber was the last in a family of lead pencil manufacturers dating back to Kasper Faber, who died in 1784. [1]


In August of 1908 Leo M. Frank returned briefly to NYC, left his home in Brooklyn, New York and moved permanently to Atlanta, Georgia. Frank was offered a high profile position in the Frank family business and he accepted it, becoming superintendent, accountant, treasurer and part owner of the National Pencil Company located in the heart of Atlanta, Georgia on August 10th 1908.

In Time, Rising to Superintendent, Accountant, Treasurer and Employee Payer.

When Frank became superintendent of the 37 to 41 S. Forsyth street National Pencil Company factory, his responsibilities were for purchasing supplies and machinery, accounting, operations, paying off employees and insuring the final production quality exceeded that of competitors. Frank was also made a part time general supervisor of the Lead plant on Bell Street. [1]

Leo M. Frank was upwardly mobile at the pencil factory for nearly five years reaching heights of prominence and responsibility (August 10th 1908 to Tuesday, April 28th 1913), before his arrest and during this half-decade (1908 to 1913) he had developed a reputation amongst the general public as a good, hard working man, but the perception of his character amongst a dozen or more of the pre-teen and teenage girls who had labored at the factory that were tested by him, was that Leo Frank was a creepy touchy-feely boss who was always making subtle sexual propositions to the little girls working at the factory, implied suggestions were made with money as the reward.

Frank was often making inappropriate sexual innuendos with the cash box. Sexual harassment was no stranger to the girls who worked under unscrupulous bosses, often the biggest complaint in the factory and industrial sweatshops of the time. Frank’s character would be described among some of the girls and other factory workers, who would testify against him, saying that Frank was a lascivious pedophile and a whore monger. Though the words pedophile and whore monger did not exist at the time, it was lucidly and vividly implied, more than a dozen employees affirmed it.
1910 – Marriage of Mr. Leo Max Frank Marries Miss Lucile Selig

Frank was introduced to Lucille Selig after he arrived and took permanent residence in Atlanta, though they had corresponded before they met in person. Lucille Selig came from a prominent and wealthy Jewish family of industrialists who two generations earlier had founded the first synagogue in Atlanta.[1] Lucille’s father was a salesman for the West Disinfecting Co., a maker of soaps and supplies. Before that, he was a liquor salesman. Mrs. Josephine Cohen Selig, was a home maker.

Lucille Selig was very much different from Frank. Lucille was very much Southern and provincial compared to Leo Frank, who was cosmopolitan, well traveled and Ivy League educated. Leo and Lucille were married by Rabbi Marx on November 28, 1910. Dr. Marx was the Rabbi of the Hebrew Benevolent Congregation. [1]

The wedding was held at 68 East Georgia Avenue the home of the bride’s parents, Mr. Emil and Mrs. Josephine Selig. Rabbi David Marx of Hebrew Benevolent Congregation performed the ceremony before a small gathering of family and close friends. The Athens Banner described the evening as “a pretty event,” noting that “the house was artistic with quantities of smilax and vases of pink carnations in all the rooms.”

The paper reported that “Miss Michael sang several beautiful selections before the ceremony and was accompanied by Miss Regina Silverman, who also played the wedding march.” The two young women also wore pink, with Helen Michael in “a white lingerie gown over pink silk” and Regina Silverman in “a pink chiffon cloth gown over silk, trimmed with lace and black marabou.

Other out-of-town attendants at the wedding included the groom’s parents, Mr. and Mrs. Rudolph Frank of Brooklyn, New York, and the best man, Mr. Milton Rice of Rochester, New York. The paper stated the couple would “spend several weeks at the Piedmont before going north for a wedding trip.” They would live with the Seligs upon their return. [1] According to Leo Frank, using the eugenics terminology of the period, his father, papa Rudolph Frank, became an “invalid”, which was the reason why Leo Frank claimed his father, Rudolph Frank did not attend the 1913 murder trial in Atlanta, Georgia. [1] Nor did Sarah and Moses Frank attend the Trial, as Moses was in progress on his way to Europe before the murder. Given the extensive collection of letter writing by Leo M. Frank preserved, there is virtually no correspondence between Leo M. Frank and his Wealthy Uncle, Moses Frank. Save for the contrived letter Leo M. Frank submitted at the trial. The outer envelope was not made available and the letter’s authenticity became a subject of question in terms of its truth and veracity or fabrication.
April 26th 1913

Confederate Memorial Day, April 26th 1913, a celebrated and revered Southern holiday, between 12:05 to 12:15, Leo M. Frank lured one of his child laborer factory employees from his second floor office, down the hallway and into the metal room, there he bludgeoned, raped and strangled her to death with a cord.

Frank asked his Negro custodian Jim (James) Connolly, who was acting as a guard dog on the first floor, to carry the body of Mary Phagan to the basement and dump it in the rear. After this was completed Frank requested to Jim Connolly that he write some notes, which would later be known as the murder notes. Frank had dictated the contents of these notes and they were written as if Mary Phagan was writing a letter to her mother while she was in the middle of being beaten and raped, but in much milder terms.

Frank offered Connolly $200 if he would stuff the body of Mary Phagan into a giant oven furnace in the basement which was normally used for burning garbage.

Connolly appeared to hesitate and left the building, Frank had insinuated that Connolly would need to come back if he wanted that $200.

Connolly never came back.


Newt Lee arrived and Leo M. Frank in a wild frazzled and frantic state practically pushed and forced Lee out of the building, requiring Lee to come back to the factory in about 1.5 to 2.5 hours. When Newt Lee returned, Frank fumbled with the changing of the time sheet and left the building briskly. On the way out, Leo Frank ran into a former employee named Gantt and fell back terrified trying to creep and crawl backward into the building, but it was too late.

The former employee Gantt, had request to go into the factory to get his shoes, Leo Frank countered with a lie saying he saw a negro sweep them out of the building. However, Gantt outmaneuvered Frank who was in no position to get into a heated debate as Frank wanted to get out and as far from the building as possible, as he knew Phagan’s lifeless body was slumped on a saw dust pile in the basement.

When Frank got home, he did something he had never done with Newt Lee before, he called Lee two times, not reaching him the first time at 6:30PM, Frank dialed again at 7PM and questioned Lee if everything was alright at the factory and Frank hung up after Lee said as far as he knew.

That evening Frank chain smoked cigarettes and guzzled booze like it was going out of style, attempting to medicate himself and his actions would ensure he would be badly hung over the next day and unable to hide his guilt revealing body language.
April 27th 1913

At approximately 3:15 AM in the morning, the Negro Nightwatch named Newt Lee, during his lantern beholden factory rounds, went to use the negro latrine in the basement, when he finished his business, he spotted and discovered the mangled twisted body of a little girl in the gloom of the basement. He loped to the ladder at the beginning of front area of the basement and shimmied back up, briskly going to the office to call Leo M. Frank. After nearly 10 minutes of trying to reach Leo M. Frank, Newt gave up and decided to call the police. Waiting in the front door area of the factory, police arrived in less than 10 minutes and escorted by Lee went down into the basement using a narrow hatchway and climbing down a ladder. With flash lights beholden, they noticed drag tracks from the elevator shaft to where the body had been dumped 150 feet in the rear of the basement on the left hand side in front of a furnace.

