Archive for the ‘Jewish History’ Category

Tom Watson Caused the Jew Leo Frank to be Lynched on August 17th

In this day of fading ideals and
disappearing land marks, little Mary Phagan’s
heroism is an heirloom, than which there is
nothing more precious among the old red hills
of Georgia.

Sleep, little girl, sleep in your humble
grave but if the angels are good to you in the
realms beyond the trouble sunset and the
clouded stars, they will let you know that
many an aching heart in Georgia beats for you,
and many a tear, from eyes unused to weep,
has paid you a tribute too sacred for words.

—Mary Phagan’s epitaph on her tombstone
(donated by Tom Watson, June 25, 1915)


The Tombstone of Mary Phagan

The firebrand populist politician and criminal attorney, Tom Watson, through his press organ, expounded opinions for the voiceless people of Georgia and silent multitudes of Southerners, concerning their outrage over the murder of Mary Phagan. Watson is often wrongly accused of being an anti-Black racist and anti-Semite, but in fact he actually championed civil rights for poor black laborers and defended Jews against the history of Catholic anti-Semitism. It wasn’t until Leo Frank appealed his case with the major financial backing and national media support of his co-religionists that Tom Watson went on the offensive against American Jewry, for their role, in what he perceived as their efforts to subvert justice.

Despite the press frenzy outside of Southern states, defending Leo Frank and rallying to his cause for vindication, there may have been many quiet Northerners, who agreed with the guilty verdict rendered against him. However overall, the Frank case can in a sense, be metaphorically described as a red state and blue state paradigm at play, because of how it opened old civil war wounds regarding outside influence — out of state influence — over an internal affair. Many Southerners were incensed because they felt the vast majority of people defending Leo Frank had never actually read the trial transcript re-published in Atlanta’s local newspapers or vetted the brief of evidence.

Tom Watson and the Lynching of Leo Frank

A vote of 13 to 0 infavor of Leo Frank’s death sentence was first recommended on August 25, 1913 by the jury, and affirmed by the presiding judge Leonard Roan the following day. In terms of the the Leo Frank drama which started with the violent beating, forceable rape and garroting of Mary Phagan on April 26, 1913 between 12:05 and 12:10, peaking with the conviction of Leo Frank at the conclusion of his trial and reaching its crescendo with his hanging on August 17, 1915, Watson is most often cited by the modern revisionists as the central villain in terms of inspiring and instigating the railroading of Frank during his trial, closing the case with an organized lynching to finalize the verdict rendered by the jury and judge.

Jewish Lies About Tom Watson

For more than one hundred years, Watson has been falsely accused of whipping up anti-Semitic sentiment against Leo Frank during the Mary Phagan murder trial, but Watson made no public comments about the case until March of 1914 – seven months after the trial ended. Moreover, Leo Frank’s defenders, then and now, have accused Tom Watson of instigating Leo Frank’s lynching in 1915, but furious sentiment against the convicted murderer of Mary Phagan was widespread amongst the leadership of Georgia’s government and leadership. Some of the most prominent men of Georgia risked their livelihood to ensure Leo Frank was hanged for his crimes, after what they saw as a miscarriage of Justice when Governor John Slaton, commuted the death sentence of his law client (the lawfirm Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips, represented Leo Frank during his trial and initial appeals).

The presiding trial judge, Leonard Roan, who had the power to downgrade Leo Frank’s punishment at sentencing or give him a new trial refused to do so. Moreover, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled the evidence presented at the Mary Phagan murder trial was sufficient to convict Leo Frank. The Supreme Court of the United States rejected all of Leo Frank’s appeals in their majority and unanimous decisions. Even the outgoing governor of Georgia at the time, John Slaton, in his commutation order that reduced Leo Frank’s death sentence to life in prison, stated that he was sustaining the jury, judge and appeals court, and that anti-Semitism was not a factor in the case against Leo Frank. Even the pardon rendered on March 11, 1986, did not address Leo Frank’s innocence or guilt, but based their highly political decision on a technicality.

What is indeed true and seldom spoken of, is that Tom Watson spoke for the millions of working class Southerners and many of the elites who agreed with Frank’s conviction for the sex murder of Mary Phagan and his subsequent hanging two years later in fulfillment of his punishment. Since 1913, the ADL and organized Jewish groups, continue to smear Southerners as bigoted anti-Semites regarding the Frank trial, despite the fact that the South has typically shown the greatest acceptance of Jews then and now, and stand behind Israel uncompromisingly today. Bible belt and Southern Christian Zionists make up the majority of Gentiles who financially and politically side with Israel against Northern liberals and progressives from coast to coast who often describe the Jewish nation as an Apartheid state.

Attempt if you can to look through the fire blazing eyes of all the people in the United States who were against what they saw as the rapist-pedophile-strangler, Leo Max Frank, being defended by primarily 3% of the total population, Jews who were willing to falsify the legal records of the trial to win support for their fellow co-religionist. Frank’s detractors were sympathetic for the murdered 13-year old Christian girl, who was tragically killed in the spring-bloom of her life and for the grieving family she left behind. Attempt to see their perspective as represented in the writings, published by Firebrand Tom E. Watson about Leo Frank, in five of his Watson’s Magazine issues: January, March, August, September and October, and several individual issues of Jeffersonian Newspapers 1914 – 1917. Quote:


When the highest court in the world
judicially affirms that the State which
‘tried and convicted Frank, accorded
him every right guaranteed to him
under the highest law’, ought not the
decision to be respected?


-Tom Watson

The above quote is from Watson’s Magazine (1915), Tom Watson is expressing the outrage of many Christians, against what they perceived as an ugly and treacherous countrywide (and international) letter writing campaign led by the perfidious Jewish tribe, igniting a racist cause celebre, which resulted in the Governors office being deluged with generic stock letters, requesting clemency and exoneration for Leo Frank.

Southerner rage, was compounded because of a widespread national media smear campaigns against the State of Georgia, by the “Jewsmedia” (though that exact term was not used at the time, it was implied), which might be one of the earliest recorded claims in America about Jewish control of the press. Claims that the Jews dominate and manipulate the International media to their advantage, have reached a fevered pitch in modern times, because of compelling evidence regarding mainstream media ownership and managagement, but those claims should decline as the Internet levels the playing field significantly after 2015. The ease with which anyone can start their own news site is now unprecedented because of social media. There will likely be a dramatic decline in viewership of mainstream media sources beginning around 2013 as more people look for alternative sources of news and entertainment that better reflect the concerns and curiosities of the masses of global citizenry.

Vector One: The Largest Petition and Letter Writing Campaign in U.S. History.

Inspired by Rabbi David Marx, led and funded by powerful and wealthy Jewish interests, including NY & Chicago media magnates, an aggressively well financed attempt was made to get Leo Frank vindicated by the emotional appeal of large numbers of people outside of the State of Georgia and primarily the northern States through the “Ziomedia”, though they didn’t use that exact term, it was exactly what they meant, the anti-semitic term used to describe the over representation of Jewish owners and management in national newspapers and media outlets. Many people then and now, felt after the Leo Frank affair that Jews were using their undue influence for self-serving racist causes.

Jewish Advertising mogul A. D. Lasker and Jewish media magnate Adolph S. Ochs, New York Times owner, took personal interest in the Leo Frank case; rallying together, these tycoons and other Jewish media bosses used their influence to ensure there was national press coverage via their Jewish power broker clique and both of these mogules put up gargantuan sums of money for the Leo Frank defense fund.

Meet Tom Watson

Thomas Edward Watson (September 5, 1856 – September 26, 1922), generally known as Tom Watson and hereafter, is one of the most fascinating and controversial men of late 19th and early 20th century Southern history. For one interesting perspective on Tom E. Watson, start by read his biography, called ‘Tom Watson: Agrarian Rebel’, by C. Vann Woodward. Available for full download in adobe PDF format: http://www.archive.org/details/AgrarianRebel1938BiographyOfTomWatson.

Tom Watson Articulated Leo Frank’s Incriminating Statements as a Kind of Inescapable Entrapment

It would be more than just the August 17, 1915 lynching of Leo Frank which would be linked with Tom Watson by the historical and modern supporter-defenders of Leo Frank, garnering their foaming at he mouth wrath. It would also be Tom Watson’s 1915 vitriolic expose’ of the official record contained within the Leo Frank trial brief of evidence that had been originally ratified by the defense, prosecution and trial judge.

Within the analysis of the Leo Frank trial testimony published in Watson’s Magazine issues (1915), would emerge the real unspoken truth of why Tom Watson is so deeply hated by Leo Frank supporters (what Tom Watson called: Frankites) over the decades and generations. Tom Watson’s zooming analysis of Leo Frank incriminating statements made at the trial on August 18th 1913, made it impossible to overlook or deny his being at the scene of the crime when the murder occurred, except by diehard Frankites who refuse to address this evidence. As it was, then and now, Leo Frank’s incriminating statements are almost certainly ignored with absolute perfection by the Jewish community and Leo Frank partisan Gentiles. Three criminal attorneys articulated the Leo Frank “murder confessions” the best, two of them were State’s Prosecution team members Hugh M. Dorsey and Frank Arthur Hooper, but some might argue Watson’s 1915 articulation was better than the two prosecution team members combined, because of how lucidly he presented the evidence.

Tom Watson had articulated the “murder confession” of Leo Frank, something Leo Frank defenders wished he had never done so forcefully, because the subject was totally avoided and censored in presentations to the public and the last time the subject was even broached, and was only briefly mentioned within the final closing arguments given by the prosecution team members at the end of the Leo Frank trial. Only the most learned Leo Frank scholars who study the Leo Frank trial brief of evidence, and closing arguments of State’s Prosecution attorneys Hugh M. Dorsey and Frank Arthur Hooper (American State Trials Volume x, 1918) know of the Leo Frank’s incriminating statements, these closing arguments where once very difficult to come by for obvious reasons, but they are available now and immortalized thanks to Leo Frank Research Library publishing them on www.Archive.org.

Leo Frank’s alibi reversal was never ever touched upon or mentioned in terms of its breaking analysis by the mainstream media of the nation, nor by the local Atlanta Media. The Constitution and Georgian, left out Leo Frank’s metalroom bathroom statements aswell, only the Atlanta Journal mentioned it in passing, and therefore Watson brought widespread irrevocable attention to the “woopsy daisy” made by Leo Frank, a “supposing” that might have otherwise remained hidden within the 318 pages of trial testimony. Today this incident is drowned out of Jewish and Gentile history, by Leo Frank supporters making a cacophony of persecution and victim claims. Tom Watson put the eternal spotlight on it and brought undue attention to something the Frankites quietly pretend never happened, but now that Watson’s Magazines are digitized and available to the world through the Internet Archive, people are no longer frightened by the Jewish canard: anti-Semite. New inquiry is likely to occur at the centennial of this sensational Southern trial of the century. Now that the word anti-Semite and anti-Semitism makes something a forbidden fruit, individuals are going to start reading Tom Watson’s Magazines January, March, August, September and October 1915 to get the juicy details of the August 18, 1913 Leo Frank trial statement. The best issues to read back to back are the August and September 1915 issues, combined they tend to show why the jury was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, they also expose the Jewish community stating there was no real compelling testimony given at the trial and anti-Semitism was to blame for Leo Frank’s conviction, are embarrassing racist pathological lies.

Only one person in American History provides physically published analysis of the Leo Frank trial testimony supporting the prosecution side of the Leo Frank case in 1915

There was no published interpretation and analysis of the July 28 to August 26, 1913 trial at the time by what might be called the prosecution side of the Leo Frank case, except when Tom Watson began writing savvy articles in his weekly Jeffersonian newspaper during 1914. What made Watson dangerous, is he deflated any legitimate or illegitimate efforts to exonerate Leo Frank, frustrating a great number of Frankites, who even today shrilly bandy about the anti-Semitism canard. Watson is still a dangerous enemy of the Jewish community and Leo Frank partisans 100 years after the 1913 conviction and 1915 lynching, as writers continue to present the Frank case as a wailing wall of antisemitic persecution, the last thing in the world these Frankites would ever want anyone to do is read Tom Watson’s writings about the case. Watson’s magazine articles published in Jan, March, August, September and October of 1915 make it nearly impossible to believe that Frank was even remotely innocent – that is of course if you do not suffer from the neurosis of self-deception and Jewish egomania to believe Leo Frank was an infallible president of Atlanta B’nai B’rith.

Tom Watson Vs. Leo M. Frank (1914-1917) in the Jeffersonian Newspaper:

Populist Firebrand Tom Watson, a seasoned barrister from Georgia produced a newspaper called ‘The Jeffersonian’ and a monthly magazine called ‘Watson’s Magazine’, both were distributed through his ‘Jeffersonian Publishing Company’ and from a political and social standard, because Tom Watson was a prominent attorney and politician, being both a member of both U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate during his lifetime, it tended to add great strength and credibility to his writing and influence. One hundred years later, his writings on the Leo Frank case are still poignant and very enjoyable to read.

Watson: Heroic Voice of the People or Anti-Semitic Demagogue? Depends on who you ask.

Watson had a lasting influence on Southern history and is still talked about today with love, hate and reverence, depending on the individual or group asked. For the Jewish Community both contemporaneously speaking, Watson represents an anti-Semite antagonist and mob leader of “Southerner hate” vs. “Jewish victimization and persecution”. When August 2015 arrives, Watson’s Magazines which are mostly unknown and rarely ever read, will likely get renewed interest as the media goes into a rabid foaming at the mouth frenzy over the Frank lynching.

White Christian Southerners Vs. White Jews

For Southerners, Watson is remembered and cherished as a kind of Robin Hood hero and Defender of the poor laboring and agrarian castes, against wealthy despotic industrialists, which included the better organized and perfidiously tribal Jewish Community. For the Jewish community, Tom Watson takes on the imagery of a protagonist, an ominous diabolical figure, often labeled as any variation of hater and the man most cited as responsible for insuring the trial of Leo Frank descended into a free for all of circumstantial evidence. The modern Jewish community and Frank partisans, views Tom Watson as a kind of proto-Hitler in the making and the Leo Frank lynching a mini-Holocaust – every Jewish movie, book, article, and play, has, more or less, taken on this supposition.

Watson Magazine on the Leo Frank Case: Anti-Semitic Ad Hominem Attacks?

One thing for certain, Tom Watson’s writings on the Leo Frank case can be summarized as demystifying the longest murder trial in Southern history at the time. Though, it tends to depreciate Tom Watson’s brilliance at simplifying the Leo Frank case, when his writings descend into infantile, but hilariously descriptive ad hominem attacks against Leo Frank (as captured in Watson’s Magazine January, March, August, September and October of 1915). As an example of attacks on the physical appearance of Leo Frank, Watson describes the mandible Jaw of Leo Frank as simian and his goat-like “fearfully sensual” lips as that of a seductive aggressive sexual satyr.

Champion of the Working Class

Tom Watson is very much remembered as a controversial populist writer and politician, who championed poor farmers and the working class in general, including Negroes, but people like Tyrone Brooks of Georgia, never actually took the time to learn this and instead he claims Watson hate African-Americans. In Tom’s ‘Watson’s Magazine’, he often railed against the corruption of the international Catholic Church and even defended Jews, however during and after the tail end of the post Leo Frank trial battle in 1915, he went berserker condemning what he perceived as Jews defending Leo Frank solely for being Jewish, race being used for treacherous, defamatory and slanderous purposes against the State of Georgia and European-American Southerners. When you read Watson’s Magazine, you can feel the energy, fire, venom and rage in the intensity of his words.

Jewish Media Control Tom Watson Claimed

By drowning the nation in duplicitous Pro-Frank radio and news propaganda, to turn him into a persecuted victim-hero, using the loudest and most widespread media circulation, created the sense of national majority support of the people for the Leo Frank Defense side of the equation. In reality it turned the Leo Frank Case into the ultimate Jewish hate crime hoax, the bludgeon of Jewish victim-hood persecution vs. ignorant Southerner (Georgian) race hatred. Watson felt as if the entire state of Georgia had been traduced as a Republic of Savagery.

The Biggest Letter Writing Campaign in U.S. History led by the Jewish Community

Watson also raged against what he perceived as the well organized, big money, tribalist and corrupt Jewish community, one that knows no borders nationally or internationally, which successfully energized a widespread and successful letter writing campaign across the United States and even some international cities in Europe. The letter writing campaign was perceived as the height of Jewish insolence, mostly an in-state started, but big money out-of-state movement, directed at libeling the State of Georgia as an unjust backward, primitive and crass booger-eating hillbilly regime (see Watson’s Magazine, 1915).

The deluging of the Governors office with a tsunami of Pro-Frank support letters, largely in an attempt to create the false impression of an overwhelming democratic and numerical majority paper voting bloc, united to overturn the conviction, and 18 month appeals process, was perceived as an insulting outrage by Southerners and a grave dishonor to Mary Phagan. The nationwide movement for Leo Frank can accurately be described as a letter writing campaign appealing by emotion and passion for a wide range of positive outcomes or appeasements for Leo Frank, from executive clemency to outright exonerating Leo M. Frank from his murder conviction.

The letter writing campaign is a text book example of how to influence people and motivate them. Slice and dice just the right amount of biased information, add a monolithic martyr theme, and spin it with just the right subtlety, package it and deliver it to the general public with a media circus, and if done just right, it will inflame the fires of indignation amongst people of every walk of life. In many ways Leo Frank became like a Jesus Christ figure, because indeed, most people have some altruistic feelings against a perceived gross injustice, that is if you can conjure that perception of injustice in their minds, with a kind of mental religious-science angle, applied by pushing all the right buttons. And most people would fall for it and will respond to the injustice with indignation, especially when someone’s life is on the line. Most people will want to join the cause or help out in some way or another to overturn a perceived injustice, whether it’s donating money, spreading the word of the cause, signing a petition or writing a letter of support. Think of how successful Christianity is with it’s own Jewish Martyr.

The national Jewish letter writing campaign could arguably be considered the most successful paper flooding, pound for pound in U.S. history, showing the supremely unmatched organization skills of a highly motivated Jewish Community, one resulting in over 100,000 letters from across the United States and several European Countries, being sent to Governor John M. Slaton and physically submerging his office with an avalanche of letters the likes of volume never seen or heard of before or since. So many Santa Claus mail bags of letters where sent to the Governors office in Atlanta that John M. Slaton admitted to being unable to open the super vast majority of them. Indeed 99% of them ended up in the furnace unopened, heating his Governor’s mansion, but it was understood that most of the letters were fan mail for Frank and the message of the most successful letter writing campaign in US history was made loud and clear. It would tend to create great tensions in Jewish-Gentile relations in the South and possibly signify the end for the more racially conscious White Southerners that Jews were loyal White Southerners.