The undertaker had also arrived afterwards and they took the body out of the basement, up the ladder and to the mortuary to be placed on a cooling table.

The dead child, was later identified by Grace Hicks the morning of April 27th 1913 as thirteen year old Mary Anne Phagan. Grace Hicks worked in the metal department on the second floor with Mary Phagan for about a year and was very familiar with her looks. Grace Hicks testified some very interesting details about the metal room, including the positioning of the dressing room and the layout of the bathrooms there.
Police and Detective Investigation – April 27th 1913 Sunday

After police and detectives questioned Leo M. Frank, countless dozens of factory employees and arrested some affiliated people, all the evidence began pointing in one direction.
Tuesday April 29 1913

Fifty Six hours after the body of Mary Phagan was discovered, the police and detectives had developed a very strong legitimate suspicion against Frank, their intuition was based the evidence and testimony they had gathered. Leo M. Frank was arrested on Tuesday, April 29th 1913 at 11AM, it was the last day of his freedom.
Coroners Inquest Jury, Wednesday, April 30 1913

The official murder investigation wasted no time.

The coroner’s inquest began shortly after nine o’clock on Wednesday, the 30th day of April. The empaneled Jury hearing the testimony consisted of 7 men in total, 6 inquest Jurymen and the Coroner:

1. H. Ashford, 2. Glenn Dewberry, 3. J. Hood, 4. C. Langford, 5. John Miller 6. C. Sheats 7. Judge of the Inquest Jury, Coroner, Paul Donehoo.

The Perjury of Lemmie A Quinn

Concerning Leo M. Frank’s alibi, Frank said he had forgotten for the first week of the murder investigation to bring forward Lemmie A Quinn, foreman of the metal room, a key witness. However at the Coroners Inquest, Lemmie Quinn, came forward to provide contrived testify that sounded totally suspicious and did not pass the common sense test. Quinn said, he had come back to the pencil factory and specifically Leo M. Frank’s office at 12:20 to talk about baseball with Mr. Schiff, but Mr. Schiff was not supposed to be at the factory at all that day which was virtually empty, because it was a State holiday, Confederate Memorial Day and everyone was given the day off. The testimony of Quinn was meant to shrink the plausible time Leo M. Frank could have strangled Mary Phagan by 10 minutes. Quinns testimony also added eye witness testimony strength to Frank’s alibi which left him about a half an hour unaccounted for (noon to 12:30). Lemmie Quinns perjury, shrunk Leo M. Frank’s unaccounted for time from 30 minutes to 20 minutes when the murder took place, but it still left wide open and unaccounted for, the time frame Mary Phagan had come to Leo M. Frank’s office, which was between 12:05 and 12:10, maybe 12:07.

Conclusion of the Coroners’ Inquest and Jury

Coroner Paul Donehoo and his Inquest Jury of six men empaneled, questioned over 100 employees and dozens of other various associated people. The week long inquest and testimony provided under oath, left very strong suspicion on Leo M. Frank when Thursday, May 8th 1913, the Mary Phagan Inquest drew to a close.[1]

Coroner’s and Inquest Juries Verdict 7 to 0

The Coroner and his Inquest Jury of six men voted unanimously 7 to 0 recommending Leo M. Frank be turned over to, and investigated by a Grand Jury of 23 men which included 5 Jews. Newt Lee was ordered to be held as a material witness. Deputy Plennie Minor delivered the unanimous verdict of the Coroner’s Inquest Jury to Leo M. Frank being held in the infamous Tower. Frank was sitting browsing a local newspaper at the time. Deputy Plennie Minor approached Leo M. Frank and told him about the unanimous verdict of the Jury, which had ordered that Frank and Lee be held for a thorough investigation by the Grand Jury! Newt Lee slumped his head dejectedly when the bad news was delivered. Leo M. Frank insolently replied that it was no more than he had expected. [1]
Grand Jury

Two hundred factory workers and affiliated witnesses were subpoenaed.

On May 24th 1913, the day the Grand Jury of twenty three men were to vote after an exhaustive review of testimony and evidence concerning Leo M. Frank. Two Grand Jurors where not present on the day of the vote, George Gershon, a Jew went to New York City and M. Beutell, a Gentile, had an important event he was unable to miss, as these two men were out of town, it reduced the Grand Jury from 23 to 21 men. The importance of this reduction was that only a majority of 11 instead of the former 12 votes were necessary to indict.

Even though the Grand Jury was filled with businessmen and several Jews, they were not sympathetic and the evidence was overwhelmingly strong. With twenty-one men remaining, some observers may have wondered if vote was sitting on the fence, and would the majority of 11 would come forward and vote for an indictment. In a result that set a powerful tone for the future of the trial, the Grand Jury voted unanimously 21 to 0 in favor of indicting Leo M. Frank for the murder of little Mary Phagan. With four Jews voting unanimously with seventeen other Gentile men to Indict Leo M. Frank, it put serious doubts about the Jewish Communities historical and contemporary race hate claims that the Leo M. Frank Case was a vast anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic conspiracy.

The indictment read..

In the name and behalf of the citizens of Georgia, charge and accuse Leo M. Frank, of the [Fulton] County and State [of Georgia] aforesaid, with the offense of Murder, for that the said Leo M. Frank in the County aforesaid on the 26th day of April in the year of our Lord Nineteen Hundred and thirteen, with force and arms did unlawfully and with malice aforethought kill and murder one Mary Phagan by then and there choking her, the said Mary Phagan, with a cord place around her neck contrary to the laws of said State, the good order, peace and dignity thereof.

The Twenty one men present on the Grand Jury, which now included 4 Jews unanimously 21 to 0 voted to indict Leo M. Frank for the murder of Mary Phagan by strangulation because the evidence was clear, convincing and overwhelming. Twenty one Jurymen unanimously signed the indictment requiring Leo M. Frank to be held and reviewed by trial with a cohort of 13 men, a Judge and a petite Jury of 12 men.
Trial of Leo M. Frank

For the details of the State of Georgia vs. Leo M. Frank, July 28 1913 to August 26 1913 visit: Trial of Leo Frank on Metapedia.
Appeals Process 1913 to 1915

Leo Frank’s conviction inspired the formation of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, a Jewish espionage and spy agency masquerading as a civil rights organization, one which has been working to undermine and destroy White countries through political and legal manipulation.

Two Years of Half-Baked Court Appeals

Leo Frank then began a very expensive two year circus of embarrassing, poorly concocted and frivolous appeals. Franks lawyers and defense teams used every method of criminal activity on behalf of Leo Frank to create evidence to support him. They bribed and threatened witnesses, put forward and spun together half-baked frivolous court appeals through every possible legal channel, all the way up and down the Georgia State Superior Court, Georgia State Supreme Court, the District Court of the United States and the United States Supreme Court, multiple times ad nauseum.

Request for a New Trial.

More specifically, immediately following the Leo M. Frank murder trial, Frank’s defense team requested a new trial. The presiding judge Leonard S. Roan denied the appeal. Another motion for a new trial was denied by the Georgia Supreme Court in February 1914 after much review.

No Doubting Judge Sentences One to Die on their Birthday

Judge Leonard S. Roan, finally sentenced Leo M. Frank to be hanged on his birthday April 17th 1913, putting infinite doubt in the suggestion of the Jewish and Frank defense’s statements and forged documents, that Judge Leonard Roan had doubted the verdict. No genuine seriously doubting Judge would ever do something so cruel as to sentence someone to be hanged on their birthday.

Motion to set the Verdict aside as a Nullity

Beginning in June 1914, Frank’s defense appealed to the Fulton County Superior Court to set aside the guilty verdict. Fulton County Superior Court denied the appeal, as did the Georgia Supreme Court (December 1914) and the United States Supreme Court (April 1915). Ultimately Leo M. Frank had fully exhausted completely every possible court appeals process.

Georgia Prison Commission

As five courts upheld the original decision of the jury in Leo Frank’s case, Frank then applied for clemency with the Georgia Prison Commission to commute his sentence from death to life in prison. This application was denied.

Criminal Governor

Lastly, with absolutely no more court appeal options left for Leo Frank and the Prison Commission denying his request for clemency, there was only one last option, a commutation by the corrupt Governor of Georgia, John M. Slaton. Frank applied to Governor John M. Slaton for Executive Clemency.
Detailed Chronology of Appeals and Events

The subsequent history of the Leo M. Frank Case, the Appeals to th Courts, the Commutation by the Governor and the Lynching of the Prisoner.

31 October 1913 – Judge Roan denied the motion for a new trial

17 February 1914 – the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the verdict of the lower court by a vote of 4 to 2.

25 February – the Supreme Court of Georgia, unanimously overruled a motion for rehearing.

7 March 1914 – Frank was sentenced by Judge Leonard S. Roan, for the second time to death by hanging on April 17th, Leo M. Frank’s birthday.

16 April 1914 – at the eleventh hour, an extraordinary motion for a new trial was filed and death sentence on Leo M. Frank’s 30th birthday again stayed.

22 April 1914 – Judge B. H Hill, former chief justice of the Court of Appeals, who had succeeded to the Judgeship of Fulton Superior Court, denied the extraordinary motion for a new trial.

25 April 1914 – The day before the anniversary of Mary Phagan’s death, Frank’s sanity was examined and he was declared sane.

14 November 1914 – the Georgia Supreme Court again denied a new trial.

18 November 1914, the Georgia Supreme Court refused a writ of error.

23 November 1914 – Mr. Justice Lamar, of the Supreme Court of the United States refused a writ of error.

25 November 1914 – Mr. Justice Holmes of the United States Supreme Court, also refused a writ.

7 December 1914, the full bench of the United States Supreme Court refused a writ of error.

9 December 1914, Frank was re-sentenced to death to hang on January 22, 1915.

21 December 1914 – United States District Judge W. T. Newman of Georgia, refused a writ of habeas Corpus.

28 December 1914 – Mr. Justice Lamar granted an appeal and certificate of reasonable doubt to the United States Supreme Court.

15 April 1915 – the Supreme Court of the United States, with Mr. Justices Holmes and Hughes dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

31 May 1915 – Frank’s plea for commutation of sentence to life imprisonment was heard before the State Prison Commission.

9 June 1915 – the State Prison Commission submitted a divided report to Governor Slaton, Commissioners Davison and Rainey voting against and Commissioner Paterson for commutation.

21 June 1915 – Governor Slaton Commuted Leo M. Frank’s death sentence to life in prison.

17 July 1915 – Frank was attacked by a fellow convict who cut his throat with a butcher knife. He lingered between life and death for several weeks, but finally recovered.

17 August 1915 – Frank was lynched from a mature oak tree.
John Marshall Slaton, Commutation / Clemency, June 21st 1915

John M. Slaton, Governor of the State of Georgia Betrays the People

A commutation hearing was held in Atlanta on June 12-16, 1915. Representing Leo Frank were William M. Howard of Augusta, Manning J. Yeomans of Dawson, Harry A. Alexander and Leonard Haas of Atlanta speaking for the defense.

On June 21, 1915, just six days before Nathaniel Edwin Harris, the newly elected governor, was to take office, and one day before Frank was scheduled to hang (June 22 1915), Slaton commuted Frank’s death sentence to life in prison. There was public outrage, primarily because John M. Slaton, was a law partner and business associate in the law firm hired by Leo Frank, making Leo Frank Slaton’s client and because Slaton in a gross conflict of interest had betrayed the constitution and his oath of office. The Southern population reached ascended to boiling crescendo of rage and were indignantly furious to a fevered pitch at the insolence of the clemency decision made on behalf of Leo M. Frank, especially after every level of the United States Legal System had reviewed meticulously and upheld the evidence supporting the conviction. More than a dozen judges had affirmed the conviction and Leo Frank had made a near confession on August 18 1913, when he told the Jury he made an unconscious bathroom visit inside the metal room during the time Phagan was murdered there.

John M. Slaton, feigned moral and emotional consternation, saying: “I can endure misconstruction, abuse and condemnation,” Slaton said, “but I cannot stand the constant companionship of an accusing conscience which would remind me that I, as governor of Georgia, failed to do what I thought to be right…. [F]eeling as I do about this case, I would be a murderer if I allowed this man to hang. It may mean that I must live in obscurity the rest of my days, but I would rather be plowing in a field for the rest of my life than to feel that I had that blood on my hands.”[1]

Slaton’s commutation disregarded volumes of trial evidence and testimony against Frank, but Slaton also chose to not disturb the Jury’s verdict and in a sly and underhanded sort of way affirmed the murder conviction. Slaton, also suggested, that the Jewish Communities charge of race hatred as being the reason Frank was convicted was unfair, as it was certainly not true, because numerous other legal tribunals reviewed the evidence and testimony, and felt it was strong enough to convict Leo M. Frank. None of the appeals courts could be falsely accused of being mob terrorized or antisemitic, as the Jewish community put such false accusations and slander against the murder trial Jury.