An Alleged Jewish Disinformation Campaign Against Non-Jews

Tom Watson’s rage stemmed from the fact that virtually none of the outside people writing support letters on behalf of Leo Frank, had actually ever read the official record of trial testimony or had an understanding of the facts and evidence in the Frank Case. To add more gasoline soaked coal to the bonfire of Jewish-Gentile tension, in a divided, mixed and controversial commutation order, Governor John M. Slaton (1915) tended to corroborate Watson’s position concerning the “outside” meddling, but Slaton was more direct, not mincing words in his commutation order about this vast attempt at emotional appeal by people who had no understanding of the Laws in the State of Georgia or had ever read the trial evidence in the Case.

The Leo Frank trial and appeals documents were difficult to obtain in the early 20th century and 99% of the people interested in the case never took the time to actually get copies of the legal appeals documents which numbered more than 3,000 pages from 1913 to 1915, though the brief of evidence, the core document was only 318 pages, it is not easy for the untrained legal mind to sift. However, thanks to the Internet, most of the surviving Leo Frank documents are slowly being made available to the public and as time goes on it is hoped that all surviving documents of the case will make their way online for the public before 2015.

Watson says, “The Whole State of Georgia Traduced”

At the time, the State of Georgia had the most favorable laws protecting murderers, Frank had to go through a Coroners Inquest Jury (7 men, a Coroner and 6 Jurymen who voted 7 to 0 against Frank), Grand Jury (21 Jurymen who voted 21 to 0 against Frank) and Trial Jury (13 men, 12 Jurymen and a Judge, who voted 13 to 0 against Frank), and once convicted, there were appeals within appeals upon appeals and wheeling and dealing, all the way up to the United States Supreme Court, more than once. The majority decisions were all against Leo Frank, and it was determined he had a fair trial.

Frank and his dream team of lawyers would have months to prepare each appeal in their 1.5 year struggle and more than a dozen judges in their calm polished oak committee rooms would meticulously study, discuss, argue and review the murder trial brief of evidence, pouring over every little minute detail, without the accusation of mob terror being even remotely possible and they determined Leo Frank had a fair trial. The appellate courts, including the Superior Court of Georgia, Supreme Court of Georgia, United States District Court and United States Supreme Court, also gave a unanimous decision Leo Frank had a fair trial and would not disturb the verdict of the Jury, making all the hysterical and emotional claims made by Leo Frank supporters about supposed mob terror and injustice fully null and void, but that didn’t stop them from using the case as a racist anti-Gentile culture war for more than 100 years.

John Marshall Slaton, or Jack Slaton, (December 25, 1866 – January 11, 1955)

Georgia Governor John M. Slaton (June 28, 1913 – June 26, 1915), became a part owner, and senior law partner in the firm chosen, funded and hired to be the Leo M. Frank legal defense team in early July, 1913, which disqualified Slaton from being impartial in his Leo Frank commutation order. In a gross conflict of interest and at the eleventh hour, or just one day before Leo Frank was to be executed, John M. Slaton commuted the sentence of his client Leo M. Frank, from death by hanging, to life in prison, having Frank shipped to a minimum security penitentiary in Milledgeville Georgia. Leo Frank escaped the hangman’s noose on June 21st 1915 by a matter of inches, but the battle to bring Leo Frank to his final justice or injustice (depending on who you ask) did not end there. With new intrigues forming, a plot was brewing and the final say in the matter was not over in the minds of the men who ran the Government of Georgia.

Available for download in Adobe PDF format: Leo M. Frank Clemency Decision by John M. Slaton, published on June 21st 1915.

To put the 1915 chapters of the Leo M. Frank Case in perspective, read Slaton’s 29 page clemency order written on behalf of Leo M. Frank and compare it with these works which support the prosecution: (1) Tom E. Watson’s, August and September issues of Watson’s Magazine 1915; (2) Argument of Hugh M. Dorsey; (3) Trial Brief of Evidence (July Term 1913); and (4) Argument of Mr. Frank Arthur Hooper (American State Trials Volume X, 1918), to decide if it was a just and fair commutation provided by John M. Slaton or if it was a undeniable betrayal of the Constitution.

Review the defense position and prosecution positions carefully, be able to argue both sides superbly.

The Jewish Defense Position

From the Leo M. Frank defense and Jewish community perspective, the commutation primarily takes into consideration some inconsistencies in the the testimony of Jim Conley and disregards entirely the main star witness Monteen Stover’s testimony, who is minimized.

The major issue concerning Jim Conley’s testimony being, as Oney put it literally, is “the shit in the shaft”. Jim Conley had dumped a natural steaming pile of fresh faeces in the elevator shaft, before the elevator was used to remove the body of Mary Phagan to the rear of the basement. This would mean that at the bottom of the uneven elevator shaft floor tray, where there was trash strewn about, there would have been a fresh pile of human excrement left there by Jim Conley and when the police arrived Sunday morning and took the elevator down to the basement, that it mashed this pile of human feces, causing it to kinda unlock and immediately release it’s terrible smell (I know this sounds absurd and you’re rolling your eyes, but try to hear out this defense position). And that Leo Frank should be exonerated because the pile should have been mashed beforehand, releasing the smell already, if Conley and Frank took the body of Phagan down to basement by elevator, they would have mashed it already, before the police came, however, before Conley and the police could have anticipated the “shit in the shaft” exoneration defense, Conley mentioned that Frank had exhibited nervous and hasty behaviors using the elevator and stopping it too soon or prematurely, and at one point in the elevator, this hasty behavior caused Frank to fall into Conley embrace. Is it possible the elevator didn’t go all the way down in the basement?

Leo Frank was jerky, nervous and bugging out on the afternoon of the murder, it is possible that he might have pulled the chain too soon, a couple of inches above the pile of excrement which was resting at the bottom of an uneven elevator shaft floor, before the elevator touched the ground. It was also determined that the bottom of the elevator did not bottom out and was uneven, because it was a dirt floor and the bottom of elevator shafts always have a little extra room and often trash. Could the other trash have prevented the elevator from going all the way down? The police did poke about at the trash in the basement elevator tray.

In fact the entire basement floor was an uneven dirt floor, the elevator shaft was no different. Moreover, Reuben Rose Arnold, arguably the best lawyer on the Leo Frank defense team, suggested Conley dumped Mary Phagan down the elevator shaft from the 1st floor, 14feet up, is it possible she would have landed smack square on Jim Conleys faeces? or did she miss it, but if she missed it and was dragged or carried, wasn’t there a risk of bumping into that faeces, or scraping against it? It is after all very dark in that basement which had only one primitive gas jet, barely providing any light for the gloomy basement.

Final Analysis (no pun intended) of the Shit in the Shaft Exoneration Movement

It’s really hard not to poke fun, but all this speculation about the “shit in the shaft” is silly. In addition, what makes “the shit in the shaft” exoneration movement so funny, is that fresh human faeces does not withhold its smell until mashed and that the floor of elevator shafts. Conley describing Leo Frank making hasty stops with the elevator, could have meant in his rush, Frank may have stopped the elevator just moments before it touched the uneven, garbage strewn, floor tray of the basement. Regardless of all of this, whether it is right or wrong, the “shit in the shaft” is a shamelessly desperate and chintzy attempt to exonerate Leo Frank, because human feces smells the moment it is released. Human feces does not have a magical shell around it that bocks the smell until it is cracked open, so the “shit in the shaft” movement was another embarrassing attempt by Leo Frank supporters to get him exonerated.

Is it Possible to Convict Leo Frank without Conley?

From the Leo M. Frank prosecution side, Georgia community and Southern position, it was believed, as Watson articulated, that it will always be possible to fully convict Leo M. Frank without the testimony of Jim Conley and that John Slaton disregarded volumes of facts from the official record and evidence, especially the testimony of star witness Monteen Stover, a young White girl who said she looked for Leo Frank in his inner and outer office between 12:05 and 12:10 and that Frank’s office was empty. Monteen Stover’s statement was incriminating because Leo Frank said Mary Phagan was alone with him during this time (State’s Exhibit B).

The Neutral Dispassionate Researcher Position

From the position of a dispassionate researcher, whether the commutation of Leo M. Frank was right or wrong, it ignited an inferno of anger in the people of Georgia, Southerners in general and most probably Northerners who were Prosecution Partisans (Right Leaning Christians). Many felt it was a great betrayal and injustice that a well connected Jew could buy himself out of a death sentence for the Murder of a teenage Christian girl. In response to Slaton’s controversial clemency order, Tom Watson exploded to new heights of ferocity. Watson’s fire and brimstone is unrivaled in terms of his sarcastic wit.

Tom Watson Vindicates and Shields the Lynchers From Prosecution with the Inked Feathered Pen

Of all the writing on the Leo M. Frank Case by Watson, one stands out above the rest. Available for Download: 4. The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, Jew Pervert, September 1915 by Tom Watson, showing his true colors, Watson dubs Frank a “Jew pervert”.

One might argue that Watson’s September 1915 “Jew Pervert” publication was superior and more convincing in terms of making a powerful case to convict Leo M. Frank for murder, more so than ‘The Argument of Hugh M. Dorsey’. Watson seems to transcend the best elements of Mr. Frank Hooper and Mr. Hugh Dorsey’s closing remarks, which isn’t difficult to do given that people were discussing the case for countless months and years afterward analyzing it with metaphorical electron microscopes.


The Final Analysis of Watson from the Southerner Perspective

For the people of Georgia, Tom E. Watson is considered an immortal hero of the people, an invincible Promethean standing against a fang-mouthed ethnocentric troglodyte faced Jewish community that resembles an ugly monolithic Titan. The name Tom Watson, for Southerners is synonymous with the merger of Robinhood, a prodigious savant Detective, populist politician of the people, and seasoned Lawyer.

The Knights of Mary Phagan

This group of elite men who infamously forged themselves as The Knights of Mary Phagan in June 1915, planned one of the most audacious prison breaks in Southern and possibly U.S. history, executed with surgical precision, they overpowered the guards at the Milledgeville prison and abducted Leo M. Frank from his prison dorm bed, on August 16th 1915 at around 11 O’clock in the evening, five men dragged him out of bed, the party of 25 men vanished into the summer midnight towards Marietta in slow moving Model T fords, cruising at 18 miles an hour on pot hole pocked rolling dirt bumpy roads in the pitch blackness of night, for what would feel like hundreds of miles, “Are we there yet?”. They traveled 170 miles, and had to stop once half way to fix a flat.

During the military style operation of kidnapping Leo M. Frank, not a single gun shot was fired at any time during the raid. The Knights of Mary Phagan drove Frank toward Cobb County, Georgia, at Sheriff William J. Frey’s Cotton Gin estate and the lynching spot became known as Frey’s grove. The place was selected, because Phagan had lived near there formerly, and it was felt to be a significant and symbolic spot by the lynch party. Just after the sun rose on August 17th 1915 and the morning dew kissed the sky, they read Leo Frank the sentence of Judge Leonard S. Roan, kicked away the table he was perched upon and strangled Leo M. Frank from a mature oak tree shaped like a Y.

The KKK is reborn Thanksgiving 1915

Moreover, the rebirth of the formerly defunct KKK, the Leo Frank defense side of the equation says, was inspired by Tom Watson because he energized a hurricane of antisemitic hate and racism, bringing the public to a fevered pitch against the Jewish community. However, the KKK would say the rebirth of the Klan was inspired because of the Murder of little Mary Phagan was with absolute certainty committed by Leo M. Frank and the Jewish community waged a multi-state and international ethnoreligious tribal war against European-Americans over it, one that still rages today in the Jewsmedia. Moreover, the KKK would claim, the Jewish community unleashed a disgusting nationwide media hate campaign against the Glorious State of Georgia and even worse, that the Luther Z. Rosser Defense Team, Dr. Rabbi David Marx and Lucille Selig used every criminal means and tactic of genuine underworld subversion, gutter behavior, bribery, coercion and blackhanded enterprise in an attempt to free a loathsome pedophile-rapist-murderer.

Watson’s publications surge in readership.

Watson’s controversial September 1915 “Jew Pervert” publication reached the zenith of readership during his magazines reign, formerly a circulation of around 30,000, the zine had surged well beyond the printing presses capacity of 100,000 and could still not even meet the insatiable demand. The “Leo Frank” issues where read, re-read, shared and re-shared, until they were worn out into beaten up tattered rags. Very few of these issues have survived today, but they are available now in digital format on the Internet Archive www.Archive.org aside from the typos they are well written and an interesting read from a historical standpoint.

When Watson began writing articles about the Leo M. Frank Case in December 1914 and published booklets starting in January 1915 within his Watson’s Magazine, this surge in publication numbers and demand was due to the ravenous hunger and sensational fanfare for Watson’s refreshingly powerful and invigorating wit and sarcasm, especially in scoring Leo M. Frank and his Jewish allies who he claimed control the national media. For people who had blindly, indignantly and emotionally hated Leo M. Frank, Watson provided a delicious kind of articulation with lucid arguments and logical explanations, with detective-scientist analysis and clear reasoning to unequivocally affirm the judgment of guilty for L. M. Frank.

Protestants Vs. Judaism

Watson became a fire and brimstone hero against what was perceived as a perfidious big money manipulating Jewish ethnoreligious group that had no state or country borders, an unscrupulous tribe of Hebrews (as they were sometimes called back then) willing to spare no dollar or effort to liberate one of their own high profile child molesters, regardless of whether or not the evidence was strong or not on behalf of his guilt. It almost doesn’t even matter today that the evidence against Leo Frank is overwhelming, Jewish groups, high profile Jews of all walks of life, push the antisemitism, victim and persecution angle on the Leo Frank case, as if grandee Leo Frank has taken on the status of an infallible mythical holy religious martyr of Judaism. Leo Frank becomes a new chapter in the religious scriptures of Judaism with a mellow dramatic flare.

Tom Watson uses the official stenographed record of Leo M. Frank’s murder trial testimony to make the kind of argument you would have expected from Hugh M. Dorsey, logical and well thought out, analyzed with superb reasoning, using only the relevant parts of the testimony and evidence, to convince the Jury to convict. Though in many respects some of Watson’s arguments are more convincing than Dorsey’s, observers might argue, in terms of clear and logical formulation. Though some of the antisemitic language and characterizations used by Watson appealed to the basest of human emotions.

Tom Watson’s Coup De Grâce Reviewed

‘The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, Jew Pervert’, September 1915 by Tom Watson is arguably the best work Tom Watson had ever put together on the Leo M. Frank Case despite some overt Anti-Semitic language, it provides a superb and fresh analysis of the trial. Some of the language can at times detract from the content and substance of the arguments and reasoning.

Leo Frank’s Statement Revealed Something

Surprisingly, the Solicitor General, Hugh Manson Dorsey and Mr. Frank Arthur Hooper, weakly covers this one distinct area, but Hooper does slightly better, he brushes over it with vague, but visual wording. Dorsey had an opportunity and so did Hooper to spend more time interpreting or arguing a very damaging and interesting tidbit of information Leo M. Frank orally gave to the Jury – Watson makes sure to spend ample time on “it”. What is “it”? We will get to it.

Observers would reason that Dorsey had to walk a very cautious and fine line, as to not give too much credibility for Leo M. Frank’s total unsworn statement to the Jury, as the reason why the prosecution did not spend more time on specific areas of Leo Frank’s own damaging testimony. Dorsey and Hooper, made sure not to focus on any one piece of evidence and testimony, but to use all the best elements in synergy, so that no matter how much the defense tried to break apart an issue here or there, they would ultimately fail against the chain of circumstantial evidence that encompassed Leo Frank. When the wind blows through a weeping willow, you can see the weeping willow ebb and flow in the wind, you can not see the wind itself, but you know the wind is there because the tree showed the evidence. When Leo Frank murdered Mary Phagan in the metal room between 12:05 and 12:10, there were no hidden cameras to capture the event, but all the evidence showed it occurred.

The Unconscious Climax

The climax of this infamous booklet by Watson (September 1915) points out that Leo M. Frank, made an “unconsciously” fatal and damaging statement during his testimony during his murder trial to the Judge and Jury on August 18, 1913. Watson would claim that a key segment of Leo Frank’s statement to the Jury amounted to an unconscious confession that he murdered Mary Phagan in the metal room.

Does Leo M. Frank incriminate himself?

Indeed, Frank says something to counter Monteen Stover’s testimony that even the Leo Frank defense team lawyers and contemporary Frankites would wish he had never said, it was something that would have sent chills up the spines of anyone who had watched the trial closely, listened carefully and knew the layout of the National Pencil Company 2nd Floor.

The Prosecution used 3D and 2D Models

All throughout the trial, a very detailed three dimensional model of the factory was used to assist the prosecution in developing their chain of events leading up to and after the murder. Moreover, newspapers also published very well designed two dimensional models. The brief of evidence in the Leo M. Frank murder trial, also includes aerial two dimensional models of the pencil factory levels, specifically the 2nd floor. The details and explanations are mostly clear in these diagrams which are available for your review.

No contemporary writers touch the “unconscious” bathroom visit

It is perplexing that no contemporary Leo Frank partisan writers, like Steve Oney or Leo Dinnerstein cover these ominous and specific words Leo Frank made during his statement to the Jury, testimony Frank gave in an attempt to account for the unaccounted time-hole in his alibi, especially due to the sworn evidence of Miss Monteen Stover, who came to the Factory for her pay envelope at about the same time as Mary Phagan. Monteen Stover arrived just minutes after Mary Phagan arrived at Leo Frank’s second floor office, but when Monteen Stover stepped into Leo Frank’s empty office, Leo Frank and Mary Phagan were already in the metal room.

Monteen Stover is the Star Witness

Watson would argue that because Frank never mentions Monteen Stover during his whereabouts on the afternoon on April 26th 1913 between 12:05 and 12:10, Monteen Stover becomes the main star witness in the trial, not Jim Conley. Monteen Stover made it possible to convict Leo M. Frank and the defense made no effort to impeach her testimony.

Watson Solves the Murder of Mary Phagan without Conley

In “Jew Pervert”, Watson believes he solved the Mary Phagan Murder, without using Jim Conley’s testimony – thus countering the Defense position that without Conley’s own words and murder trial testimony, Leo Frank would never have been convicted. Most of the arguments by Dorsey and Hooper at the end of the trial did not rely solely on Conley, but on other features of the evidence, including the Star Witness testimony of Monteen Stover. The laws of Georgia at the time stipulate that a person can not be convicted by an accomplice, so Conley’s testimony was given only minor mention in the closing arguments. Dorsey and Hooper had to secure a conviction by building a credible case beyond the testimony of Jim Conley.

The People of Georgia are Convinced with a Kind of Religious Fanaticism.

Watson with venomous rage reveals from the official record that Leo Frank and Monteen Stover by their own individual testimony together, solve the murder mystery cold case of little Mary Phagan, making any alternative impossible.

Watson’s Exultation

Watson says Leo M. Frank entrapped himself beyond escape on August 18th 1913

Leo M. Frank to fill in the glaring hole in his alibi created by Monteen Stover, he put’s himself “unconsciously” where the prosecution built it’s case on where the murder of Mary Phagan occurred, namely the 2nd floor metal room, where the bathroom is located. Why Leo Frank would say something like this is impossible to figure out.

Pre-Climax of the Trial, Before Jury is Charged to Decide the Case.

There is one point in the trial where it was as if the whole of the Universe became one single legal eye, looking under a magnifying glass, examining this case and it was on August 18th 1913 when Leo Frank mounted the stand and spoke directly to the Jury and for the first time told the panel of 13 men (Judge and Jury) and 250 spectators that he might have unconsciously gone to the bathroom in the metal room at the approximate time of the murder.

Note the importance of it being the first time Leo Frank mentions unconsciously leaving his office, as before August 18, 1913, Leo Frank claimed he never left his office from noon to 12:25 at the coroners inquest (see newspaper articles), and he also told police he was in his office every minute from noon to 12:35. These early statements were entered into evidence.

Dorsey’s Noose

All the individual pieces of evidence came together as single strands of entwining wire, wrapping and weaving into an unbreakable noose that Leo Frank put around his own neck, a paraphrase of the colorful narrative Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey described in his final Arguments at the trial. No single piece of individual evidence convicts Leo Frank, it is all the evidence taken together that hangs him, Dorsey muses. This made it really difficult for the defense who concentrated too much effort on failed attempts to break down Jim Conley on the stand.

Watson: A Secret Murder Confession.

Amongst the long winded diatribe given by Leo Frank at the trial, there are some very specific words in Leo M. Frank’s testimony on August 18, 1913, there is a passage that if one has been paying very close attention to the testimony, and has a very clear and deep understanding of the layout of the National Pencil Company factory diagrams, it leaves one in absolute utter shock, that a secret confession would almost be made at the Trial by Leo M. Frank. Even today it is shocking Leo Frank would incriminate himself. When in the history of the United States has someone made a virtual murder confession at their own trial?!

Leo Frank essentially confesses to the Murder by proxy and fiat.

On August 18th 1913, during his loquacious 4 hour testimony before the Jury, Leo M. Frank spent most of the time in boring and mind numbing details explaining how he does complicated pencil mathematical computations to the point of making everyone numb in the court room. In fact for nearly three or more hours out of a total 4 hour statement time to the Jury, Leo Frank in an attempt to show that he was too busy that day to commit the murder, went over boring financial sheets, order forms and tabulation charts with nauseating effect. To paraphrase Oney writes there was something unsettling and unconvincing about Leo Franks statements and in the People vs. Leo Frank Oney makes the suggestion that if Sigmund Freud were watching the trial testimony of Leo Frank he would have said he was hiding something. Indeed Frank was hiding something, but he stopped hiding it when he made his “unconscious” bathroom confession.

When Frank was not going over the minutiae of the work he did that day, he sprinkled about and spoke about his whereabouts here and there, he talked about the people he saw and the time of the day, all based on the large time clocks in his office. Frank in his statement to the Jury recollected some details with exquisite clarity and at other times seemed suspiciously vague, but one thing he said would shock the whole court and knock them out of their chairs!

Leo M. Frank Goes to the Bathroom “Unconsciously” in the Metal Room

When Frank told the jury he must have “unconsciously” left his 2nd floor office and went to the 2nd floor bathroom down the hall to use the toilet or urinate in the metal room, thus attempting to account for the glaring hole in Frank’s alibi created by Monteen Stover, he had incriminated himself beyond retreat.

I Repeat Unbelievable: A window or period of time was specifically created during the five minutes of Monteen Stover waiting from 12:05 to 12:10, it was time that Monteen testified to and was credible because she wanted her pay envelope, as she was looking for Leo M. Frank in his empty 2nd floor office she described the building as seeming deserted. This testimony tends to corroborate Leo M. Frank’s own trial testimony words as he puts himself in the 2nd floor metal room bathroom, the very place where the prosecution spent 29 days in total building a case that Frank murdered Mary Phagan.

Everything leads to the bathroom?

The damage of Frank’s testimony is this: To get to the bathroom on the 2nd floor one must physically walk through the metal room. When Frank uttered these words, all the people watching, who were paying attention, must have experienced a spine tingling moment, and the jury which was paying close attention, they too would have been in a silent shock, because all 250 people in the court room knew that Mary had not “unconsciously” gone to the toilet, at the same time Frank did! And they know she didn’t go downstairs, or she would have bumped into Monteen Stover.

The Death Notes Lead to the Bathroom

The Death Notes put Mary in the bathroom making water (using the toilet or urinating) before she was attacked, beaten, raped and killed. The 5 inch in diameter fresh blood stain with a sunburst pattern on the floor of the metal room in front of the dressing room, along with 6 or 8 strands of Mary Phagan’s hair found on the lathe handle that weren’t in the metal room on Friday, but were there on Monday morning, makes a credible case for the prosecution that she was killed in the metal room. All the testimony and evidence lead to the metal room. Frank said he went to the metal room, Conley said he found the body in the metal room after Frank told him to go there, the murder notes lead to the metal room bathroom, the blood on the floor was in the metal room, the hair on the lathe was in the metal room, Mary worked in the metal room, the kind of cord used to strangle Mary was found in the metal room, everything leads to the metal room.

How do you get to the bathroom?

One has to go through the metal room to get to the toilets, this is one of the most important facts demonstrated on the National Pencil Company factory diagrams. With the prosecution building its entire case around Frank murdering Mary in the Metal room, Frank with his own words puts himself unconsciously there where all the testimony and evidence said the murder occurred.

Excerpt from Watson’s Jeffersonian newspaper March 25th 1915 Issue:

The Leo Frank Case Still Raging in Northern Papers

A letter to the editor….

Dear Sir:

Leo Frank’s effort to account for his absence from his office from 12 noon until 12:20 p.m., the very time that little Mary Phagan was being outraged and murdered, by stating that he might have unconsciously gone to the toilet, is absurd to the extreme.

No man ever went into a toilet without a shock caused by the great difference in the air as between the toilet and the hallway, and I venture the assertion that even though one were walking in his sleep, the shock to his sense of smell would arouse him immediately to consciousness.

At the hotel dinner table recently several drummers and a country newspaper editor all expressed their belief in Frank’s innocence, because the paid hirelings of big magazines and prostituted newspapers as well have acquitted him. One of the drummers said that out of 549 letters to the Post-Dispatch of St. Louis—Mr. Palitser’s western edition of the egotistical New York World—534 of the writers believed Frank’s innocence.

My reply was that probably 532 of the 549 letters were from Israelites and that none of them had read the evidence as shown by the record. I also handed the editor my Watson’s for March, and dared him to read it.

If the big Jew editors, bankers and others don’t look out, they will fan into flame the smoldering embers of that old-ground-in-the-bone prejudice form which even the double eagle may be unable to save them.

–BOB MUNROE, Arkansas, published: March 25th 1915

Watson responds..

Outsiders cannot, or will not, weigh the undisputed which prove Frank’s terrible crime. Excuse me for again saying that these convincing facts are—

(1) That Frank’s own friends and employees—Schiff, Barrett, etc.—prove that the physical indications of the crime were on Frank’s office floor within a few steps of his office;

(2) That Frank’s own confession placed the murdered girl in his office, and in his company, a few minutes before she disappeared;

(3) That Monteen Stover would have met Mary Phagan going out, if Mary had gone out—for Frank’s own stenographer and Frank’s own statement fixed the time by the clock, when Mary disappeared, and when Monteen went to Frank’s office;

(4) That Mary must necessarily have been in the metal room, where the blood was found, at the time Monteen was in Frank’s office, and waiting around for him;

(5) That Frank was not in his office at that

(The rest of this newspaper article continues on page six, we do not provide it here)

The chain of events according to Tom E. Watson’s five collective booklets on Leo Frank (Watson’s Magazine, Jan., March, August, Sept. and Oct. 1915

Watson continues along the lines that Leo M. Frank, and his bewildered lawyers failed to see or pretended not to see was this:

Defense witness Detective Harry Scott

Ironically, it was powerful evidence the defense witness, Pinkerton Detective Superintendent Harry Scott (who was hired by National Pencil Company) told the Jury, that Leo Frank answered “I Don’t Know”, when Mary Phagan asked Leo M. Frank in his second floor office, “Has the metal come in yet?”. This testimony creates three dimensional motion and motive to go to the metal room with, “Let’s Go SEE?!” thus putting Frank and Mary walking down the hall to the 2nd floor metal room to find out. Jim Conley also said he heard Leo Frank walking with Mary to the metal room.

Watson continues…

It was just as necessary for Frank to explain WHERE MARY PHAGAN WAS, while Monteen Stover waited in Leo M. Frank’s empty office (Frank said Mary left his office), as to explain Leo M. Frank’s OWN DISAPPEARANCE, at that fatal time between 12:05 and 12:10, maybe 12:07 (Frank said he unconsciously went to the bathroom in the metal room).

Watson says: Frank’s repeated statements entrapped himself beyond escape!

Watson continues: Frank said, again and again, that Mary came next after Hattie Hall (Hattie Hall left the factory at noon), and Frank did not mention Monteen Stover, an unimpeachable witness, who claimed she was in Leo Frank’s empty inner and outer office from 12:05 to 12:10.

This proved to the jury that Frank did not know of Monteen Stover’s coming. Leo Frank never mentions the prosecutions star witness Monteen Stover, in his testimony. Which means Frank was indeed not in his office 12:05 to 12:10, despite the fact Frank told detectives he was in his office every minute from noon to 12:35. Thus Leo Frank was caught in a lie about his whereabouts.

And Frank would have known about Ms. Monteen Stover, had he been in his 2nd floor office, when he said he was there “every minute from noon to 12:30”. Now, as he had (in ignorance of Monteen’s visit) placed both Mary and himself in his office — while Monteen waited in his empty office — he had deliberately and repeatedly lied as to Mary’s whereabouts, as well as his own. Frank’s Alibi does not stand up by his own words and the testimony of Monteen Stover.

Frank might have “unconsciously” gone to the toilet as he said in his unsavory testimony at his murder trial. Very well; but where did Mary Phagan go people are asking? According to Frank she left the office, but where did she go? Downstairs to bump into Monteen Stover? or to the toilet in the second floor metal room to make water as the contrived death notes point? Or did she go to see if her work had come in the metal department in response to Frank’s “I don’t know if the metal has arrived yet”. It’s her livelihood, of course, she wants to go see if she is going to have a Job on Monday morning or if she is still laid off. She had been working 55 hours a week at the factory, loyally for a year, and it was of the utmost importance to determine whether or not she would have a job or not, and certainly the factory was not about to go out of business. So when was the metal supposed to arrive? Wouldn’t Leo Frank the superintendent and account who is responsible for knowing these things know when?

Frank said he went to the bathroom which is located in the Metal Room to use the toilet or to urinate (to the Jury). If Phagan went to see if her work had arrived she also went to the second floor metal room and if she had gone to make water (urinate), she would have also gone to the metal room. If she did not check on her work or go to the bathroom, she went down stairs to leave the building and would have bumped into Monteen Stover between 12:05 and 12:10 on April 26th 1913. If Mary Phagan had gone down stairs and Conley attacked her in broad day light, Monteen Stover would have walked in on them and Jim Conley would not be stupid enough to attack Phagan in the most high traffic area of the building. Monteen Stover did not see Mary Phagan and therefore the only possible explanation is that Mary Phagan and Leo Frank were in the metal room.

To paraphrase Watson: because Phagan’s hair, and her blood, and the only possible explanation of the wounds— the swollen eye in front, and the scalp cut on the back of the head, ranging from down upward — were all back there at the metal (room) department, where the toilet was.

The fact you have to walk through the metal room / department to get to the bathroom puts Frank in a blind alley – NO ESCAPE. The murder window of time had been narrowed down to Leo M. Frank’s original statement to Chief Landford on April 28th 1913 (States Exhibit B) that Mary arrived between 12:05 to 12:10, maybe 12:07. And regardless of whether Phagan came before or after Monteen Stover they would have bumped into each other, but they did not.

Watson calls Frank an infatuated young degenerate! To escape Monteen’s evidence, and to explain his absence from his office from 12:05 to 12:10, he supposed himself to have gone, “unconsciously,” to the only place in his factory where there were damning and damaging evidences of the crime. Frank puts himself in the 2nd floor metal room bathroom during the time period of 12:05 to 12:10 on April 26th 1913.

Watson’s Final Conclusion: The metal room is the very place where Leo M. Frank murdered Mary Phagan and the prosecution spent 29 days from July 28th 1913 to August 25th 1913 successfully convincing the Jury that Leo Frank had murdered Mary Phagan between 12:05 and 12:15.

Bottomline: Monteen Stover is the Star Witness, not Jim Conley. Watson uses Leo Frank’s own testimony to convict Frank without the use of Jim Conley’s testimony to solve the murder of Mary Phagan.

Prelude to Watson’s Magazine January 1915

In the Jeffersonian Newspaper December 17th 1914, Watson gives a teaser and successfully promotes his Watson’s Magazine January 1915 issue.

Jeffersonian Newspaper December 17th 1914 Watson writes:

In the January 1915 issue of Watson’s Magazine, which will be out in a few days, there is a careful review of the State’s case against Leo Frank. It is too long for our weekly paper, but not too long for the honor of Georgia, the integrity of her courts, and the majesty of her laws.

So persistent have been the falsehoods that have gone abroad, and so unscrupulous the methods adopted to save Frank from the just consequences of his premeditated and awful crime against poor Mary Phagan, that I considered the time well spent that was required to write out a fair argument on the material facts.

I have not used the negro’s evidence at all!

The evidence of Jim Conley is not necessary for the conviction of Frank. This statement will create surprise, no doubt, but why?

Because Frank, and Burns, and the lawyers, and the newspapers, and C.P. Connolly have so often alleged that he was convicted on the testimony of Jim Conley, “a drunken brute of a negro.”

That allegation is impudently false, just as was Frank’s written and published statement, that the Supreme Court of Georgia had never reviewed the evidence in the case.

If you will simply read the record that went up, on the motion for a new trial, and will read Hugh Dorsey’s speech, you will see at once how outrageously Frank has misrepresented the relation of Conley’s testimony to his conviction.

Dorsey did not rely on the negro’s evidence; he scarcely touched upon it in the argument: he placed the case almost entirely upon those PROVED CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE INCONSISTENT WITH FRANK’S INNOCENCE.

Don’t take my word for this: Dorsey’s speech (Argument of Hugh M. Dorsey) was reported by a stenographer, and has been published in booklet form. Read the speech!

As already stated, it is impossible for me, in this paper, to go over all the proved circumstances, which appear in the record; I do that in the magazine. But, I will call your attention to one vital, fatal point against Frank.

You will remember that the undisputed evidence placed both Frank and the negro in the factory building, at the time of the crime. Frank’s present story puts both him and the negro there. Mrs. Arthur White’s testimony also puts both Frank and Conley there.

Indisputably, the girl was there, for her blood marks were on the floor, and her body, with her under-garments dyed in her virginal blood, was there.

(CONTINUED ON PAGE EIGHT of Jeffersonian Newspaper December 17th 1914, Which has been left out here, but will be added in the future) For now, start with January 1915 issue of Watson Magazine.

Five Powerful Issues

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. Available for Download in Adobe PDF Format: January 1915 Watson introduces the Frank case in this edition.

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. Available for Download in Adobe PDF Format: March 1915 Here Watson goes into much further detail on the Frank case.

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. Available for Download in Adobe PDF Format: August 1915 Watson calls the Frank trial the “celebrated case.”

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. Available for Download in Adobe PDF Format: September 1915 Showing his true colors, Watson dubs Frank a “Jew pervert.”

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. Available for Download in Adobe PDF Format: October 1915 Continuing on his anti-Semitism, Watson criticizes the “rich Jews” that indict the state.

Other Reading:

Download the 29 page commutation: Leo M. Frank Clemency Decision by John M. Slaton June 21st 1915 in Adobe PDF Format.

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

——————————————————

From THE THOMAS E. WATSON PAPERS Site.

“As one who is quite familiar with the Thomas E. Watson Papers, let me urge every research library with an interest in American history to acquire this immensely valuable collection in microfilm form.”

C. Vann Woodward, Sterling Professor of History Emeritus, Yale University and author of Tom Watson, Agrarian Rebel

The life and career of Tom Watson (1856–1922) embodied the major themes of southern politics for two generations. Studying Watson’s public life offers valuable insights on Populist and Democratic Party politics, race relations, rural poverty, antimilitarism, isolationism, and many other topics central to understanding the region and the times.

Watson represented the growing mass of poor farmers in the South and Midwest at a time when their economic and political status was rapidly slipping in the wake of urbanization and industrialization. He lashed out at the growing influence of cities and corporations in America, harkening back to a Jeffersonian ideal of a republic of independent yeomen.

When as an incumbent Georgia congressman he bolted from the Democrats for the new People’s (or Populist) Party in 1892, Watson began his rise to national attention. His talents as an impassioned orator and popular magazine editor catapulted him to the leadership of the southern Populists, whom he represented in the 1896 presidential campaign as William Jennings Bryan’s running mate. Twice in later years he would be the Populist presidential candidate. Although he was an ardent supporter of the free coinage of silver, he fought within the party to broaden its focus from simple monetary reform to other causes such as antitrust and railroad regulation.

Watson’s early populism was an appeal to the oppressed of both races against the common foe of corporate domination. That appeal came to grief in the rising tide of racism at the end of the century, and by 1906 Watson was in the forefront of those sponsoring state legislation to ensure white supremacy. The documents that trace and help explain that transition will be for many researchers the most intriguing in the collection. Watson’s dominance in Georgia politics during much of the new century’s first two decades gives his personal odyssey a special significance.

This narrowing of his sympathies was not confined to jim crowism but expressed a nativism that attacked all carriers and representatives of foreign entanglements—Jews, Catholics, recent immigrants, and various stripes of internationalism. He encouraged the revived Ku Klux Klan, and his editorials in the Leo Frank case contributed to that Atlanta Jewish plant manager’s lynching in 1915.