In order to protect Leo Frank, he was transferred from Fulton Tower in Atlanta to the prison farm outside Milledgeville.
Leo Frank Gets Shanked July 17 1915

17 July 1915 – Frank was attacked by a fellow convict who cut his throat with a butcher knife. He lingered between life and death for several weeks, but finally recovered. The wound never fully healed.
Lynching of Leo Frank – August 17 1915

See: The Lynching of Leo Frank on Metapedia
August 18, 1913, Lucille Selig Frank Leaves Atlanta to Bury Leo M. Frank in New York City

Mrs. Lucille Selig Frank boarded a train for New York City on August 18 1913, Leo Frank’s body was returned to New York on August 20, 1913, where he was buried at New Mount Carmel Cemetery. Lucile returned to Atlanta where she opened a dress shop and became sporadically active in the work of The Temple. Lucille Frank never remarried, and always signed her name as “Mrs. Leo M. Frank,” until her death at age 69. She died on April 23, 1957. Even then, in 1957, her family was unsure of burying her in Atlanta, and it wasn’t for another 45 years, in 2002, that nephews buried her ashes between her parents’ graves in Oakland Cemetery, but without a marker. Lucille died 42 years after Leo M. Frank was lynched, what was equivalent to a life time and she was very clear about her own verdict in the Leo Frank Case, her will was very clear and stated that she wanted to be cremated and NOT buried next to or with her deceased husband Leo M. Frank. It was a sad and final verdict coming from the woman who stood by her husband loyally through the whole ordeal.

William J Burns Detective Agency of New York

The persistent theme of the Leo M. Frank Case was Jew York City vs. Georgia. Detective William Burns the keystone cop style sleuth employed by the Leo M. Frank team, who was originally dismissed for being too obvious in his bribing, threatening and criminal activity, received a telegram from Marietta Georgia after the lynching of Leo M. Frank. The Telegram sarcastically told him to come down quickly and investigate the lynching, signed H.H. Looney Chief of Police. [1] William Burns had been driven out of Georgia with threats of lynching when it was discovered he was hired by big Jewish money to try to bribe any witnesses he could and turn the Mary Phagan murder investigation into a carnival side show with grandiose announcements in the local newspapers.
Alonzo “Lonnie” Mann – 1982 / 1983

March 7, 1982,

An ugly chapter in the hoaxery of Jewish Supremacism was unfurled for the public. The Nashville Tennessean published a special breaking news report about a story in which Alonzo Mann, Leo Franks former office boy in 1913, said he saw janitor Jim Conley carrying Mary Phagans body to the basement of the National Pencil Company in Atlanta, where Mr. Frank was the superintendent. Mr. Mann asserted that Conley killed Mary and Frank was innocent.

1982, About 70 years after the murder of Mary Phagan and Lynching of Leo M. Frank, Alonzo Mann the former office boy of Leo M. Frank came forward in an other doctored up Jewish media expose pushing the Jewish Defense position at the behest of the Jewish Community. Now nearly 83 years old, the senile and ailing Alonzo Mann with a mountain of medical bills came forward to say he had seen Conley carrying Mary Phagans body on the first floor.

Alonzo Mann produced an affidavit seven decades after the Leo M. Frank drama, thus giving the Frankites more odious support for their position, but however, because of the Jewish Defense’s history of obtaining suspicious and questionable affidavit through criminal means and bribing to defend Leo M. Frank the affidavit was not taken seriously by anyone familiar with the case. Especially since, Alonzo Mann testified he left at around noon and in his old age had a mountain of unpaid medical bills.

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

In a statement that makes absolutely no sense and does not pass the scrutiny of common sense, Alonzo Mann said, that the Negro Jim Conley threatened his life if he told anyone about seeing him and when Alonzo Mann told his family and parents, they allegedly told him to keep quiet about it.

Despite his taking a lie detector test and signing an affidavit, Alonzo Mann’s story lacks truth and veracity, because at the times Negroes were second class citizens, and no White Family or Parents would tell their White Children to be quiet about a negro allegedly murdering a White Girl. Even today in modern times, no White Family would ever tell a White boy to be quiet about a Negro murdering a White Girl.

The whole thing smacks of another Jewish orchestrated Hoax to add to the countless other hoaxes the Jews have perpetuated in the Leo M. Frank Case and everything else in their history.

However, the ADL of B’nai B’rith, American Jewish Committee, Atlanta Jewish Federation[1] and numerous other Jewish organizations used the affidavit after Alonzo Mann died to push for a Posthumous Pardon and Exonerate Leo M. Frank for the murder of little Mary Ann Phagan.
Failed Pardon

Attorneys for three Jewish organizations petitioned the State (Georgia) Board of Pardons and Paroles to pardon Leo Frank, but the petition was denied on December 22, 1983.
Posthumous Pardon without Exoneration – March 11 1986

Pyrrhic Victory for Jewish Supremacism

After pressure from the ADL of B’nai B’rith, and other Jewish Organizations, they get the Georgia Board of Paroles to pardon Leo M. Frank, but they would not exonerate him of the Crime.

Political Correctness Prevailed

On March 11, 1986, the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles granted Frank a pardon, citing the state’s failure to protect him or prosecute his killers, though they stopped short of exonerating Leo M. Frank of the murder of Mary Phagan. Leo Frank’s murder conviction is still today black letter law and binding legal precedent. The Judge and Jury have the last word, as do the vigilante lynchers who were never prosecuted.

Pyrrhic Victory
Jewish Spun Pardon

The Jewish Community saw this at face value as a vindication, but it was really a Pyrrhic victory. First, because in order to pardon someone of a crime, the guilt of the individual has to be affirmed and indisputable binding settled law. So the Prison Board basically acknowledged the veracity and truth that Leo M. Frank was guilty and they refused to exonerate him of his guilt, though they forgave him of the Murder of Mary Phagan, because the state failed to protect Leo M. Frank and because his lynching prevented him from further appeals.

Further Appeals?

The prison board who would have a clear understanding of the law made a bald face lie. They were patently in error, because Leo M. Frank had fully exhausted all of his court appeals through every level of the State, District and Federal Appellate Courts and the Supreme Court unanimously overruled any further court appeals. The board basically affirmed Leo M. Frank’s guilt and quelled the powerful and wealthy Jewish Community, that has for 100 years has been vociferously screeching Leo M. Frank was a “noble and innocent Jew, Framed, rail roaded and scapegoated in a vast Anti-Jewish conspiracy”. For 100 years the Jewish community has transformed the pedophile-rapist and murderer Leo M. Frank into a martyr of Anti-Semitism, despite the black letter, settled and binding law and decision on the case.

European-American must organize to have the Pardon reversed.

False Accusations of Anti-Semitism by Jewish Community

The Leo Frank case has become yet another vociferous rallying cry for Jewish persecution syndrome and a text book example of Jewish political correctness. Steve Oney, derailed one of the central Anti-Semitism claims of the Jewish Supremacists like the ADL and Bnai Brith, he corrected an important historical myth when he stated, authoritatively, that there is no evidence that crowds shouted “Hang the Jew or I’ll hang you,” through the open windows of the steamy Atlanta courtroom where Frank stood trial in the August heat of 1913. [1]

According to Frey, Even after the Frank case had played to its tragic climax, Victor Kriegshaber, a German-Jew, was elected president of the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, in 1916.
See Also

* Trial of Leo Frank

* Mary Phagan

* Antisemitism in the United States

* The Gunsaulus Mystery (1921)

* Murder in Harlem (1935)

* Anti-Defamation League

* B’nai B’rith

Articles about Jewish Biased Videos on the Leo M. Frank Case

* They Won’t Forget (1937)

* The Murder of Mary Phagan (1988)

* Parade (musical) (1998)

* The People v. Leo Frank (2009)

Leo Frank Bibliography
Primary Sources on the Leo Frank Case

Certified Legal Documents

* 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. Only one original copy exists and it is located at the Georgia State Archive and numerous microfilm copies of this elusive document were made. These rare documents went online in 2010 for the public after 97 years of elusiveness. Ratified by both the Prosecution and Defense teams it captures the July 28th 1913 to August 25th 1913 witness testimony and evidence presented by both the prosecution and defense in the Leo M. Frank trial for the murder of little Mary Phagan on April 26th 1913.

Closing Arguments in Leo M. Frank Trial for the Murder of Mary Phagan, By Leo Frank Defense and State’s Prosecution

* Arnold, Reuben. The Trial of Leo M. Frank, Reuben Rose Arnold’s Full Address to the Court in his Behalf 1913 Introduction by Alvin V. Sellers. Classic Publishing Co., Baxley GA and The Trow Press, New York. Published in 1915, 69 Pages. Held at Internet Archive in adobe PDF 33.6M.

* Hooper, Arthur (1913). The Closing Arguments of Mr. Frank Arthur Hooper for the prosecution

* Zelig, Rosser (1913). The Closing Arguments of Mr. Luther Zelig Rosser for the prosecution.

* Dorsey, Hugh. Arguments of Hugh M. Dorsey in the Leo Frank Murder Trial of 1913 Some, but not all of Solicitor General Hugh Manson Dorsey nine hours of closing arguments made on Aug. 22nd, 23rd and 25th, 1913, Atlanta Judicial Circuit. The Scanned book is located at the Internet Archive and available in Adobe PDF format 146 pages.

Court Appeals 1913 to 1915

* First Appeal, Oct 1913, Leo M. Frank Case

* Bill of Exceptions, November 15, 1913, Leo M. Case.

* Supreme Court of Georgia. Frank v. State. Reports of Cases Decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia at the October Term, 1913, and March Term 1914 PDF format 25.5 megs and 552 Pages. The abridged Trial Testimony of Jim Conley with Questions and Answers starts at around page 50/552 and ends at around 110/552. Write your review of these legal documents: Leo M. Frank vs. Mangum

* JR Online Books – Leo M. Frank Trial, Legal and Appeal Documents. Superb archive of primary source research legal documents.

Clemency / Commutation, Spring and Summer of 1915

* Governor John M. Slaton’s Clemency Decision in the Leo M. Frank Case June 21st 1915. In a terrible act of treachery, the Georgian Governor John M. Slaton, a senior law partner in the legal firm representing Leo M. Frank, decides to commute Leo M. Frank’s death sentence to life in prison. Slaton, compares Leo M. Frank a pedophile-rapist and convicted strangler to the ManGod Jesus Christ.

* Leo Frank Clemency File, images of original documents related to the clemency petition, including abridged archive of Governor John M. Slaton’s notes.

Jewish Community & Defense Position 1914

* “The Frank Case.” Collier’s: The National Weekly. 19 & 26 December 1914. Grossly biased in Frank’s behavior. See the photos in this article.

Tom Watson Supporting the Prosecution 1915

Watson’s Magazine Published 1910 to 1917, Editor Tom Watson. Leo Frank covered in January, March, August, September* & October 1915.

* Watson, Tom. Watson’s Magazine, Jeffersonian Publishing Company, September 1915, Volume 21, Number 5, The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, A Jew Pervert. Firebrand Tom Watson, solves the murder of Mary Phagan, by utilizing the official Georgia State record of trial testimony given by Leo Frank. The official record Tom Watson is referring to in the title of his text is the elusive legal ‘brief of evidence’, known in legal terminology as, ‘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’, it contains the testimony and evidence at Frank’s murder trial which was ratified by both the ‘Leo Frank Defense’ and ‘Leo Frank Prosecution’ teams. An irrevocable blunder is made by Leo M. Frank during his own murder trial testimony to the Fulton County Superior Court Jury on August 18th 1913. Frank states what amounts to a confession that he murdered Mary Phagan in second floor metal room with an “unconscious” bathroom visit. Frank told his murder trial Jury he went to the toilet or to urinate, to account for not seeing Monteen Stover, a young white girl, who was waiting in Frank’s empty second floor office from 12:05 to 12:10 on April 26th 1913. Frank entrapped himself beyond escape, because in order to get to the bathroom, one has to walk through the door of metal room to then get inside the metal room, before one can reach the toilets. The prosecution spent 29 days trying to prove to the Jury that Leo Frank murdered Mary Phagan in the Metal Room between 12:05 to 12:15 on April 26th 1913. Leo M. Frank essentially confessed to murdering Mary Phagan between 12:05 to 12:15 on April 26th 1913.

* Watson’s Magazine Volume 20 No. 3. See page 139 for the Leo Frank Case. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga. Available online in adobe PDF format for download from

* The Full Review of the Leo Frank Case By Tom Watson (March 1915) Volume 20. No. 5. See page 235 for ‘A Full Review of the Leo Frank Case’. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga. Available online in adobe PDF format for download from

* Watson’s Magazine August 1915 volume 21 no. 4 featuring Leo Frank Mary Phagan Murder Trial A review of the Leo Frank trial by Tom Watson. Available online in adobe PDF format for download from

* The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, Jew Pervert, September 1915 By Tom Watson, of historical importance. Available online in adobe PDF format for download from

* Rich Jews Indict the State of Georgia (October, 1915) By Tom Watson, historically important. Tom Watson exposes the big money Jewish Community.

Jeffersonian Magazine (Published from 1907 to 1917, Editor Tom Watson)

* The Jeffersonian. 17 December 1914. “Leo Frank Sentenced Again” Magazine article. Teaser.

* The Jeffersonian. 25 March 1915. “The Leo Frank Case Still Raging in Northern Papers” Magazine article. Teaser.

Secondary Sources on the Leo Frank Case

Supporting the Prosecution

Watson’s Magazine Published 1910 to 1917, Editor Tom Watson. Leo Frank covered in January, March, August, September* & October 1915.