True to his Jeffersonian and isolationist ideals, Watson strenuously opposed American entry into World War I and restrictions on civil liberties during it—views that led to a Post Office ban on mailing his magazine, Watson’s Jeffersonian. After the war he opposed U.S. entry into the League of Nations. He died in 1922, a first-term Democratic U.S. senator from Georgia.

In more than 30,000 pages, Watson’s papers amply reflect the breadth of his impact. There is his nationwide correspondence with fellow Populists and others, including many of the impoverished white farmers who made up his core constituency. His productions as a writer of fiction and history are here, including drafts of his autobiographical novel, Bethany, a Story of the Old South, his biographies of Napoleon and Andrew Jackson, and his popular history of France. Press coverage of his career is preserved in voluminous scrapbooks. The collection also preserves many of the ephemera of the Populist movement.

Accompanying the collection is a printed guide that allows researchers easy access to individual files. It includes an index to major subjects and names as well as a reel guide.

Ordering Information

THE THOMAS E. WATSON PAPERS

35mm microfilm (34 reels) with printed guide. ISBN 1-55655-291-2.

Source note: Filmed from the Thomas Edward Watson Papers in the Southern Historical Collection, Academic Affairs Library of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Congressional Information Service, Inc.
4520 East-West Hwy · Bethesda MD 20814.3389 USA
800.638.8380 800.638.8380 | 301.654.1550 301.654.1550 | Fax 301.657.3203

Fair Usage Law

May 2, 2011   Posted in: 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, Race Relations, Racism News, Racist News, White Nationalism, White Supremacism, Zionism  Comments Closed

Leo Frank Case: State’s Exhibit B (Ignored by Leo Frank Partisans)

Monday, April 28 1913

A Brief Analysis of State’s Exhibit B, followed by the Official Documented Statement Included in the Brief of Evidence, 1913.

On Monday morning at 8 AM, April 28th 1913, more than a day after the discovery of the strangled body of Mary Phagan was found dumped on a cinder and sawdust pile 150 ft into the left rear of the National Pencil Company factory cellar by Newt Lee at 3:17 AM, Leo M. Frank was called-in to appear at the police station for another round of questioning, because a lot of information had been gathered on Sunday and police wanted more information from the Superintendent. The police stenographer was present and the responses of Leo Frank were captured to be captured in the official manner and then stitched together into a statement without the questions, very much like the murder trial (July 28 to August 26) brief of evidence, July Term 1913, which has the official record of the trial testimony of witness answers without the questions of the defense and prosecution lawyers. Though the complete 7 volume set of questions and answers contained within the trial transcript went missing in the 1960’s it is possible to review the original newspapers at the time to get a pretty good idea of what questions were asked.

Monday Morning

When Luther Z. Rosser and Herbert Haas showed up on behalf of Leo Frank at the police station house, before Frank was even accused or suspected of anything, it immediately raised eyebrows and little “red flags”, because the police and detectives were scratching their heads in disbelief wondering why a factory superintendent who makes $150 a month has representing him the single most expensive and best criminal lawyers money can buy in all of the State of Georgia. To paraphrase Steve Oney, Luther Rosser had a reputation for being the bludgeon of the wealthy, when they needed to have legal inconveniences swept away. Back in those days, as hard as it is to fathom, people did not have or request lawyers to be present when police were doing routine questioning at such an early stage in an investigation. For the police, something just wasn’t right, the whole thing came off as a little bit odd and overly defensive, because Leo Frank was not actually charged with anything, nor was he under suspicion or under arrest at the time, and the police were just asking him standard protocol questions because Leo Frank had been the last person to see Phagan alive and the factory was virtually empty. This Monday morning meeting with the police would become the turning point in the Mary Phagan murder investigation and would result in suspicion turning toward Leo M. Frank later that day when things started to come together and when it was later revealed that same day factory workers had discovered what might be the blood and hair of Mary Phagan in the metal room.

Retaining Luther Rosser and Herbert Haas Before their Law Office Even Opens!

What tripped the police up later that day when they thought back about it, was that when they reflected on questioning Leo Frank with his lawyer being present at such a very early time in the morning on Monday, it was before most law offices were open and could be called, it would mean the only possible explanation was Luther Z. Rosser had to have been hired as council the day before on Sunday, April 27, 1913, which made things even stranger, because Sunday was a day Lawyers did not work at the office and never took personal calls at home for new business. Back in those days, as hard as it is to believe, Lawyers and the super vast majority of people didn’t actually work on Sundays, it was part of the way things were done, because it was generally speaking and culturally ingrained in a Christian America, “God’s Day of Rest”. Only a very serious, well connected, oiled and motivated client could get a hold of or have the personal home phone number of Luther Z. Rosser to get him on the phone on his Sunday off and then convince him to take on a new client and a possible murder case!

“The Luther Rosser Question”

The question would find it’s way circling through the police investigators discussing things as the day when on after Leo Frank had left finishing his type written captured questioning: Why, Why, Why on Sunday, the day of the murder discovery, was Leo Frank by PROXY or other means of his well connected and wealthy associates, hiring Luther Rosser, the number #1 criminal attorney and most expensive lawyer in the State of Georgia, as his personal attorney, the police would roll this question over and over? It would become a rhetorical question because as the day when on lots of little red flags were popping up and blooming all over the place concerning the actions, “posture” and demeanor of Leo M. Frank. The Key Word is Proxy.

Leo Frank Pitches a Left-Handed Curve Ball

What would later be considered one of the biggest curve ball tangents thrown by Leo Frank when the police were discussing the perplexing Luther Rosser question, was concerning what happened that morning on April 28th 1913. Leo Frank would make a most unusual, arguably bizarre claim, that it was a total surprise that some unknown associate had hired the pitbull Luther Z. Rosser on his behalf, without Leo Frank even “knowing about it”, it left the police stunned and scratching their heads in disbelief, raising yet another possible little red flag.

Sticker Shock!

Many months further along in the investigation it was leaked that Luther Rosser was retained for $12,500, which might not seem like a lot of money in today’s over inflated FED US dollars that have considerably declined by 99% in the last 99 years from 1913 to 2012, but back then in 1913 when the Jewish Federal Reserve was just born it did not have enough time just yet to erode the dollar. To put things into context, $12,500 was enough money to buy a fabulous estate outside of Atlanta. If Luther’s $12,500 seemed exorbitant, Reuben Arnold later joined the Leo Frank Defense Dream team for an equally whopping $10,000 (Frank case, 1913), this is before the trial even began and at least $22,500 had been released to the two major figures representing the defendant. There would also be a golden treasury spent on subterfuge 1913 to 1915 (Affidavits, 1913, 1914, 1915).

I Don’t Know any Mary Phagan and I Don’t Know Mary Phagan’s Name Either

On Sunday, April 27, 1913, Leo Frank told the police he did not know any Mary Phagan that he would have to check his accounting books. During his statement on Monday, April 28, 1913, Leo Frank claimed he didn’t know the name of the little girl he paid off at noon on Saturday April 26 1913, was Mary Phagan, yet another little red flag went up, because it would later be determined that Mary Phagan had worked at the factory for nearly a year, on the same second floor as Leo Frank. Observers are wondering how it is even remotely possible that Leo Frank could have paid off the salary of this girl 50+ times, over the last 52 weeks in the year Mary Phagan had worked at the factory, and the fact Leo Frank claimed to not known this little girls name who worked 10 to 11 hour shifts, 5 to 6 days during a normal week on Leo Frank’s floor and not far from Leo’s office! Especially since everyone working on the second floor, like Leo Frank, had to pass directly by the work station of Mary Phagan each day to get to the bathroom to urinate or use the toilet – it was the only toilet on the 2nd floor and it was in the metal room. Phagans work station was less than 2 or 3 feet from the door of the bathroom which could only be reached by walking within the metal room, this particular bathroom, it contained two toilets side by side separated by a thin partition. Great significance would be placed on the infamous and contrived murder notes that also seemed to point to the bathroom.

Where is the Bathroom on the Second Floor?

When the detail became determined that there was only one set of bathrooms on the second floor, and that one had to go into and through the metal room to reach them, the chain of evidence began to concatenate forming a very intricate, tight, narrow and clear chronology of possible events. The police began to create permutations of possibilities of what happened, much akin to game theory, it was and has always been what police, detectives and investigators do, they think up all the possibilities and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each one.

How Many Times Did Leo Frank Go to the Bathroom Each Day at the Office?

In terms of Leo Frank passing by Mary Phagan, observers are wondering, how many times Leo Frank would typically have to use the toilet during a 10 to 11 hour work day, given that he guzzled coffee like it was going out of style.

How Many Hours Did Mary Phagan Work at the Pencil Factory from the Spring of 1912 till April 26, 1913?

In terms of calculating hours of her presence at the factory, Mary had also worked 10 to 11 hour shifts, up to 6 days a week (barring holidays), during the period of spring 1912 to April 26, 1913, so observers are wondering how a girl that had worked for Leo Frank logging more than 2,500 hours could not be known by him, especially since Leo Frank was the accountant for the factory in charge of tallying time cards and wages for specific employees, logging earnings and paying them off directly. Mary Phagan was also known to be very attractive and well developed for her age, what are the chances Leo Frank didn’t know Mary Phagan and didn’t know Mary Phagan’s name?

The question observers really want to know the answer to: Why is Leo Frank pretending not to know Mary Phagan? Why is Leo Frank an accountant and mathematician distancing himself from Mary Phagan given that the chances of him not knowing her are slim to none?

Inside the Metal Room:The Real Scene of the Crime is Discovered?

When it was revealed to the police that the employees at the National Pencil Company on the second floor of the factory were morbidly gawking at some unusual evidence discovered in the metal room that same morning Leo Frank was being questioned, the little red flags, started to became medium red flags. But Leo Frank had left the police station by then and was temporarily relieved.

At the same time Leo Frank was being questioned, employees at the factory discovered strands of hair wrapped around the handle of the lathe and a five inch wide fan shaped sunburst blood stain pattern on the floor in the metal room that had been deliberately smeared and rubbed with a white powder trying as if someone was trying to hide it, but it only made it more conspicuous because the blood didn’t soak very well into the dirty greasy floor, but instead the dark blood bled through the white powder creating a suspicious and conspicuous pink-red stain in front of the girls changing room.

The Strength of State’s Exhibit B, Leo M. Frank’s Statement to Police April 28 1913

Visualize Leo Frank clad with Luther Rosser and Herbert Haas, two seasoned, expensive, powerful and “mafia like” Lawyers in the State of Georgia, and then watching him make a statement of the details of that day, while it is being captured by a stenographer in front of Chief of Detectives Newport A. Lanford, and witnessed by encompassing officers, officials, law enforcement agents and other sleuths at the police station, who circled around Leo Frank. All of these men who were participating in the Mary Phagan cold case investigation, were clutching pencils and note pads, others were simply listening and intently watching the proceedings, as they would hang on each and every word uttered by Leo Frank.

The Golden Rule

Concerning the procedural methods which are so essential in a murder investigation, one golden rule in detective science would stand historically above all, it would defy the test of time and space, before then and now, becoming an integral historical and eternal part in any serious attempts at fact-finding in a criminal investigation, in the Leo Frank case particularly, it would serve as becoming a text book example about how police detective investigation and intuitive dissection works effectively, as both an art and science, and why it is incalculably essential to get documented statements from witnesses within 48 hours of a murder. Not even the most long-winded praise of the immediate timing factor concerning this investigation protocol, can convey the utmost decisive, critical and essential nature of it.

Moreover, this is absolutely irregardless of the degrees of candor and honesty given by such associated witnesses, whether the affiliated deponents tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, embellish with numerous half-truths or make outright lies, capturing it is important, the reason being, the investigators will later determine the levels of quality and veracity concerning statements made, whether information was held back or too much was given, and every possible combination there within and without. These variables also gives the investigators the ability to determine on many levels the general reliability and trustworthiness of a witness or whether that witness simply can not be trusted or not when it comes to them telling everything they know. Intuition and common sense play a big part in the investigation of a murder, as it was then and in the present. The other issue is highly refined and intuitive bullshit detector of investigators that is honed, and perfected over the years. For the police they aren’t just looking for possible lies, they are also looking to see if things sound contrived or don’t pass the common sense test.

Concerning Leo Frank, each and everyone of these factors would come into play during the 1913 systematic inquiry into the Murder of Mary Phagan by police and detectives in unraveling the “who dunnit” murder mystery, and later at the trial, numerous differing statements given by Leo Frank about when Mary Phagan arrived in his office and where he was at the time, created contradictions and would tend to be used against him in a successful attempt to discredit and impeach his reliability as a witness, thus giving students of criminal investigation a superb example to study and analyze one of the most important avenues of how investigators cracked wide open a witness in one of the most important and sensational, criminal murder cold cases within the annals of US history.

State’s Exhibit B in Contemporary and Modern Times

In terms of the Mary Phagan cold case murder investigation, it is perplexing that Leo Frank’s Statement State’s Exhibit B is not only one of the most important documents in the Leo Frank case when all things are considered, but it is also one of the most ignored documents by Leo Frank partisans, especially when they write books or articles on the subject. The truth of why State’s Exhibit B is seldom discussed, reviewed or analyzed by contemporary Leo Frank partisan writers is because it threatens to shatters the century long myth, the proposition that James “Jim” Conley the factory sweeper was the star witness in the Leo Frank case, and that the entire Leo Frank case can be reduced to Jim Conley’s word vs. Leo M. Frank’s word.

From the Leo Frank partisan writer and article published on his web site: ‘Wrongly Accused, Falsely Convicted and Wantonly Murdered’ by Donald E. Wilkes, Jr., Professor of Law, University of Georgia School of Law,

Steve Oney’s book, [‘And The Dead Shall Rise, The Murder of Mary Phagan and the Lynching of Leo Frank’ published by Pantheon Books in 2003], (as literary critic Theodore Rosengarten reminds us) does not “come flat out and say who killed Mary [Phagan].” Although the book does assert that the weight of the evidence “strongly suggests Frank’s innocence,” it also claims that “the argument [over whether Frank or Conley is the guilty party]” will “never move beyond that of Conley’s word versus Frank’s.” On the other hand, in a recent press interview Oney stated that “I’m pretty certain that Frank was innocent,” and “I’m 95 percent certain Conley did it.” And in a short magazine article published in March 2004 Oney “declared [his] belief in Frank’s innocence.”

State’s Exhibit B reveals the truth of the Leo Frank case, and forever elevates Monteen Stover into the position as the main star witness in the Leo Frank trial above Jim Conley, and in many respects reduces the entire Leo Frank case, distilling it down to Monteen Stover’s word that she looked for Leo Frank in his inner and outer office for 5 minutes between 12:05 and 12:10 vs. Leo Frank’s word that Monteen Stover couldn’t see him in his office because he was either hiding behind the safe door or going to the bathroom in the metal room between 12:05 to 12:10.

Jewish Racial Supremacy Games: The Word of a White Skin Vs. Black Skin

For the Jewish community and Leo Frank partisans, they would rather the Leo Frank case be reduced to a biased and unfair White racial superiority context when it benefits them, and in this case they want the entire Leo Frank case reduced to the word of an “upstanding”, cleancut and well educated White Man (with no criminal record at the time) Leo Frank vs. a Drunk half-literate Negro Jim Conley (one with a record of 6 or 7 charges of incidents of drunken sloppy slurring buffoonery and disorderly conduct on the street). Jewish Hollywood knows they can sell more movies, books and Broadway play seats if the gladiatorial battle is between a Jewish Aristocrat vs. “Sub Human” Negro. For the Jewish community, Mary Phagan’s murder becomes nothing more than an unfortunate plot device to unravel the soul disfigured Jewish interpretation of the case.

Even worse, for the Jewish community and Leo Frank partisans, then and now, who regularly obsess about non-existent racism and bigotry against them, however when the tables are turned, and when it benefits them, they want to play the racial dynamic in the Leo Frank case to harness the natural healthy instincts of racially conscious Whites in favor of the White separatists South to make the Leo Frank case a Black vs. White conflict, but when their Black vs. White racism didn’t work, they then had to turn it into a White vs. Jew conflict, because the whole Jewish spun conspiracy that the half-illiterate Jim Conley was really a diabolic mastermind against Leo Frank wouldn’t hold they had to find a new racial angle to play. White Jew vs. White Christan. When people dig deeper beneath the Jewish claims of the Leo Frank case they discover a fantastic collection of pathological lies.

Jewish Racial Supremacy Games: Jews vs. Gentiles

Because Monteen Stover was a White girl of unblemished character when she testified at the Leo Frank trial for the murder of Mary Phagan and was determined in truth to be the main star witness and Jim Conley reduced to an accomplice after the fact, the Black vs. White context spun by the Jewish community fell apart, so a new Jewish racial supremacy context had to be manufactured: White Jew vs. White Christian, with the entire Leo Frank case being transfigured into a vast anti-Jewish conspiracy to railroad and scapegoat an innocent White Jew, but that falls apart too and since it can no be substantiated by any facts, the Jewish community uses the Big Lie method invented by their forefathers to create a prevailing cultural context by making sure they create nearly all the movies, books, magazine articles, booklets and newspaper articles pushing the re-writing of history that Jim Conley was the real murderer. This is what Western Civilization is up against, a tiny minority, the collective Jewish parasites, 30 to 50 million strong world wide, relentlessly waging a dirty cultural race war against Gentiles.

Confederate Memorial Day, Saturday, April 26 1913, High Noon

The importance of State’s Exhibit B is that Leo Frank told the police when Mary Phagan had arrived into his possession, thus the chronology had been marked with very specific time posts, immovable monuments that could not ever be changed, revoked, massaged or removed. The most incriminating part of the Leo Frank Statement would be the precise arrival time he provided that Mary Phagan stepped into his second floor office between “12:05 and 12:10, maybe 12:07” to receive her pay envelope and immediately thereafter she inquired about whether or not she would have her job back (ironically) on Monday, April 28th 1913 when State’s Exhibit B was created. Leo Frank would give 4 different times during the entire investigation concerning when Mary Phagan entered his office.