* Watson, Tom. Watson’s Magazine, Jeffersonian Publishing Company, September 1915, Volume 21, Number 5, The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, A Jew Pervert. Firebrand Tom Watson, solves the murder of Mary Phagan, by utilizing the official Georgia State record of trial testimony given by Leo Frank. The official record Tom Watson is referring to in the title of his text is the elusive legal ‘brief of evidence’, known in legal terminology as, ‘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’, it contains the testimony and evidence at Frank’s murder trial which was ratified by both the ‘Leo Frank Defense’ and ‘Leo Frank Prosecution’ teams. An irrevocable blunder is made by Leo M. Frank during his own murder trial testimony to the Fulton County Superior Court Jury on August 18th 1913. Frank states what amounts to a confession that he murdered Mary Phagan in second floor metal room with an “unconscious” bathroom visit. Frank told his murder trial Jury he went to the toilet or to urinate, to account for not seeing Monteen Stover, a young white girl, who was waiting in Frank’s empty second floor office from 12:05 to 12:10 on April 26th 1913. Frank entrapped himself beyond escape, because in order to get to the bathroom, one has to walk through the door of metal room to then get inside the metal room, before one can reach the toilets. The prosecution spent 29 days trying to prove to the Jury that Leo Frank murdered Mary Phagan in the Metal Room between 12:05 to 12:15 on April 26th 1913. Leo M. Frank essentially confessed to murdering Mary Phagan between 12:05 to 12:15 on April 26th 1913.

* Watson’s Magazine Volume 20 No. 3. See page 139 for the Leo Frank Case. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga. Available online in adobe PDF format for download from

* The Full Review of the Leo Frank Case By Tom Watson (March 1915) Volume 20. No. 5. See page 235 for ‘A Full Review of the Leo Frank Case’. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga. Available online in adobe PDF format for download from

* Watson’s Magazine August 1915 volume 21 no. 4 featuring Leo Frank Mary Phagan Murder Trial A review of the Leo Frank trial by Tom Watson. Available online in adobe PDF format for download from

* The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, Jew Pervert, September 1915 By Tom Watson, of historical importance. Available online in adobe PDF format for download from

* Rich Jews Indict the State of Georgia (October, 1915) By Tom Watson, historically important. Tom Watson exposes the big money Jewish Community.

Jeffersonian Magazine (Published from 1907 to 1917, Editor Tom Watson)

* The Jeffersonian. 17 December 1914. “Leo Frank Sentenced Again” Magazine article. Teaser.

* The Jeffersonian. 25 March 1915. “The Leo Frank Case Still Raging in Northern Papers” Magazine article. Teaser.


* Kean, Mary Phagan. “The Murder of Little Mary Phagan”. New Horizon Press, 1987.

* “The Frank Case” The Inside Story of Georgia’s Greatest Murder Mystery, published anonymously, Atlanta Publishing Company, 1913. The first book published on the Leo M. Frank murder trial. 144 Pages. Adobe Acrobat PDF [1] 15 megs

* Lawson, John Davison (ed.). American State Trials Volume X (1918) contains the abridged trial testimony starting on p. 182. This document also contains the rare and ellusive closing arguments of the Leo M. Frank defense team and prosecution team. *Required Reading.

* The Leo Frank Case: New Documents Found.

* The Leo M. Frank Case an archive and library of rare images, books, articles, books and videos.

Secondary Sources Biased in favor of Jewish Community & Defense Positions

* Lindemann, Albert S. The Jew Accused: Three Anti-Semitic Affairs (Drevfus, Beilis, Frank), 1894-1915. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Wikipedia is a bastion of Jewish Supremacism

* Jewish Supremacism and Leftist Controlled Wikipedia, Extremely Biased in the Leo Max Frank Case on behalf of Leo M. Frank @

Jewish Defense Side of the Leo M. Frank Case and Trial

* Oney, Steve And the Dead Shall Rise: The Murder of Mary Phagan and the Lynching of Leo Frank published by Pantheon Books in 2003, New York, 742 pages. Available for download in Adobe PDF format from Internet Archive.

* Gaines, Luan. Review of Stephen Oney, And the Dead Shall Rise: The Murder of Mary Phagan and Lynching of Leo Frank

* Dinnerstein, Leonard The Leo Frank Case written by Jewish Left Wing University of Arizona Professor, Dr. Leonard Dinnerstein, who did his dissertation on the subject and who often distorts and exaggerates claims of Anti-Semitism in history. Originally published in New York, Columbia University Press, 1966, 1968. New edition published in Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press, 1987. Available for download in Adobe PDF format from

* Dinnerstein, Leonard. “The Fate of Leo Frank”, American Heritage, 47, October 1996, pp. 98–109.

* Wilkes, Donald E., Jr. “Politics, Prejudice, and Perjury”, University of Georgia School of Law; also see “Wrongly Accused, Falsely Convicted, Wantonly Murdered”, University of Georgia School of Law.

* Collier’s: The National Weekly. Vol. 54, No. 14 (19 December 1914) and No. 15 (26 December 1914)

* Frey, Robert Seitz and Nancy Thompson-Frey (2002). The Silent and the Damned: The Murder of Mary Phagan and the Lynching of Leo Frank. New York: Madison Books, 1988. (Biased history of the case by two well-known Jewish writers, including the story of the 1986 pardon)

* Goldfarb, Stephen J. “Framed.” American Heritage. October 1996, 108-113. (Evidence from the November 1915 trial of the Pinkerton Detective Agency v. National Pencil Company, for non-payment of bills, indicates that the agency actively worked against its client, Leo Frank, to have him found guilty of murder)

* Garrett, Franklin M., Atlanta and Environs: A Chronicle of Its People and Events. Volume II, Athens, GA. University of Georgia Press, 1954, pp. 619-628

* Rascoe, Burton, The Case of Leo Frank: A factual Review of One of the Most Sensational Murder Cases in Court Annals, Girard, KS, Haldemann-Julius, 1947

* Samuels, Charles, Night Fell on Georgia, New York, Dell Publishing Co., 1965

* Memet David, The Old Religion.

* Egelman, Sarah Rachel. Review of David Mamet, The Old Religion

* Bernstein, Matthew (2009). Screening a Lynching: The Leo Frank Case on Film and Television. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.

* Hertzberg, Steven (1978). Strangers Within the Gate City: The Jews of Atlanta, 1845-1915. Philadelphia: the Jewish Publication Society of America.

* Melnick, Jeffrey Paul (2000). Black-Jewish Relations on Trial: Leo Frank and Jim Conley in the New South. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi.

* Golden, Harry (1966). The Lynching of Leo Frank. London: Cassell & Co.

* An Unspeakable Crime: The Prosecution and Persecution of Leo Frank By Jewish Supremacist Elaine Marie Alphin

Historical Archives

* American Jewish Archive, Cincinnati, Ohio. Leo M. Frank Collection 1913-1965

* Brandeis University, Waltham (near Boston), Massachusetts. Leo Frank Trial Collection 1909-1961

* Emory University, Atlanta Georgia. Leo Frank Collection, 1915–1986

* Leo M. Frank Research Library The best source for information on the Leo M. Frank Case, including images, articles, books and videos.

* New South and Leo Frank, digital archive of original images and documents about the Leo M. Frank Case c. 1905 to 1986.

* New York Public Library. Digital gallery of original Leo M. Frank Case photographs. Leo M. Frank Case defense theory on the stages of the murder of Mary Phagan commissioned by New York Times owner Adolph Ochs.

* William Breman Jewish Heritage & Holocaust Museum of The Atlanta Jewish Federation. Leo M. Frank Collection 1878 to 1983. Including rare images.


A few seconds of Alonzo Mann 1982 / 1983.

* People v Leo Frank, review of the documentary, People v Leo Frank (2009), a film about Leo Frank by Ben Loeterman.

* Fiddlin’ John Carson-Little Mary Phagan picture of Fiddlin’ John Carson, with song remake by MoonShine Kate.

* Moonshine Kate Ballade of Mary Phagan Youtube video with interchanging images as the song plays.

Videos taking the Jewish Community & Defense Positions

* They Won’t Forget A pretty schoolgirl is murdered. An ambitious prosecutor wants publicity. And an outsider – a Northern teacher in a sleepy Southern town – makes a handy defendant, someone the locals will happily convict, innocent or guilty. Based on the infamous Leo Frank case, They Won’t Forget is an explosive, acclaimed indictment of bigotry that’s rich in deceptive motives, sudden violence and courtroom suspense. The talent is as powerful as the story: Mervyn LeRoy (I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang) produced and directed with steady hand and crackling pacing, Robert Rossen (The Hustler) co-wrote the unflinching script, Claude Rains (Casablanca) etches a portrait of the ruthless prosecutor with poison and guile, and in her first credited role, Lana Turner makes the schoolgirl beguiling prey for an unhinged mind.

* The Murder of Mary Phagan (1987),, accessed August 23, 2010. The film stars Jack Lemmon, Peter Gallagher, and Kevin Spacey, and won an Emmy in 1988.

* The People versus Leo Frank” (2009), review, accessed August 23, 2010.

* The 1964 television series “Profiles in Courage” dramatized Governor John M. Slaton’s decision to commute Frank’s sentence, The episode starred Walter Matthau as Governor Slaton and Michael Constantine as Tom Watson.


Music Biased Against Leo M. Frank

* During the trial an Atlanta musician and millworker, Fiddlin’ John Carson, wrote and began performing a murder ballad, “Little Mary Phagan.” During the mill strikes of 1914 Carson sang “Little Mary Phagan” to crowds from the Fulton County courthouse steps. An unrecorded Carson song, “Dear Old Oak in Georgia,” sentimentalizes the tree from which Leo Frank was hanged.

* The Little Mary Phagan Song. Right mouse-click and save as.

Music taking the Jewish Community & Defense Positions

* Jamie Saft wrote a song, The Ballad of Leo Frank. The story of Frank’s trial and eventual lynching is included in the liner notes of Saft’s album entitled Black Shabbis.

Media News

* Leo Frank RSS updated news source for Leo Frank articles in mainstream media.


* Golden, Harry. A Little Girl is Dead 363 pages, OH: World Publishing Company, published in 1965. Available for download from the Internet archive in Adobe PDF format.

* Greene Ward, Death in the Deep South A fictional account of a rape of a young girl committed by a factory owner and his resultant lynching at the hands of a lynch mob. The storyline closely parallels that of the infamous Leo Frank case which the story is based and inspired the book.

Newspaper Articles

mostly neutral

* New York Times on the Lynching of Leo M. Frank August 19th 1915 from an impartial correspondent. Despite the Jewish Supremacist views espoused by the New York Times, this article was mostly fair, neutral and balanced.

biased in favor of Leo M. Frank

* Mystery of the Pencil Factory by Sidney Sutherland from Ten real murder mysteries–never solved! New York : London G.P. Putnam’s Sons. Published in 1929 by the Knickerbocker Press.

* “Indicted for Girl’s Murder”, The New York Times, May 25, 1913.

* “Begin Last Frank Appeal to Governor.” The New York Times, June 13, 1915.

* “Slaton Here; Glad He Saved Frank.”, The New York Times, June 30th 1915.

* “Leo Frank’s Throat Cut by Convict”, The New York Times, July 17, 1915.

* “Frank Survives Assassin’s Knife”, The New York Times, July 19, 1915.

* “Frank’s Assailant Before Governor”, The New York Times, July 25, 1915.

* “Frank’s Head in Braces; Excessive Heat Delaying Recovery from Wound in Throat”, The New York Times, August 2, 1915.

* Newt Morris, who “had experience in mob-quelling,” appeared at the hanging tree, and was commended for controlling the second mob; see “Grim Tragedy in Woods.”, New York Times, August 19, 1915.

* “Grim Tragedy in Woods”, The New York Times, August 18, 1915.

Interesting Links

* Honest Media Today. An archive of Leo M. Frank Case documents and images.

* The Leo Frank Trial. An archive of Leo Frank trial documents from JR Online Books.

* Without Sanctuary Photos of criminals Lynched in the United States. The web site takes the side of the criminals.

* Murder Southern Style Maps, images and locations of Mary Phagan, Leo Frank, Lucille Selig and others.

Holocaust Revisionist Sides With Jewish Supremacists

* C.W.Porter’s comments Holocaust Revisionist C.W. Porter takes the side of the Jewish Community & Defense side in regards to the Leo M. Frank Case.

Tom Watson

* Agrarian Rebel: Tom Watson, the 1938 biography of firebrand politician and seasoned lawyer Tom Watson written by C. Vann Woodward. Watson covered the Leo Frank trial in his Watson’s Magazine 1915 Jan., March, August, September and October. Watson’s best work on the Leo M. Frank Case was written in September 1915.

ADL Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith

* The Truth About the ADL Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith. Archive of news articles about one of the most dangerous spy and espionage organizations in the United States, the ADL of B’nai B’rith.

* Honest Media Today. Archive of the criminal activities of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith.

* JR Online Books ADL of B’nai B’rith Information Archive. Excellent collection of news, essays, texts and images about the nations Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith.

* The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, a perfidious & subversive Jewish treason and espionage spy agency masquerading as a civil rights organization. The league was founded in Oct. 1913 after one of its B’nai B’rith presidents, the pedophile rapist and murderer Leo Frank was convicted for the murder of a Christian girl named Mary Phagan.

* ADL of B’nai B’rith and pedophilia from two of its leaders. A web site about Filthy Jewish Terrorists.

* For one perspective on the founding of the ADL, see Blakeslee, Spencer. The Death of American Antisemitism. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2000, 81.

Discussion Forums

* Leo Frank Case: Trial and Aftermath. This is a friendly place to discuss the famous case of Leo Frank and Mary Anne Phagan (1913-1915). Although most modern publications have rendered their verdict, there is still some room for reconsideration. Let us know your thoughts.

Lynching Site

* Leo Frank was lynched approximately at this location: 33°57’2″N 84°31’1″W. An aerial map of the lynching location at what formerly called Frey’s Mill or Frey’s Grove.