Time is Everything in an Investigation

The importance in the time line concerning Leo Frank making this statement, was because it had been made Monday, April 28 1913 at 8AM in the morning, the day following the murder discovery on Sunday, April 27th 1913 at 3:18AM by Newt Lee and thus there was a real “freshness memory factor”, because it had been made within less than 48 hours of the murder, it thus provided the police with two potential advantages in their investigation; first, it is presumed that the sooner a statement is made after a crime, the less likely of a chance their is for one to engineer and manufacture or “really re-think things through”, discuss things over with lawyers, oneself or associates, and thus limits the ability to massage and embellish the truth with great complexity, flexibility and nuance; and second, even if one chooses to “flat out lie” “on the fly” or obfuscate the truth about how things really happened at such an early stage in the investigation, it gave police and detectives more opportunities to find inconsistencies, mistakes, flaws and discrepancies within the statement. These two paradigms offer discretionary positions and options for investigators, creating significant advantages for Police and Detectives, these are clues and pieces of information that would later come into play in the discovery process for the state, which would immediately turn against Leo Frank because everything began to point in his direction. Within 24 hours of creating the final product of State’s Exhibit B, Leo Frank would be arrested and incarcerated the next day on Tuesday, April 29 1913 at 11:30AM, which was about 56 hours from the time of the murder discovery was reported to police on April 27, 1913 at 3:30 AM by the Night Watch Newt Lee.

Time Keeps On Slipping, Slipping, Slipping, Into the Future (you know that song?)

Leo Frank would “tweak” the time Mary Phagan had arrived at his office each time he was asked about it, giving several slightly contrasting versions to different officials in the case as the investigation continued forward in time. Each new modification of meeting time given by Leo Frank about Mary Phagans arrival and departure increased by numerous minutes inching upward in time, and when all the versions are held up to each other, the time increased by as much as 18 minutes and this 18 minute range was the approximate time Leonard Dinnerstein accurately describes as unaccounted time for Leo Frank (Dinnerstein, 1968 onward) – that is to say no one can substantiate the whereabouts of Leo Frank during this 18 minutes of time. This time is unaccountable for Leo Frank, because he was unable to find or produce a witness, real or contrived, to testify to his whereabouts during this specific time frame. And if one does not believe the truth and veracity of the contrived testimony given by Lemmie Quinn, the unaccounted time frame surrounding the time of the murder in terms of Leo Frank’s unsubstantiated alibi time-access increases to more than 30 minutes (12:03 to 12:34), instead of Leonard Dinnerstein’s 18 minutes the real amount of time Leo Frank Scholars believe was 31 minutes, because Lemmie Quinn sets off our highly refined bullshit detectors based on his affidavit given stating he was on the other side of town at that time at a pool hall (Lemmie Quinn Affidavit, Leo Frank Trial, Official Brief of Evidence, July Term, 1913). Mrs. White momentarily popped back into the building at 12:35 to check on her husband and raid his wallet for $2 (Leo Frank, State’s Exhibit B, April 28, 1913) stopping in Leo Frank’s office for a moment, reporting she scared him at first, because he was putting something in his safe (presumably Mary Phagan’s purse), then she began asking Leo Frank for his permission to go up to the fourth floor, and at his approval, she climbing 2 more flights of stairs, arriving at the fourth floor to raid poor Mr. White’s wallet.

It would be presumed from the position of Leo Frank Scholars, his perpetual time changes of Mary Phagan arrival and departure times may have been influenced by communication opportunities that had occurred with Jim Conley on Saturday, April 26, 1913 the day of the murder and after it occured, and also 2 days later on Monday, April 28, 1913, Leo Frank would have had another opportunity to speak with Jim Conley, immediately after Frank was released from the Police Station, he also had an urgency to talk things over in his mind, with lawyers and re-think things.

As more evidence came forth and was revealed during the 3 month investigation, before the murder trial commenced, Jim Conley would break down under police Third Degree interrogation methods and would agree to testify at the trial that he spoke with Frank immediately after the murder of Phagan, revealing that another unknown little girl had come and gone, while Frank was presumably occupied in the metal room finishing off the strangulation of Mary Phagan. The problem for Leo Frank was who was this girl? And what if in the investigation and interviewing process they discover who this girl is, considering everything paid out was recorded in the book and Mary Phagan was the last female employee entry in the books that day.

This unknown girl that Jim Conley did not know at the time, who had gone to the second floor at 12:05 and waited for Frank for five minutes and then left at 12:10, would later be publicly identified as Monteen Stover on May 10th 1913 by the local newspapers, more than two weeks after the Phagan murder and this ‘unknown future Star Witness discovery’ was between 2 and 3 weeks BEFORE Jim Conley had finally given up halfheartedly shielding Leo Frank and being half-mum with the police, opening up almost fully on May 28th and 29th of 1913. Everything was starting to unravel for Leo Frank, first Monteen Stover cracked Leo Frank’s alibi about him claiming he was in his office every minute from noon to 12:35.

In order to understand the importance of States Exhibit B, become very familiar with the layout of the 2nd floor of the National Pencil Company factory floor plan (BOE, States Exhibit A, 1913), including the location of Leo Frank’s second floor office and the second floor metal room down the hall which contains inside it, the dressing room, bathroom & toilets. The factory floor plan diagrams are made available for your review in the Brief of Evidence, July Term, 1913.

When Did Mary Phagan Arrive?

Pay very close attention to State’s Exhibit B where Leo Frank describes the approximate time Mary Phagan came into his office “12:05 to 12:10, maybe 12:07”. After reading State’s Exhibit B, compare it with Leo M. Frank’s trial testimony on August 18th 1913 where he never mentions seeing Monteen Stover, but instead counters Monteen Stover’s testimony about why he was not in his office with an “unconscious” bathroom visit in the metal room and that his safe door was open so he could not see Monteen Stover and Monteen Stover could not see him (BOE, Leo Frank Statement, August, 18 1913). Also compare the different times that Leo Frank says Mary Phagan came into his office and pay special notice to how each statement about the Mary Phagan disembarkation time becomes later and later as time goes on during the investigation leading up to the trial, the 4 different versions give by him.

Inconsistencies and Common Sense

Discovering and pointing out inconsistency is one of the most important tools in the arsenal of police detectives, and it would be the inconsistencies in Leo Frank’s 4 changing time statements to various people and investigators that tended to destroy his reliability and credibility.

Now, onto state’s Exhibit B…. The moment you have been waiting for.

STATE’S EXHIBIT B. Monday Morning April 28th 1913

Frank’s statement made before N. A. Lanford, Chief of Detectives,
on Monday morning, April 28, 1913, this statement being unsigned:
“I am general superintendent and director of the National Pencil
Company. In Atlanta I have held that position since August 10, 1908.
My place of business is at 37 to 41 S. Forsyth St. We have about 107 em-
ployees in that plant, male and female. I guess there are a few more girls
than boys. Saturday, April 26th, was a holiday with our company and
the factory was shut down. There were several people who came in dur-
ing the morning. The office boy and the stenographer were in the office
with me until noon. They left about 12 or a little after. We have a day
watchman there. He left shortly before 12 o’clock. After the office boy
and the stenographer left, this little girl, Mary Phagan, came in, but at
the time I didn’t know that was her name. She came in between 12:05
and 12:10, maybe 12:07, to get her pay envelope, her salary. I paid her
and she went out of the office.
I was in the inner office at my desk, the
furtherest office to the left from the main office. It was impossible to see
the direction she went in when she left. My impression was that she just
walked away. I didn’t pay any particular attention. I didn’t keep the
door locked downstairs that morning because the mail was coming in. I
locked it at 1:10 when I went to dinner. Arthur White and Harry Den-
ham were also in the building. They were working on the machinery,
doing repair work, working on the top floor of the building, which is the
fourth floor, towards the rear or about the middle of the building, but a
little more to the rear. They were tightening up the belts; they are not
machinists; one is a foreman in one department and the other is an as-
sistant in another, and Denham was assisting White, and Mrs. White,
the wife of Arthur White, was also in the building. She left about 1
o’clock. I went up there and told them I was going to dinner and they
had to get out, and they said they had not finished and I said, ‘How long
will it take ?’ and they said until some time in the afternoon, and then I
said, ‘Mrs. White, you will have to go, for I am going to lock these boys
in here.’ Anyone from the inside can open the outside door, but not the
inside door, which I locked. You can go in the basement from the front
through the trap door. No, sir, they could get up the steps if I was out.
I looked the outer door and the inner door. I got back at 3 o’clock, and
maybe two or three minutes before, and I went to the office and took off
my coat and then went upstairs to tell those boys I was back, and I
couldn’t find them at first, they were back in the dipping room in the
rear, and I said,’ Are you ready,’ and they said,’We are just ready,’ and
I said, ‘All right, ring out when you go down to let me know when you go
out,’ and they rang out, and Arthur White come in the office and said,
‘ Mr. Frank, loan me $2.00,’ and I said,’ What’s the matter; we just paid
off,’ and he said, ‘My wife robbed me,’ and I give him $2.00 and he walked
away, and the two of them walked out. I locked the outer door behind
them. When I am in there is no need of locking the inner door. There
was only one person I was looking for to come in, and that was the night
watchman. He got there at 20 minutes to four. I had previously ar-
ranged for him to get there. On Friday night I told him, after he got his
money. I give him the keys and I said, ‘You had better come around
early to-morrow because I may go to the ball game,’ and he come early
because of that fact; I told him to come early and he came 20 minutes to
4. I figured that I could leave about 1 o’clock and would not come back,
but it was so cold I didn’t want to risk catching cold and I come back to
the factory as I usually do. He come in and I said ‘Newt, you are early,’
and he said, ‘Yes, sir,’ and he had a bag of bananas with him and he of-
fered me a banana; I didn’t see them but he offered me one and I guess
he had them. We have told him once he gets in that building never to go
out; I told him he could go out; he got there so early and I was going to
be there. He come back about 4 minutes to six; the reason I know that I
was putting the clock slips in and the clock was right in front of me. I
said, ‘ I will be ready in a minute,’ and he went downstairs and I come to
the office and put on my coat and hat and followed him and went out.
When I went out, talking to Newt Lee was J. M. Gantt, a man I had fired
about two weeks previous. Newt told me he wanted to go up to get a pair
of shoes he left while he was working there, and Gantt said to me, “Newt
don’t want me to go up,’ and he said, ‘ You can go with me, Mr. Frank,’
and I said ‘That’s all right, go with him, Newt,’ and I went on hime, and
I got home about 6:25. Nothing else happened; that’s all I know. I
don’t know what time Gantt came down after he went up. I saw him go in
and I locked the door after him, but I didn’t try them. I telephoned
Newt. I tried to telephone him when I got home; he punches the clock at
half hour intervals, and the clock and the phone is in the office, and I
didn’t get an answer and at 7 o’clock I called him and asked him if Gantt
got his shoes and he said yes, he got them, and I said is everything all
right and he said yes, and the next thing I knew they called me at 7:30
the next morning. I don’t know that our watchman has been in the habit
of letting people in the factory at any time. I have never heard of it. I
never had any trouble with the watchman about it. As to whether any
of our employees go there at night, Gantt did when he was working there;
he had a key and sometimes he would have some work left over. I never
have seen him go out until I go out. I go out and come back, but he hag
come back before I left, but that is part of his duty. I took a bath Satur-
day night at my home. I changed my clothes. The clothes that I changed
are at home, and this is the suit of clothes I was wearing Saturday. Af-
ter I left the shop I went to Jacob’s Pharmacy and bought a box of candy
for my wife and got home about 6:25.”

Fair Usage Law

May 2, 2011   Posted in: Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism, Leo Frank, Race Relations, Racism News, White Nationalism, White Supremacism, Zionism  Comments Closed

Book Review: The Murder of Little Mary Phagan (Required Reading)



Mary Phagan Kean, a Southern Historian and self-professed military brat, is one of those very rare and insightful historian scholars. Not only prodigiously knowledgeable about the subject of the early 20th century murder of Mary Anne Phagan and lynching of Leo Max Frank, but one willing to emotionally distance herself from the subject and consider both sides of the Leo Frank case equally. What makes Mrs. Kean so special and unusual in these regards, is that as a dispassionate researcher, she is also willing to put all the facts, evidence and testimony on the table — in a cogent and impartial manner — in front of open minded readers, to let them make their own independent decisions on what makes sense and what does not. Kean has devoted her entire life to the study and research of this tragic and horrifying “double strangulation” murder, one rocking the nation at the time and still capturing the imagination of the masses today. This is the case that refuses to gather dust.

When 21st century independent scholars look back on the Leo Frank case in the same way as a dispassionate observer above in the heavens, seeing the whole of the forest and not just the individual trees, the uncomfortable truth of this case, revealed a very ugly, malicious, and hidden side of the Jewish community, one most people were not fully aware existed as something deeply ingrained in Jewish culture. During and after the trial of Leo Frank, the American Jewish community bared the full extent of its uncompromising treachery and revealed what lengths Jews were willing to go on behalf of one of their own coreligionists, irregardless if they believed he was guilty.

Two Side of One Case

On one side, the Leo Frank case evolved into an anti-Gentile Blood Libel and anti-Southern cause celeb for the Jewish community (nationally and internationally), and on the other side, European Americans and African American Southerners became incensed with the relentless Jewish media defamation war waged against them and the unrelenting efforts to emotionally exonerate and rehabilitate Leo Frank, despite vindication of the Georgia Courts by the United States Supreme Court. Passions and emotions over the case were running high and deep on all sides between 1913 and 1915, even if some Jews were quietly nursing their wounds over investigation breakthroughs and trial testimony published in the three local daily newspapers.

Now, because the double centennials are coming into fruition 2013 and 2015, and the international Jewish propaganda machine on the Leo Frank case is accelerating at an unprecedented pace, we should expect a mini firestorm of Jewish manufactured controversy by the ADL and SPLC erupting between 2013 and 2015.  Sadly concerning the one sidedness of this case on behalf of the the defense, more Frankite (Leo Frank’s defenders) media, books and articles have come out in the first 10 years of the 21st century than in the last 100 years of the case history beginning in 1913. There is a concerted effort to make the orthodoxy of this case a morality tale about Jewish persecution at the hands of rabble European-American Southerners.

One Woman Against the powerful Jewish Community and Jewsmedia Juggernaut

What makes Kean a stone lighthouse of towering truth and light, surrounded by a cold fevered sea of Jewish intellectual darkness and pathological lies, is she has written the most neutral account to date, on the 1913 sexual assault and strangulation of 13-year old Mary Phagan through till the 1915 lynching of Leo Frank, including the aftermath of the 2-year case, leading up to 1986, which is honestly not something you would naturally expect from someone so close to the affair. It’s actually quite astonishing that her book is constantly attacked by Jews and people pretending to be gentiles on amazon.com. There should be a concerted effort to fight back against this Jewish racism that is so pervasive in our society today.

Kean writes a refreshing book contrary to the constant onslaught of re-engineered and re-written Jewish regurgitations published and produced over the last 100 years by well funded and aggressive members of the growing Cult of Leo Frank (They are known as the Frankites). The ADL has played a significant role behind the scenes transforming this senseless murder into a viciously ferocious assault on America and Western Civilization.

The ADL is the Culture Corrupting of the Jewish Lobby: He Who Controls the Present, Controls the Past, and He Who Controls the Past, Controls the Future (1984).

The Leo Frank Anti-Semitism Hoax propaganda movement after 100 years of relentless proselytizing has finally made the Leo Frank mythology become a popular cultural mainstream orthodoxy and has thus become another victory for the Jewish political correctness culture war wage against Western Civilization. As a result, Frankites, who write and publish works on the subject that tow the Jewish party line are rewarded handsomely, get rave reviews and speaking tours, irregardless of how unabashedly dishonest the works deviate from the legal documents and historical truth. These authors when called out on their so called “true crime and true history books”, call the rewriting of history “creative license”.

The Leo Frank Case another reminder that Jews should not have babies with Goyim

This popular culture myth of the Leo Frank pogrom has evolved into a kind of dogmatic religious orthodoxy that is dramatized into broken record mantras about anti-Jewish bigotry crusades, because most people who produce works on this subject of Leo Frank and Mary Phagan, are almost unanimously fanatical diehard Leo Frank partisans or born again Frankites, who have utilized the case for a most reprehensible culture war, to perpetuate the mythos that Jews are innocent bystanders eternally persecuted as victims of unwarranted hate by savage and unthinking goyim, who are infected with the virus of anti-Semitism.

The main Judeaized political tenets of the Leo Frank case are successfully force fed to the public through various media machinations, orchestrated by skillful Frankites, who carefully spin the case with the highest levels of dishonesty, and this is achieved, by consciously and intentionally leaving out all the overwhelming majority of facts, testimony and evidence which convicts Leo Frank beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result, the Leo Frank case has made it impossible for Jews to hide the grotesque reflection of truth about their collectively unreasonable, treacherous , perfidious and mental ill psychology. Many people are asking the question, why have so many prominent Jews gone to great lengths to cover-up what really happened? Like Leonard Dinnerstein and Abraham Foxman for instance.

The ADL and SPLC Smear is indeed a Jewish Blood Libel.

Moreover this odd Jewish cult of personality formed around Leo Freak, has become such a cultural phenomena, that anyone who might suggest Leo Frank was guilty will get conflated and smeared as a neo-nazi, and derogatorily ruined as an anti-Semite, by the racist and terrorist Jewish community, led through organizations such as ADL and SPLC. It’s time we press our elected Senators and Representative to publicly denounce these organizations and require the government not to work with these organizations any longer.

Why you should buy and read this book

Read this ground breaking and definitive book, ‘The Murder of Little Mary Phagan’ to learn WHAT REALLY HAPPENED, it also provides insight from the loving and loyal Family that had to endure the tragic loss and the ugly criminal politics that ensued by the Leo Frank defense team and Frankites for 100 years. This book is required reading for anyone that wants the most definitive account of the most sensational cold case of 20th century Atlanta Georgia, available on: www.Amazon.com

Please post your opinion of the book in the reviews sections.

Hollywood and Broadway, two wings of the same bird of prey. 21st Century Jewish Lies, Same as 20th Century Jewish Lies

Today the strangulation murder of Mary Phagan has been reduced to nothing more than a plot device for the glorification of Jewish suffering and persecution, at the hands of Southern Gentiles as the popular dramatization and “Broadway” musical ‘Parade’ is being played out across the United States in theater halls since 1998.

The Abraham Foxman and ADL of B’nai B’rith sanctioned, fictionalized docudrama film People v Leo Frank (2009) by Ben Loeterman and Steve Oney was featured on PBS and is being played in schools and universities across the country to deracinate and alienate White European-American students, proselytizing them into Frankites. The video’s purpose is to shame White people for their once prevailing culture of ethnic solidarity. “See? This is what happens when White people have their own culture of solidarity, innocent Jews get lynched”

In 2010 Elaine Marie Alphin published ‘An Unspeakable Crime, The Prosecution and Persecution of Leo Frank’ for high school and college students. The book is easy to read, but so terribly weak on the facts that reviewers on Amazon.com pointed out dozens of major errors made within its pages, it represents another misleading indoctrination attempt by the Jewish community and Frankite Elaine Marie Alphin who poisons children’s minds with its racist anti-Gentile lies. Shame on Elaine Marie Alphin for using her graviatis as a veteran chilfren’s book writer, to poison children’s view of the world, with atrocious lies about history.