* Mary Phagan Burial Site. Wrongly labeled as Leo M. Frank Hanging site, this is cemetery where Mary Phagan was buried.

Georgia State & Government Web Sites

* Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles. Created by Constitutional Law in 1943. In 1986 in an act of betrayal to the people of Georgia, they caved in to Jewish pressure from the ADL and other Jewish groups granting a pardon (forgave him) to Leo M. Frank, but refused to exonerate (reverse the conviction for murder).

* Leo M. Frank Clemency Documents. Material concerning the trial and appeals of Leo Frank. Included are his application file for executive clemency to commute his sentence from death to life imprisonment, plus evidence from the collection of Governor John M. Slaton. The clemency application file includes supporting documentation and the decision and executive order of Governor John M. Slaton in response to the application.

* 08 LC 14 9838. Senate Resolution 1066.By: Senators Hill of the 32nd, Thompson of the 33rd, Rogers of the 21st, Stoner of the 6th and Wiles of the 37th Jewish Supremacist manipulation working in Georgia.


Fair Usage Law

January 31, 2011   Posted in: Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, B'nai B'rith, Holocaust, Holocaust Denial, Holocaust Revisionism, Israel, Jewish, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism, Leo Frank, Racism News, White Nationalism, White Supremacism  Comments Closed

American State Trials Volume 10 (1918) by John D. Lawson, LL.D. (Leo Frank Trial for the murder of Mary Phagan)

For more information about the Leo Frank Case, please visit world foremost Leo Frank research library: www.LeoFrank.orgAmerican State Trials Volume 10 (1918) by John D. Lawson, LL.D. Beginning on page 182, an interpretation of the Leo M. Frank case is featured and then followed by an abridged version of the 1913 Leo Frank trial testimony […]

Fair Usage Law

April 24, 2011   Posted in: Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, B'nai B'rith, Holocaust, Holocaust Denial, Holocaust Revisionism, Jewish, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism, Leo Frank, Multicultural News, Race Relations, Racism News, Racist News, White Nationalism, White Supremacism, Zionism  Comments Closed

Elaine Marie Alphin, An Unspeakable Crime, The Prosecution and Persecution of Leo Frank

A multi-part review by Leo Frank scholars about the book, “An Unspeakable Crime: The Prosecution and Persecution of Leo Frank”, the book was authored by Elaine Marie Alphin and released to the public in March, 2010. Elaine Marie Alphin wrote “An Unspeakable Crime: The Prosecution and Persecution of Leo Frank” for the audience of high […]

Fair Usage Law

April 12, 2011   Posted in: Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, B'nai B'rith, Holocaust, Holocaust Denial, Holocaust Revisionism, Jewish, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism, Leo Frank, Multicultural News, Race Relations, Racism News, Racist News, White Nationalism, White Supremacism, Zionism  Comments Closed

Leo Frank Trial For the Murder of Mary Phagan Testimony Analysis

Leo Frank Sketched on the Witness Stand August 18, 1913Twelve of the Thirteen JurymenThe Leo Frank Trial, July 28, 1913: Photo taken from behind the left side of the Jury. The Thirteenth Juror, Judge Leonard Strickland Roan (upper right), Leo Frank (center) Flanked by his Wife Lucy Selig Frank (left center) and his Mother Rachel […]

Fair Usage Law

April 10, 2011   Posted in: Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, B'nai B'rith, Holocaust, Holocaust Denial, Holocaust Revisionism, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism, Leo Frank, White Nationalism, White Supremacism, Zionism  Comments Closed

The People v Leo Frank by Ben Loeterman

The People v Leo Frank Film, Short Summary Review:The People v Leo Frank is truly an unforgivable and profoundly dishonest Jewish propaganda film, which like every other Jewish media treatment created in the last 100+ years on the subject of Jews, predominantly cherry picks, spins and manipulates facts on behalf of Jews and against Gentiles, […]

Fair Usage Law

April 5, 2011   Posted in: Anti Racism, Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, B'nai B'rith, Holocaust Revisionism, Israel, Jerusalem, Jewish, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism, Leo Frank, Multicultural News, Race Relations, Racism News, White Nationalism, White Supremacism  Comments Closed

Jewish American Heritage Month » B'nai B'rith International …

Fighting hatred and prejudice has long been a basic tenet of B’nai B’rith, which was founded in 1843 to help new Jewish immigrants fight the hatred and prejudice they faced in their …

Fair Usage Law

April 3, 2011   Posted in: Jewish American Heritage Month  Comments Closed

Fun & Interesting Facts About The Holocaust

Adolf Hitler was one of the main causes for World War II because of the Holocaust . The Holocaust is the name that has been given to the killing of around 11 million people, most of them being Jewish

Fair Usage Law

March 28, 2011   Posted in: Holocaust, Holocaust Denial, Holocaust Revisionism, Israel, Jerusalem, Jewish, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism  Comments Closed

The People v. Leo Frank

Watch the People v. Leo Frank People v Leo Frank Film, Short Summary Review:In terms of a brief review and summary of the People v Leo Frank, it is ultimately an unforgivable and profoundly dishonest Jewish propaganda film, which like every other Jewish-position (Frankite) film and book created in the last 100+ years on the […]

Fair Usage Law

March 2, 2011   Posted in: AIPAC, Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, B'nai B'rith, Jewish, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism, Leo Frank  Comments Closed

Featured Article: The Jewish Democrat

The Jewish DemocratThis guest post was written by K. Nani, who has a social worker degree and is planning on extending her education by using the resources at the 2008 presidential election, 75% of Jewish Americans voted for the liberal candidate, Barack Obama. Aside from African-Americans, 95% of whom voted Democratic, Jews were the […]

Fair Usage Law

February 25, 2011   Posted in: Affirmative Action News, AIPAC, Anne Frank, Anti Racism, Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, Ashkenazi, B'nai B'rith, Christian, Discrimination News, Egypt, Gaza, Golan Heights, Holocaust, Holocaust Denial, Holocaust Revisionism, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jerusalem, Jewish, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism, Leo Frank, Multicultural News, Palestine, Race Relations, Racism News, Racist News, Republic of Turkey, Sephardic, Syria, Tel Aviv, West Bank, White Nationalism, White Supremacism, Zionism  Comments Closed

The Biography of Leo Frank (1884 to 1915)

Leo Max Frank, also stylized as Leo M. Frank, Leo Frank or just FrankSource: 17, 1884 – August 17, 1915)From Brooklyn, New York, to Atlanta, GeorgiaLeo M. Frank was a Jewish-American factory superintendent and engineer, born in Cuero, Texas, but raised and educated during his most formative years in Brooklyn, New York City, in […]

Fair Usage Law

January 31, 2011   Posted in: Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, B'nai B'rith, Holocaust, Holocaust Denial, Holocaust Revisionism, Israel, Jewish, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism, Leo Frank, Racism News, White Nationalism, White Supremacism  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."