Historic Directory Listing for Mary Phagan 1913
Mary Anne Phagan (June 1, 1899 to April 26, 1913)

Review from Archive.org:

Available in Adobe Acrobat PDF format, download: The Murder of Little Mary Phagan from www.Archive.org. Originally published in 1989, by Mary Phagan-Kean, the Great Niece of Mary Phagan.

It can be easily described as one of the most even-handed books written on the Leo Frank case in the last 100 years and is suggested reading for any student of the Mary Phagan murder . This book is required reading for anyone that wants the most definitive account of the most sensational true crime story of 20th century America, available on: www.Amazon.com

Alas, most of the books written on the subject of Mary Phagan and Leo Frank by Leo Frank partisans attempt to spin the case as a vast malicious Anti-Jewish conspiracy against the Northern Jew Leo Frank, this re-writing of history is delivered through a complicated cacophony of politically correct and biased, Jewish racial propaganda exaggerated to the extreme with hexagram rose tinted glasses, claims of regional (north verses south) and anti-Semitic bigotry arising from it, Jewish persecution and victimhood as the 5,000 year theme of Jewish history, and Jewish smears directed at those who do not take the pro-Leo Frank position, like the State’s Prosecution Solicitor General Hugh Dorsey or anyone today. All of this Jewish hate is done with excellent Hollywood style production to drown out and confuse the real immense amount of ineluctable evidence supporting the confessed guilt of Leo Frank. There are also some dirty little secrets that the ADL doesn’t want people to know, like the fact Leo Frank tried to Frame his African-American nightwatchman of the Phagan murder, or the fact that Leo Frank changed his alibi on the witness stand at his trial, placing himself at the scene of the crime, when the strangling occurred.

The Truth is Stronger than the Belligerent Jewish Shrieking

Mary Phagan-Kean, is the first person in the last 100 years to present both sides of the Leo Frank Case neutrally, it is a radical change from the predominantly one-sided Jewish Leo Frank cult, which has turned the Leo Frank case into an anti-Gentile blood libel, known as the century long Leo Frank Hate Crime Hoax. And what was in fact, nothing more than a cold case murder investigation into the sadistic sex murder of a little White Christian girl, has been twisted into a century of Jewish pro-Frank cultural “propaganda” by the Jewish community that has spared no expense in directing all its energy on behalf of rehabilitating Leo Frank, transmogrifying him from a psychotic child molester, violent rapist-pedophile, prodigious prostitution panderer and convicted child-murderer into a stoic, innocent and heroic martyr of anti-Jewish prejudice. This case gave birth to the Jewish Culture War Against the United States of America.

Tired of endlessly being drowned in Jewish Propaganda? Read the Murder of little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean. download: The Murder of Little Mary Phagan from www.Archive.org.

Prelude to the Loqacious

Before we provide you with a long winded review of the book: The Murder of Little Mary Phagan (1989), start with an interesting and brief interview of Mary Phagan Kean published in the Atlanta Journal Constitution in January 1999 by Clint Williams. The author of the article, Clint Williams makes a number of mistakes as most journalists do on the case, but he gets some of the gist of this notorious saga across.

January 6, 1999

Leo Frank killed Mary Phagan, says grand-niece

By Clint Williams, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

The [August 17] 1915 lynching of Leo Frank, convicted of murdering 13-year-old Mary Phagan, is the stuff of books, movies and now a Broadway play.

None of them, says Mary Kean, get it right.

“The inaccuracies bother me,” says Kean, who has been a student of the infamous case since she herself was a 13-year-old girl named Mary Phagan after her great-aunt.

The first Mary Phagan was found strangled to death at the National Pencil Factory in Atlanta on April 27, 1913.

Leo Frank, the factory’s manager, was convicted on the testimony of janitor Jim Conley, who said Frank ordered him to hide Mary’s body in the factory basement and plant a note on the body blaming the crime on “a light-skinned [dark-skinned] Negro.”

In August 1915, days [months] after his death sentence was commuted to life in prison [(June 21, 1915)], a group of about two dozen men from Marietta snatched Frank from the Georgia Work Farm Prison in Milledgeville. Frank was lynched from an oak tree on Frey Gin Road in Marietta.

The musical “Parade,” which opened in New York in December [1998] and is expected to run through April, takes the [false] position of many other retellings of the crime: that Frank was wrongly accused and the victim of virulent anti-Semitism. In most dramatic accounts, the death of Mary Phagan is little more than a plot device that triggers the chain of events leading to the lynching, the focus of “Parade.” [bolding added for emphasis]

“Mary Phagan was the victim,” says Kean. “He was the murderer.”

That is not any sort of emotional, knee-jerk conclusion, says Kean, who answers her telephone at work, “Mary Phagan Kean.”

“I’m not just the victim’s namesake, I’m a student of the case.”

Over the years, Kean has spent thousands of hours studying original court records and scrolling through microfilm copies of newspapers of the era. Much of her research is found in Kean’s book, “The Murder of Little Mary Phagan,” published in 1988.

The family history that has consumed Kean as an adult was unknown to her as a child. Kean, a self-described “military brat,” grew up knowing nothing about the lynching of Leo Frank and the murder of her great-aunt.

It wasn’t until an eighth-grade history teacher asked her if she was related to the famous Mary Phagan that she learned from her father the story of the girl whose name she carries.

“My father sat me down, we had a glass of milk, and explained it to me,” Kean recalls.

Her father gave a brief account of the murder and lynching and tried to explain the historical significance. The case was famous, Kean’s father said, because it was the first time in the South that a black man’s testimony convicted a white man. The case was cited as the cause for the resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan and the creation of the Anti-Defamation League.

When the family moved to the Atlanta area, Kean says, more people asked about her name. So she began reading all she could about the incident.

“I’d go to rummage sales and look for books about the case,” Kean says.

Her reading sparked her research.

“I wanted to know, I needed to know: Is what they are printing true?”

Much of what has been printed–or put on stage–isn’t true, Kean insists.

The suggestion that Frank was railroaded because he was Jewish is off the mark, she says. There were no bloodthirsty crowds shouting, “Hang the Jew” outside the courthouse, she says.

“I think the way this was covered so heavily in the papers, if that sort of thing had happened it would have been written about,” Kean says.

Pulling out a photocopy of a 1913 Atlanta Constitution story about the trial, Kean reads the headline: ” ‘Good order kept in court by vigilance of deputies.’ Does that sound like what they’re saying today?”

Modern tellings also suggest that class conflict had a role in the lynching of Leo Frank. Poor Southerners working in factories resented their rich Northern bosses. The implication, Kean says, is that Mary Phagan was poor white trash.

The Phagan family was middle-class, Kean says. Mary’s stepfather was a cabinetmaker and her grandfather a wealthy Marietta businessman.

When the family moved from Marietta to East Point, Mary Phagan couldn’t get a desk at her new school, Kean explains, so Mary was working at the pencil factory until the start of the next school year.

Kean again reads from a 1913 newspaper article.

“From her looks,” a story about the testimony of Mary Phagan’s mother states, “the Phagan family is above the station in life from which come children who toil in factories.”

Perhaps most galling to Kean is the contention that Frank was wrongly convicted.

There is ample evidence in the court records to prove Frank was the killer, she says. Frank was caught in contradictions during the coroner’s inquest, Kean notes, and he refused to be cross-examined by the defense [and prosecution at his trial].

Kean also offers what could be called linguistic evidence. The note left with the body must have been dictated by Frank, she says. The use of the word “Negro” indicates a Northerner is the author, she says. A Southerner would use the word “colored.”

The 1986 pardon of Frank cited by his modern-day defenders, Kean says, was granted without attempting to address guilt or innocence.

“I think that the truth isn’t really told about Leo Frank,” says Kean. “He is not a martyr, he is a murderer.”

But that doesn’t mean the lynching was justified, Kean says.

“I think it’s a very horrible thing that happened to Leo Frank,” she says.

Convinced Frank is the killer, the only mystery for Kean in the Mary Phagan case is who is putting a red silk rose on the dead girl’s grave.

Over the last several months, every week or so, a single red rose appears on the grave. About a dozen are now planted there.

“That is so sweet,” Kean says. “It means so much to my family.”

Some of the members of the Phagan family at the funeral of Mary Phagan one Tuesday, April 29, 1913.
Left to Right: Ollie Mae Phagan, Frances Phagan Coleman, J. W. Coleman, Ben Phagan, Lizzie Marietta Durham
The Tomb Stone of Mary Phagan (left)

The Tombstone of Mary Phagan’s Mother

NOW,

The LONG WINDED 2011 Book Review of ‘The Murder of Little Mary Phagan’ by Mary Phagan Kean

The book, ‘The Murder of Little Mary Phagan’ by Mary Phagan Kean (the great grand niece of Mary Phagan) is probably the most even-handed book written about the 1913 subject and its aftermath. ‘The Murder of Little Mary Phagan’ by Mary Phagan Kean, details the most infamously contentious and nationally covered early 20th century rape and strangulation cold case investigation, including the trial which led to the August 25, 1913, murder conviction of Leo Max Frank. The book also covers Leo Frank’s subsequent post-conviction appeals 1913 to 1915, the disqualification of Governor of Georgia, John M. Slaton from commuting Leo Frank’s sentence in June 21, 1915, leading to the crescendo of the whole ordeal with the August 17, 1915, lynching, followed by Frank’s highly political posthumous pardon without exoneration in 1986 (forgiveness, but the legally established guilt of Leo Frank, sustained by all the courts, was not overturned, preserving the verdict of the 1913 trial jury).

Ironically and not obvious, the 1915 commutation and 1986 pardon, affirmed the guilt of Leo Frank as part of a very long series of legal review and rulings that all preserved the guilty verdict of the Jury.

Who is Leo Frank?

Leo Frank was born in Cuero, Texas April 17, 1884. His family moved, 3 months after his birth, to Brooklyn, NY, where Frank was raised and educated before going to college upstate in Ithaca. Frank matriculated into Ivy League, Cornell University, as an Engineering student September, 1902, and after graduating in June, 1906 he worked for about a years time doing odd engineering jobs. A career opportunity was presented to him during a trip to Atlanta, and for it, he traveled to Germany in late 1907, with the intention of diligently studying pencil manufacturing during a 9 month apprenticeship. On completion of a pencil manufacturing training, Leo Frank, returned to America and shortly thereafter, moved to Georgia in early August, 1908, starting a brand new life in the hearth of the South. From the start of his new career working for the National Pencil Company in Atlanta, Frank ascended briskly, becoming superintendent in September, 1908, expanding his work-role to include corporate accountant, senior manager and later in his career part owner via the accumulation of shares. The factory was located right in the heart of Atlanta, at 37 to 41 South Forsyth Street. Leo Frank was the highest paid employee, earning a salary of $150 a month.

During Leo Frank’s 5 years of tenure (August 10, 1908 to April 29, 1913) at the National Pencil company, on November 30th 1910, Leo Frank married into an upper middle class, prominent and well established Jewish Selig-Cohen family, who it has been said enabled the creation of the first synagogue in Atlanta, two generations prior (Levi Cohen).

Who is Mary Phagan?

Thirteen year old Mary Phagan (June 1, 1899 to April 26, 1913), an employee of Leo Frank, had begun working at the pencil factory sometime in Spring of 1912, she served for about 13 months as a laborer. She worked just down the hall from Leo Frank on the 2nd floor. Phagan worked in the metal room, in a section called the tipping department, her job was inserting erasers into the empty brass metal band tips that were attached to the pencils in final manufacturing production stages. Mary Phagan worked 55 hours a week for a salary of $4.05 (Koenigsberg, 2011) or little more than 7 cents an hour.

A Legal Holiday in the South

On Confederate Memorial Day, Saturday, April 26, 1913 at noon, Mary Phagan walked into the factory to collect her pay, she had been laid off because the supplies of metal had been depleted, she was never left the factory, or was seen again alive by any witness, after Leo Frank claimed he gave her a pay envelope.

Failed Clean-up Job?

The machine department, known by factory workers as the metal room, was where Mary Phagan worked and this area at the back of the second floor contained the only bathroom on the second floor. Monday morning blood and hair would be found in the metal room by early bird employees on Monday morning at dawn on April 28, 1913. By then, the word that Mary Phagan had been killed, had already spread like wild fire, because of an extra put out by young reporter, Britt Craig, through the Atlanta Constitution, the most widely read daily newspaper in Atlanta.

Blood and Powder

A white powder haskolene was discovered suspiciously smeared and rubbed into blood stains on the floor in the metal room, in front of the girls dresing room and diagonal to the only bathroom located on the second floor. The 5 inch blood stain had turned into a dusty pinkish-red as it bled through the white powder haskolene. Thus, it was immediately determined the “clean-up job” appeared to be a failed attempt to cover up the blood stains, near where the murder victim it would be determined, was accidentally dropped, as she was being moved from the metal room, to the factory basement, two floors below, by Jim Conley, the “step-and-fetch-it” and roustabout working for Leo Frank.

Little Mary Phagan’s Life:

The labor Mary Phagan did at the pencil factory, from the Spring of 1912 to April 26, 1913, was her small way of helping support her five siblings, and previously widowed mother, who remarried to a man named John W. Coleman in 1912. Mary’s step father, Mr. Coleman, knew Mary for 4 years, and identified the hair found on the lathe machine in the metal room as Mary’s (see: Affidavits in the Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court Archive, 1913, 1914, Archive.org).

The week before Mary Phagan’s murder, a shortage of metal supplies at the factory, had led to a reduction in her work hours and she was temporarily laid off. Her wages which were normally about $4.05, for the shortened work week came to $1.20 for the hours she had worked prior to her being laid off on Monday, April 21, 1913.

On Saturday, April 26, 1913, celebrated locally as Memorial Day (Confederate Memorial Day), Mary stopped off at the factory, before meeting up at the parade with her friends, along with neighbor and co-worker George W. Epps, at the designated location of Elkins Watson at 2pm. Later in the evening, after being stood up, Epps ran over to Mary Phagan’s home, which was right around the corner from his parents home, to find out why Phagan never showed up at the agreed upon time. Mary Phagan’s family was already in a state of hysterics and distress over the fact of her being unaccounted for by nightfall, but they also thought she might have gone to stay with relatives.

The Bijou Theater

Mr. Coleman, had looked for his step daughter, Mary,  at the Bijou theater that same evening and curiously stumbled upon there, Mr. Darley, factory foreman, who was not only married,  and not with his wife, but with one of the young girls that worked at the factory, Opie Dickerson. Why he was squiring around a young girl, who worked at the National Pencil Company, tended to reveal a lot about the culture of the factory.

Noon, April 26 1913

When Mary arrived at the factory at about 12:02 to 12:03pm, Mary’s pay was allegedly issued to her by Leo Frank, according to his pre-trial investigation statements. Leo Frank admitted to being the last person to see Mary Phagan alive in a virtually empty factory, as there were 4 people in the factory at the time Mary Phagan arrived, when the normal number during the business week, was more than one hundred and seventy. Immediately after receiving her pay, Mary asked Leo Frank whether or not the metal had arrived.

No, or I don’t know? Did Pinkerton Detective Harry A. Scott frame Leo Frank?

There was conflicting testimony about what Leo Frank said concerning a question Mary Phagan asked him, “Has the metal come in?”. A Pinkerton detective and defense witness hired by the National Pencil Company contradicted Mr. Frank about the answer Leo had said to Mary, after she had been given the question. According to the Pinkerton Assistant Superintendent, Harry Scott,  the alleged response of Leo Frank was, “I Don’t Know?”, not “No.”. Which possibly created a scenario with a “let’s find out”. It was very incriminating because murder evidence including a fresh blood stain and hair were found in the metal room, at the back of the second floor, and Leo Frank’s office was located at the front of the second floor. Was, ‘I don’t know’ a segway for Leo and Mary, to find out if she was to come back to work on Monday morning? or is there a possibility, they had a prearranged meeting in the metal room as Professor Koenigsberg suggests?

April 27th 1913 in the cellar of National Pencil Company, formerly the Old Venable Hotel.

In the early hours of Sunday, April 27th 1913 at around 3:30 AM in the morning, the night watch (“night witch”) Newt Lee made a phone call to the station house. Newt Lee found Mary Phagan’s mangled body on the earthen floor near a large furnace in the rear of the basement, with part of her bloody pettycoat wrapped around her neck. Police reported there was evidence she had been dragged from the elevator face down , before being dumped next to the furnace, Phagan’s face was scratched up and completely covered with dirt as if someone was trying to make it seem like she had been assaulted and killed in the basement.

A throw away detail?

The autopsy would reveal she had been hit on the face around the eye with a fist, there was also a wound on the back of her head  likely caused when the occipital region of her skull hit the handle of the lathe (where hair was found), her underwear had been torn open and was moist from blood. Phagan had apparently been raped, beaten and eventually strangled with a 7 foot packing cord, biting deep into her neck. One doctor testified under oath to several types of specific violence to the private parts, vaginal inflammation and torn flesh damage, suggesting some kind of penetration either penile, finger or other.

The police after viewing the body of Mary Phagan in the factory cellar made several phone calls to Leo Frank, but unable to get in contact with him. The police were successful when they tried to get in touch with other people that worked at the factory. In the early morning they finally got Leo Frank on the phone and went directly to his home at around 7AM in the morning. The detectives arrived at his home asking Mrs. Frank to speak with Mr. Frank, asking him to accompany them to the factory. Like typical seasoned detectives, without telling Leo Frank what it was about, they observed him, suspicion fell on Frank because he appeared to be extremely nervous, trembling, rubbing his hands, pale, and appeared to be hung over, bumbling and agitated, Leo Frank also gave overly detailed and meticulous answers on very minor points, his voice was hoarse and he fumbled and struggled with minor tasks like fixing his shirt and collar.

Delay Going to the Factory

Moreover, Leo kept saying he hadn’t had breakfast and kept asking for a cup of coffee, trying to delay going to the factory even though it was an unknown emergency. Once in the model T Ford police car, the Police asked Leo Frank if he had known who Mary Phagan was, and he denied knowing Mary Phagan, saying he would need to check the accounting books he managed to be sure. This would become an important point at the trial, because Mary Phagan had worked for a year on the same floor as Leo Frank, her work station was only a few feet away to the bathroom door where Frank would go to use the toilet each day. Leo Frank had to pass directly by her, to get to the bathroom. Other employees testified Frank knew Mary on a first name basis, and got a little to close for comfort at times, as he had been seen putting his hand on her shoulder. Phagan had also collected more than 50 pay envelopes from Leo Frank during her 1 year of employment and logged more than 2,500 hours of work on the time clock inside Leo Frank’s office where he worked six days a week.

Leo Frank oddly enough actually remembered the denomination of money in Phagan’s pay envelope, saying it was two half dollars, and two dimes. Leo Frank also put peoples initials on their pay envelopes and employee number; for Mary Phagan, this was M.P. #186. Leo Frank also told Harry Scott, that James Milton Gantt was familiar and intimate with Mary Phagan, how could he know something about a girl he doesn’t even know?

Leo Frank flat out got caught in a lie about his not knowing Mary Phagan, which tended to damage his credibility, and left people wondering why he was trying to pretend not to know this young girl when he often flirted and touched her.  Leo Frank would change the time Mary Phagan arrived in his office four times.

James ‘Jim’ Conley

After arresting and questioning the black sweeper Jim Conley, who was present at work for less than 2/3 of the day on that fateful confederate memorial day, the police eventually, after weeks of the third degree interrogation and 3 half-truth affidavits, got Jim Conley to agree to sign a sworn affidavit finally admitting he was an accomplice after the fact. Conley admitted he was asked by Leo Frank to move the body of Mary Phagan to the basement and that he wrote four dictated “death notes” at the behest of Leo Frank, only 2 were discovered and they were scattered next to the body of Mary Phagan in the cellar.

The Murder Notes

The murder notes were very contrived and attempted to make it appear as if Mary Phagan had written the notes after she went to the bathroom in the metal room and was assaulted there by the security guard. The notes where clear in their attempt to pin the crime and point guilt to the “long tall slim negro” night watchman Newt Lee (“night witch”) because they described him very accurately. The notes left many people asking themselves when in history of the universe has a black man committed a murder, and stuck around to write murder notes, as if they came from the victim, addressed to her mother, describing the alleged predator-perpetrator in the act of rape.

The trial would make history, because it would be the first time in the United States of America, where the testimony of two black men Jim Conley and Newt Lee, along with affidavit by Leo Frank (State’s Exhibit B, 1913), an affidavit by a black mammy cook named Minola McKnight (State’s Exhibit J) would be a part of a case leading to the conviction and death sentence of a white man (Leo Frank) by an all White jury in the racially segregated South (where Negroes were second class citizens). At the time the Leo Frank case was the longest and most expensive trial in Southern history. The recorded testimony at the trial was over one million words recorded in short hand on 3,647 pages of legal cap paper.

George Epps, The Newsie, April 26, 1913

Mary Phagan was a No-Show at 2 PM on April 26, 1913, for her meeting with George Epps, a friend and neighbor. George Epps provided troubling testimony to the police early in the investigation on Monday, April 28, 1913, stating that Mary had told him in confidence, that Leo Frank scared her and often made lascivious innuendos and subtle insinuations toward her. George Epps would later after the trial get kidnapped by Leo Frank defense team cronies and taken to Alabama, there Epps was threatened with trickery and violence, he was forced against his will to recant his testimony against Leo Frank, by signing a false affidavit under extreme duress. Epps later confessed that he was abducted by thugs working for the Leo Frank defense fund and forced under threat of physical harm to sign an affidavit, specifically renouncing the testimony he gave to the police and court about Leo intimidating Mary.

Who was the REAL Star Witness? Monteen Stover, the young girl who caused Leo Frank to solve the whodunnit.

The Star witness was neither Newt Lee or Jim Conley, but a 14 year old White girl, who was only 5’2″ tall, named: Monteen Stover. She is the one who cracked wide open Leo Frank’s alibi. Monteen Stover had come to the factory at 12:05 pm, waiting till 12:10 pm, to collect her pay envelope (minutes after Mary Phagan had arrived), but Frank was neither in his inner or outer office, and he was not aware that Monteen Stover had arrived and waited for him five minutes in the place he swore he never left (his second floor office). Leo Frank swore to police, he was in his office every minute from Noon to 12:35 PM (when Mrs. White arrived at 12:35 and startled Leo Frank at his safe). Leo Frank also told the Coroners Inquest Jury that he did not use the bathroom at all that day on April 26, 1913, but at his murder trial he would change his story and state he went to the bathroom more than once. The importance of this contradictory statement was because the only bathroom located on the 2nd floor was in the metal room, where Mary Phagan had been originally found dead, before being moved to the basement.

Leo Frank’s Incriminating Statements, August 18, 1913

On August 18, 1913, Leo Frank would counter the testimony of Monteen Stover (that Leo Frank was not in his office from 12:05 to 12:10), by stating, she might not have seen him either because the safe door was open and blocked her vision of him or he might have “unconsciously” gone to the bathroom during that time (12:05 to 12:10) in the metal room. Leo Frank had entrapped himself beyond escape, because the only bathroom on the second floor (State’s Exhibit A) was located inside the metal room, where the prosecution had successfully built a case that Leo Frank had murdered Mary Phagan. It was a shocking revelation and admission by Leo Frank.

Frivolous Appeals (1913 – 1915)

Numerous half-baked appeal attempts by the Leo Frank Legal Defense Team to the Georgia Supreme Court and United States Supreme Court, were denied after careful review, with lengthy judgments written and rendered.

Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips

The departing Governor of Georgia, John M. Slaton (who also happened to be a senior legal partner and owner in the same law firm which represented Leo Frank during his 1913 trial), decided to commute the hanging death sentence of his client, Leo Frank, to life in prison on June 21, 1915, this happened just days before the end of his last term as Governor. The conflict of interest infuriated the public. The unabridged, 29-page commutation order is published online.

The Fire Storm of Backlash

The “Antisemite” Tom Watson through his popular Jeffersonian publishing company, called Leo Frank a sodomite and wrote five separate scathing reviews of the Leo Frank Case in January, March, August, September and October of 1915 issues of Watson’s Magazine (see Archive.org to read them all). Physical copies of these magazines are very rare,  because of a concerted effort by Jews to erase them from libraries around the South. Fortunately digital copies have been made and widely distributed online. Watson also wrote about the Frank case in his Jeffersonian weekly.

The Shanking of Leo Frank on July 17th 1915

One month after the commutation of Leo Frank, he got shanked. Leo Frank had his neck slashed in prison by an inmate named, William Creene, who used a 7 inch file made into a butcher knife, to sever his jugular vein on the left side of Leo’s neck. Leo Frank barely survived the wound thanks to two inmate doctors who saved him. The slashing was slow to heal in the hot & humid summer in Milledgeville during the summer of 1915.

The kidnapping of Leo Frank on August 16, and Lynching of Leo Frank on August 17, 1915

Almost 2 months after Leo Frank received clemency, a well organized group of about 25 to 35 men, many of which were from Georgia’s highest strata of politics, law and wealth, organized themselves into the ‘Knights of Mary Phagan’. This newly formed group of Georgia’s elite, sought to fulfill the death sentence verdict of the Jury and deliver righteous retribution in the form of “Southern Style Vigilante Justice”.

After much careful planning, Leo Frank was kidnapped from the minimum security prison he was housed, driven all through the night to the edge of Marietta and then lynched in the early hours of August 17th 1915, from an oak tree near the town where Mary Phagan had formerly lived.

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

‘The Murder of Little Mary Phagan’

The book ‘The Murder of Little Mary Phagan’ is written by the namesake of the murder victim, Mary Phagan’s great grand niece named Mary Phagan Kean. When Mary Phagan Kean was a teenager, she discovered her given name was no mere coincidence. When people heard Mary Phagan-Kean’s name they started asking her questions about whether she was related to the famous Mary Phagan who had been murdered long ago by Leo Frank in 1913. Mary Phagan Kean would learn a startling secret when she asked her family if she was a blood relative connected to the Mary Phagan who was murdered in 1913. When her family revealed the truth about her blood relation, Mary Phagan (Kean) immediately became insatiably curious about the investigation, trial and aftermath. Instantly becoming a life long student of the case, Mary Phagan-Kean devoted the rest her life and still to this day pours over the painstakingly vast archives of the case, reviewing every surviving documents surrounding the case, concerning the torture, rape and strangulation of her great grand aunt, 13 year old Mary Anne Phagan.

The ADL of B’nai B’rith

In the fall of 1912, Leo Frank was elected the President of the 500-member B’nai B’rith chapter in Atlanta, Georgia. Frank was re-elected in September 1913, while he was in jail awaiting the results of his lengthy appeals process. As a result of the conviction and aftermath in this national scandal and sensational trial, it would become the critical mass of “Antisemitism” catalyzing the formation of two American groups: the treacherous and Jewish espionage agency known as the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith in October 1913 or ADL of B’nai B’rith (www.adl.org) for short, and spark the revival of the immune system of Western civilization, the defunct nativist and white ethnic nationalist Ku Klux Klan (KKK) on Thanksgiving, 1915.

The Loud Mouths Slander

Jewish Scholars who overwhelmingly wrote the lion share of all the written books, articles, web sites, scripts and texts about this sordid case, almost unanimously allege the investigation, trial, and conviction where part of a widespread bigoted Antisemitic conspiracy, a text book case of railroading and framing an innocent Jewish Man because of anti-Jewish racism and religious hatred. These books often leave out thousands of pages of relevant facts to the case and trial,  and instead spin the facts convenient to creating doubt about Leo Franks guilt.

Pardon without Exoneration

Pressure from the Jewish community and Jewish espionage spy agency ADL (Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith) with an affidavit from a lonely and senile octogenarian who had died, the former office boy of Leo Frank for 3 weeks in 1913, a man named Alonzo Mann, resulted in the highly political 1986 Georgian pardon of Leo Frank (without exoneration). They forgave Leo Frank of the crime, but kept his guilt intact and did not disturb the verdict of the Jury.

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

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

Jewish Dramatizations

A number of fictionalized media dramatizations have been made about the trial in the form of plays, musicals, miniseries, docudramas and Broadway plays all created by Jews making a mockery of the life of Mary Phagan, idealizing and rehabilitating Leo Frank as an innocent victim of evil Antisemitism. The blood libel against the Leo Frank prosecution team and European-Americans continues to this day by the Jewish community, though it is often couched and not always so open and loud as the unscrupulous smears and accusations coming from Frankite authors like Leonard Dinnerstein and Elaine Marie Alphin.

Let’s Not Forget the Incriminating Statements Made By Leo Frank

The Jewish community won’t dare ever mention the “unconscious” bathroom murder confession Leo Frank made on the witness stand when he was giving his statement at the trial on August 18, 1913, to counter Monteen Stover’s testimony that he wasn’t in his office.

About the Book

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

The book was published in English on September 25, 1989

References and Further Reading:

Available in Adobe PDF format, download: The Murder of Little Mary Phagan Published in 1987, by Mary Phagan-Kean, the Great Grand Niece of Mary Phagan. The only book on the Leo Frank case which is fair and balanced.

Available for review and download, please visit: Official George State Supreme Court Legal Files on the Leo Frank Case on Archive.org.

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

The Ballad of Little Mary Phagan

Images:



Song: The Grave of Little Mary Phagan

Fair Usage Law

April 26, 2011   Posted in: Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, Ashkenazi, B'nai B'rith, Discrimination News, 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, West Bank, White Nationalism, White Supremacism, Zionism  Comments Closed

Jewish and Gentile Relations on the Brink: The Murder of Little Mary Phagan 98 years ago April 26, 1913.

The Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean, Publisher: New Horizon Press; 1st edition (September 15, 1989).
Brief Biography of Leo Frank
Leo Frank was born in Cuero, Texas on April 17, 1884. His family moved 3 months after his birth to Brooklyn, NY, where Frank was raised and educated, before attending college at upstate NY. Frank matriculated into Cornell University in Ithaca, NY, 1902 as an Engineering student, and after graduating in 1906, he traveled to Germany to study pencil manufacturing. After his 9 month stint in Europe, Leo Frank made a permanent move to Atlanta, Georgia, in August 1908 starting a new life in the Heart of the South.
1910
In 1910, Leo Frank married into a wealthy and established Jewish family (Selig-Cohen) and was elected B’nai B’rith President in 1912. By 1913 Leo Frank had reached the pinnacle of his career at the National Pencil Company, becoming superintendent, accountant, manager and part owner.
1913
The National Pencil Co. factory was located on 37 to 41 South Forsyth Street.
Thirteen year old Mary Phagan, an employee of Leo Frank had begun working at the pencil factory sometime in early Spring of April 1912, about a year before her murder. She worked just down the hall from Leo Frank on the 2nd floor. Mary Phagan worked in the metal room, in a section called the tipping department, her job was inserting erasers into the empty brass metal bands that were attached to the end of the pencils.
The metal department, where Mary Phagan worked was adjacent to and contained within it the unisex bathroom and girls dressing room, near where her blood and hair of Mary Phagan would be found by early bird employees on Monday morning at 7AM on April 28, 1913. Once the word got out about discovery, the employees of the whole factory in hysteria would gawk at these unusual blood stains on the floor and the tress of 6 to 8 hairs stuck on the handle of the lathe machine.
A white powder haskolene was found suspiciously smeared and rubbed into the fresh blood stains on the metal room floor in front of the dressing room turning the red blood stain variations of white, pink and blood red, the half-baked “clean-up job” appeared to be a failed attempt to cover up the blood stains near where the murder victim it was later revealed was accidentally dropped as she was being moved from the scene of the crime to the spot adjacent to the basement furnace.
Little Mary Phagan’s Life:
The work Mary Phagan did at the pencil factory was her small way of helping support her five siblings, and previously widowed mother, who remarried Mr. J. W. Coleman. Mary’s step father knew Mary for 4 years and he identified the hair found on the lathe machine as belonging to Mary Phagan.
The week before Phagan’s murder, a shortage of metal supplies at the factory had led to a reduction in her work hours and she was temporarily laid off. Her wages for the shortened work week came to $1.20 or just ten cents an hour for the twelve hours she had worked prior to her being murdered.
On April 26, 1913, celebrated locally as Memorial Day (Confederate Memorial Day), Mary came to the factory to claim her pay before going to see the parade with some of her friends and neighbor co-worker George W. Epps at 2pm.
Later in the evening Epps ran over to Mary Phagan’s home, which was right around the corner, to find out why Phagan never showed up. Mary Phagan’s family was already in a state of distress over her being missing, but they also thought she might have gone to stay with a relative.
When Mary Phagan arrived at the factory, Marys pay was allegedly issued to her by Frank and according to the pre-trial investigation and later the testimony at the 1913 Trial, Leo Frank was the last person to admit seeing Mary Phagan alive in a virtually empty factory (there were 4 people in the factory at the time of Phagans arrival, when the normal number was more than 170+).
There was also some conflicting testimony about what Leo Frank said concerning a question Mary Phagan asked him, “Has the metal come in?”. A Pinkerton detective and defense witness hired by the National Pencil Company contradicted Leo Frank about the answer Leo Frank said Mary had given to that question.
George Epps provided troubling testimony to the police, stating that Mary had told him in confidence, that Leo Frank scared her and often made lascivious, inappropriate sexual innuendos and insinuations toward her, that Leo Frank was “after her”. George Epps would later after the Leo Frank murder trial get kidnapped by Frank cronies, be threatened with violence and forced to recant his testimony by signing a false affidavit under duress. George Epps signed an affidavit about the details of his abduction and the dishonest trickery that unraveled when he was kidnapped and taken to Alabama.
April 27, 1913
In the early hours of Sunday, April 27th 1913 at around 3:30 AM in the morning, the night watch (“night witch”) Newt Lee made a phone call to the police. Newt Lee found Mary Phagans mangled body on a dirt mound near a furnace in the rear of the basement, with part of her bloody underwear wrapped around her head. Police reported there was evidence she had been dragged from the elevator face down, before being dumped next to the furnace, Phagan’s face was scratched up and covered with filth. The autopsy would reveal she had been hit on the face around the eye with a fist, there was also a damage to the back of her head that was likely caused when it hit the handle of the lathe, her underwear was torn open, she had been raped, beaten and strangled with a 7 foot cord. One doctor testified under oath to several types of specific violence and vaginal damage occurred, suggesting some kind of rape either penile or by fingers.
Leo Frank
The police after viewing the body of Mary Phagan made several failed attempts at reaching Leo Frank on the phone, after finally reaching him, they went directly to the home of Leo Frank at around 7am in the morning. The detectives arrived at his home asking Mrs. Frank to speak with Mr. Frank, they requested he accompany them to the factory. Like typical seasoned detectives, without telling Leo Frank what it was about, they observed him, suspicion fell on Frank because he appeared to be extremely nervous, trembling, rubbing his hands, pale, appeared to be hung over, bumbling, jimjamming and agitated. Leo Frank also gave overly detailed and meticulous answers on very minor points, his voice was hoarse and he fumbled and struggled with minor tasks like fixing his collar. Moreover, Leo kept saying he hadn’t had breakfast and kept asking for a cup of coffee. The police asked Leo Frank if he had known who Mary Phagan was and he denied knowing a Mary Phagan saying he would need to check the accounting books he managed to be sure. This would become an important point at the trial, because Mary Phagan had worked for a year on the same floor as Leo Frank, her work station was only a few feet away next to the bathroom, where Leo Frank visited each day. Other employees testified Frank knew Mary on a first name basis. Phagan had also collected more than 50 pay envelopes from Leo Frank during her 1 year of employment and logged more than 2,500 hours of work.
Frank flat out got caught in a lie about knowing Mary Phagan which damaged his credibility and left people wondering why he was trying to pretend not to know her.
After arresting and questioning the black janitor Jim Conley, who was present at work on the infamous Saturday, the police eventually after 3 half-truth affidavits, got Jim Conley to admit he was an accomplice to the murder after the fact. Conley admitted he was asked by Leo Frank to move the body of Mary Phagan to the basement and that he wrote four dictated “death notes” (only 2 were discovered) which were scattered next to the head of Mary Phagan.
The murder notes were a very contrived attempt to make it appear as if Mary Phagan had written the notes after she went to the bathroom and was assaulted there. The notes where clear in their attempt to pin the crime and point guilt to the “long tall slim negro” night watchman Newt Lee (“night witch”). Leaving many people asking themselves whenever in history has a black man committed a murder and stuck around to write murder notes as if they came from the victim and addressing it to her mother.
The trial would make history, because it would be the first time in the United States of America, where the testimony of two black man (Jim Conley & Newt Lee) would lead to the conviction and death sentence of a white man (Leo Frank) by an all White jury in the racially segregated South.
Star Witness Monteen Stover and the Leo Frank Murder Confession
Though the Star witness was neither Newt Lee or Jim Conley, but a 14 year old White girl named Monteen Stover who cracked wide open Leo Frank’s alibi. Monteen Stover had come to the factory to collect her pay envelope minutes after Mary Phagan had arrived, but Frank was not in either his inner or outer office, nor was Leo Frank aware that Monteen Stover had arrived and waited for him five minutes 12:05 to 12:10. Frank would counter the testimony of Monteen Stover stating, he might have “unconsciously” gone to the bathroom. Frank had entrapped himself beyond escape, because the bathroom was located within the metal room, where the prosecution had successfully built a 29 day case that Leo Frank had murdered Mary Phagan there.
Appeals
Numerous frivolous appeal attempts by the Leo Frank Legal Defense Team to the Georgia Supreme Court, District Court and United States Supreme Court, were denied after careful review, with lengthy decisions written and rendered (see LeoFrank.org). The departing Governor of Georgia, John M. Slaton (who also happened to be a senior legal partner in the same law firm which represented Leo Frank), decided to commute Leo Franks death sentence of his client to life in prison on June 21, 1915 days before the end of his last term as Governor. The Antisemite Tom Watson through his popular Jeffersonian publishing company in 1914 and 1915, called Leo Frank a Jewish sodomite and wrote five separate scathing reviews of the Leo Frank Case in January, March, August, September and October of 1915 issues of Watson’s Magazine (These 5 issues are available on Archive.org).
Shanking July 17, 1915
One month after the commutation of Leo Frank, he had his neck slashed in prison by an inmate named Green, who used a 7 inch butcher knife. Frank barely survived the wound and it was slow to heal in the hot humid summer of 1915.
Almost 2 months later, after Leo Frank received a clemency reduction of his death sentence to life in prison, a well organized group of about 25 to 35 men, many of which were from Georgia’s highest strata of politics, law and society, organized themselves into the ‘Knights of Mary Phagan’. This newly formed group of Georgia’s elite, sought to fulfill the conviction of the Jury and deliver righteous retribution in the form of “Southern Style Vigilante Justice”.
After much careful planning, Leo Frank was kidnapped from the minimum security prison he was housed in the evening of August 16, 1915, driven all through the night and then lynched in the early hours of August 17th 1915 from an oak tree near the town where Mary Phagan had formerly lived.
Lynching
Franks dangling body became a public spectacle, photographs were taken and the pictures of Franks suspended body, gently twirling in the breeze became popular post cards and memorabilia in the South, selling out almost instantly.
Mary Phagan Kean
The book ‘The Murder of Little Mary Phagan’ is written by the namesake of the murder victim, Mary Phagan’s great grand niece named Mary Phagan Kean. When Mary Phagan Kean was a teenager, she discovered her given name was no mere coincidence. When people heard Mary Phagan Keans name they started asking her questions about whether she was related to the famous Mary Phagan who had been murdered long ago by Leo Frank. Mary Phagan Kean would learn a startling secret when she asked her family if she was a blood relative connected to the Mary Phagan who was murdered. When her family revealed the truth about her blood relation, Mary Phagan Kean immediately became insatiably curious about the investigation, trial and aftermath. Instantly becoming a life long student of the case, Mary Phagan-Kean has devoted her entire life pouring over and painstakingly researching and reading every surviving documents surrounding the torture, rape and strangulation of her great grand aunt, 13 year old Mary Phagan.
B’nai B’rith
Leo Frank was the President of the Atlanta Chapter of B’nai B’rith. As a result of the conviction in this national scandal and sensational trial, it would become the critical mass of “Antisemitism” catalyzing the formation of two American groups: the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith in October, 1913, or ADL (www.adl.org) for short, and spark the revival of the defunct nativist and ethnic nationalist Ku Klux Klan (KKK) in 1915.
Jewish Scholars which overwhelmingly wrote the lion share of all the written books, articles, web sites, scripts and texts about the subject almost unanimously allege the investigation, trial, and conviction where part of a widespread Antisemitic conspiracy, a text book case of railroading and framing an innocent Jewish Man because of anti-Jewish racism and religious hatred. These books often leave out most of the relevant facts, evidence and testimony in the Leo Frank case spinning the facts convenient to creating doubt about Leo Franks guilt.
1980’s
Pressure from the Jewish community, Jewish groups and ADL (Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith) with an affidavit from a lonely and senile octogenarian, the former office boy of Leo Frank for 3 weeks in April 1913, a man named Alonzo Mann, resulted in the highly political 1986 Georgian pardon of Leo Frank (without exoneration). They forgave Leo Frank, but kept his guilt intact.
On March 11, 1986, a pardon without exoneration was issued by the board:
Without attempting to address the question of guilt or innocence, and in recognition of the State’s failure to protect the person of Leo M. Frank and thereby preserve his opportunity for continued legal appeal of his conviction, and in recognition of the State’s failure to bring his killers to justice, and as an effort to heal old wounds, the State Board of Pardons and Paroles, in compliance with its Constitutional and statutory authority, hereby grants to Leo M. Frank a Pardon.
A number of fictionalized media dramatizations have been made about the trial in the form of plays, musicals, miniseries, docudramas and Broadway plays all created by Jews making a mockery of the life of Mary Phagan, idealizing and rehabilitating Leo Frank as an innocent victim of evil Antisemitism. The blood libel against the Leo Frank prosecution continues to this day by the Jewish community, though sometimes it is often couched. The Jewish community won’t dare ever mention the “unconscious” bathroom murder confession Leo Frank made on the witness stand when he was giving his statement at the trial on August 18, 1913, to counter Monteen Stover’s testimony. Leo Frank is the only person in US history to make a virtual murder confession at his own trial. Shocking, but true.
The 4.7MB adobe PDF version of the book is available here for download. Please download this book and read it.
“Definitive account of one of the most famous crimes of the century.”–American Jewish Outlook
“Riveting and captivating!” — Ira Stein
“The most evenhanded account of the most sensational trial of the 20th century.” — Matt Cohen
“The best book written on the Leo Frank case since 1915” – MC
The book was published in English on September 25, 1989
For more information on the Leo Frank Case, visit: www.LeoFrank.org
More excellent books and reading on the subject include:
0. The Leo Frank Case (Mary Phagan) Inside Story of Georgia’s Greatest Murder Mystery 1913 – The first neutral book written on the subject. Very interesting read.
1. The Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean (Available here on www.Archive.org). Written by Mary Phagan Kean, the great grand niece of Mary Phagan. A neutral account of the events surrounding the trial of Leo Frank. 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 www.Archive.org) 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 and you can see what was left out.
3. Argument of Hugh M. Dorsey in the Trial of Leo Frank (Available here on www.archive.org and www.LeoFrank.org). Some but not all of the 9 hours of arguments given to the Jury at the end of the Leo Frank trial. Only 18 Libraries in the world have copies of this books. It can be found here on archive.org thanks to leofrank.org. This is an excellent book and required reading to see how Dorsey in sales vernacular ‘closed’ a Jury of 12 men and Judge Roan.
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 LeoFrank.org.
5.,6.,7., The Atlanta Constitution, The Atlanta Journal, The Atlanta Georgian (Hearst’s Tabloid Yellow Journalism), April 28th to August 27th 1913.
8. Tom Watson’s Jeffersonian and Watson’s Magazine: Watson’s Magazine, January 1915, Watson’s Magazine, March 1915; Watson’s Magazine, August 1915, Watson’s Magazine, September 1915, and Watson’s Magazine, October of 1915. (Available here on www.Archive.org and LeoFrank.org). Tom Watson’s best work on the Leo M. Frank case was published in September 1915. Watson’s five works written collectively on the Leo M. Frank topic, provide logical arguments confirming the guilt of Leo M. Frank with superb reasoning.
These five works are absolutely required reading for anyone interested in the Leo M. Frank Case. Tom Watson’s magazine publications surged from 30,000 to 100,000 copies, when it was announced he would be writing on the Leo Frank case. These magazines are extremely rare and very difficult to find. However they have been scanned and are available on both www.Archive.org and www.leofrank.org
1. The Leo Frank Case By Tom Watson (January 1915) Watson’s Magazine Volume 20 No. 3. See page 139 for the Leo Frank Case. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga., Digital Source Archive.org
2. The Full Review of the Leo Frank Case By Tom Watson (March 1915) Volume 20. No. 5. See page 235 for ‘A Full Review of the Leo Frank Case’. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga., Digital Source Archive.org
3. The Celebrated Case of The State of Georgia vs. Leo Frank By Tom Watson (August 1915) Volumne 21, No 4. See page 182 for ‘The Celebrated Case of the State of Georgia vs. Leo Frank”. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga., Digital Source Archive.org
4. The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, Jew Pervert By Tom Watson (September 1915) Volume 21. No. 5. See page 251 for ‘The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, Jew Pervert’. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga., Digital Source Archive.org
5. The Rich Jews Indict a State! The Whole South Traduced in the Matter of Leo Frank By Tom Watson (October 1915) Volume 21. No. 6. See page 301. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga., Digital Source Archive.org
The most comprehensive research archive of Leo M. Frank Case information and documents, visit: www.LeoFrank.org

Fair Usage Law

April 26, 2011   Posted in: Anne Frank, Anti Racism, Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, Ashkenazi, B'nai B'rith, Christian, Discrimination News, Holocaust, Holocaust Denial, Holocaust Revisionism, Jewish, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism, Leo Frank, Multicultural News, Race Relations, Racism News, White Nationalism, White Supremacism, Zionism  Comments Closed

98 Years Ago in Jewish History, April 26: The Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Leo Max Frank, on April 26, 1913.



Corporate Standard of the National Pencil Co. Circa 1913

The National Pencil Company was conceived in the Jewish imagination of 1907, and born on April 8th, 1908. The business became terminally ill Monday, April 28, 1913, when early-bird employees of factory found a tress of what looked like it could be Mary Phagan’s hair on the handle of a lathe in the metal room located at the rear of the 2nd floor. Moments later a strange pinkish-red blood stain was discovered on the floor, diagonal to the bathroom door in the metal room, it was smeared with a white powder machine lubricant called haskoline. When word of these two forensic discoveries, spread like wild fire to the 170 employees, countless dozens of laborers flocked to witness the spectacle. Hissy fits and tantrums unraveled, because it was evidence leading to the discovery of the real scene of the crime, not the basement where Phagan had been found. This forensic evidence in the metal room would later be corroborated by numerous employees of the factory at the Coroner’s Inquest and later at Leo Frank trial. For more than one hundred years the Jewish community has attempted to suppress this evidence, until many legal records of the Mary Phagan case where published online.

While hysteria was fermenting at the National Pencil Company, numerous blocks away, Leo Frank, and his two high-powered lawyers, Luther Rosser and Herbert Haas, were at the Atlanta police station. Leo Frank was giving a statement to an official stenographer, Gay C. Febuary, who was capturing the deposition that would later become State’s Exhibit B. Mary Phagan’s Mother, Mrs. Frances Coleman, would sue the National Pencil Company, about 2 years after the trial of Leo Frank ended, for the wrongful death of her daughter and the National Pinkerton Detective Agency sued them as well over an unpaid detective bill of about $1300. Neither were ever able to collect the money awarded to them by the courts.

The National Pencil Company Imploded.

Leo Frank’s wealthy uncle Moses Frank, hired him based on qualifications, not only because he was his nephew. Moses was one of the angel investors, who in part made the National Pencil Company possible, and was no where to be found at the Leo Frank trial, but a very contrived letter was mailed to Moses Frank on April 26, 1913, claimed to be written by Leo Frank in the time range of the murder, attempting to show his very calm state of mind and it was added as evidence at the trial. The outer portion of the letter was never recovered and questions about the letter’s unusual content emerged.

Leo Max Frank (April 17, 1884 – August 17, 1915)

Also stylized as:

1. Leo Max Frank (the name chiseled on his tombstone within Mount Carmel Cemetery NYC),


2. Leo M. Frank (his name and signature on official legal documents),
3. Leo Frank (his name known by the public), or just simply
4. Leo or Frank (for short).

Welcome to The Biography of Leo Frank:

The early years…

    Meet the Franks:

The closest family members of Leo Frank clan that is

Papa: Rudolph Frank (November 5, 1844 to January 15, 1922), a Jew of North-Central European Ashkenazim roots was born and raised in Germany where he earned his Medical Degree, until he later immigrated into the United States in the latter half of the 19th century circa 1869. Rudolph would make several career changes during his life and live in vastly differing places. Rudolph worked as the postmaster in Cuero Texas (Census, DeWitt County, Texas, 1880) and later a traveling salesman in NYC. Leo Frank using the terminology of the era described his father’s absence at his trial, because Rudolph had become an “Invalid” (Leo Frank Statement, Trial Brief, August, 18, 1913). Rudolph was buried in Mount Carmel Cemetery in Queens, NY at grave site location: 1-E-41-1035-4 (right adjacent to his wife, who was buried after him).

Mama: Rachel “Ray” (née Jacobs) Frank (April 16, 1859 – January 1, 1925), an Ashkenazim Jewess was born of German-Jewish immigrants living in NYC. She was not only raised in Brooklyn, but spent the vast majority of her life in New York, except for a 3 year stint in far-off Cuero Texas, and several months here-and-there going back and forth to Georgia for important events, such as the Frank-Selig wedding (November 30, 1910), her son’s murder trial (July 28 – August 26, 1913) and his numerous appeals hearings, and generally for other family affairs. She was buried in Mount Carmel Cemetery in Queens, NY at grave site location: 1-E-41-1035-3 (adjacent right of her son, adjacent left of her husband Rudolph).

Sister: Marian Frank, Leo’s baby sister by 2 years, at about the age of 24, she became Marian Stern in January 1910, when she married German-Jew Immigrant (1898) Otto Stern in NYC. Marian lived a long life for the period, born on October 18th, 1886, she died April 2, 1948, and is buried at Mount Carmel Cemetery in grave site: 1-E-41-1035-12. Long lived Otto Stern, her beloved husband, born March 11, 1882 died May 26th, 1963, and is buried next to Marian at Mount Carmel Cemetery in grave site: 1-E-41-1035-11.

Uncle Moe & Aunt Sarah: Moses Frank (1841-1927), Rudolph’s older brother was Moses Frank, Leo’s “rich” uncle who made his money in cotton oil speculation and was a major shareholder and visionary who helped make the National Pencil Company a reality. Moses was Married to Sarah his second wife, who died August 1st, 1937, and she is buried at Mount Carmel Cemetery in Queens, NY, at grave site location: 1-E-41-1035-6.

Moses Frank the “Confederate Veteran”

Steve Oney describes Moses as, “Confederate veteran Moses Frank” (Oney, 2003, p. 10), despite being over cited without reliable sources by Leo Frank partisan writers, Moses Frank never served in the confederate Army and despite the extremely high survival rate of enlistment documents in the war between the states, there are no records of any kind, or reliable evidence, to support that he was ever in any U.S. Military, North or South, nor do any of his eulogies make reference to him as a Confederate veteran (Koenigsberg, 2011). Reuben Rose Arnold makes mention of Moses as a confederate veteran obliquely in his closing arguments during Leo Frank’s re-trial appeals hearing before Judge Leonard Strickland Roan, in late October 1913, before Roan rejected the petition October 31, 1913.

FRANK, Lucille 1-E-41-1035-01 EMPTY, REFUSED TO BE BURIED NEXT TO LEO FRANK IN HER LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT
FRANK, LEO 1-E-41-1035-02 08/17/1915
FRANK, RAY 1-E-41-1035-03 01/01/1925
FRANK, RUDOLPH 1-E-41-1035-04 01/15/1922
FRANK, Moses 1-E-41-1035-05 10/24/1927
FRANK, SARAH 1-E-41-1035-06 08/01/1937

STERN, MARIAN 1-E-41-1035-12 04/02/1948
STERN, OTTO 1-E-41-1035-11 05/26/1963

1881: From Texas to New York City – An Arranged Marriage in the Jewish Enclave of Brooklyn

Step back in time to the early 1880’s, not at all uncommon during Jewish history and the era, an arranged marriage was organized between a much older gentleman (lucky old goat) and a reasonably attractive young Jewess. It was the typical selective breeding program that has been a permanent fixture over the Jewish centuries, the older intelligent gentleman obtaining a young healthy breeder for services as housewife. In Brooklyn, NY, 1881 Rudolph Frank and Rachel Jacobs married within the Jewish enclave of Brooklyn, NY. Rudolph Frank “robbed the cradle” as they say and was 16 years Rachel Jacob’s senior. After their traditional Jewish marriage and brief honeymoon, they made the great voyage to Cuero (Paris), Texas, for the next 3 Years (1881 to 1884).

Ironically in terms of “robbing the cradle”, Twenty Nine Year Old Leo Frank (1884 to 1915) was about 15 years senior to 13.9 year old little Mary Anne Phagan (1899 to 1913) when he became the prime suspect for the bludgeoning (12:04pm), rape and strangulation (12:05 to 12:10pm) of her on Saturday, April 26, 1913, Confederate Memorial Day, inside the metal room at the rear of the second floor at the National Pencil Company, located at 37 to 41 South Forsyth Street.

“The Perfect Family”

Several years and more after Rudolph Frank and Rachel Jacobs married, they created the proverbial “perfect family” and had two children together, a boy and a girl, in the “perfect order”, first a son named Leo Max who was born at their humble abode in Cuero Texas in 1884, followed by a daughter Marian born in Brooklyn, two years thereafter in 1886.

Leo, Rudolph and Rachel Frank, Early Family Life in Texas – 1880’s and onward

Rudolph Frank, had served as the local postmaster in Cuero, Texas and before emigrating from Europe in the United States, he had formerly engaged in training as a physician back in his “ancestral homeland” of Germany, but he unfortunately never pursued the course work necessary in medicine to become a fully recognized Doctor in the United States. He certainly would have had the option of plugging into the lucrative Doctor Pharmacy matrix after upgrading his training in the US, but he did not go this route and instead became a traveling salesman until he was unable to work any longer around 1910 when he had a nervous breakdown.

Brooklyn Native, Rachel Jacobs (a Jew Yorker by birth), traditional for the time, became a young home maker after her marriage to old goat Rudolph, but the young housewife felt like a withering flower once she was physically uprooted in Brooklyn and transplanted into the boiling-hot, primitive and rural makeshift town in backward Cuero, Texas. Rachel was replanted far away from her parents home in leafy Brooklyn, a once lushly sylvan and green oasis, from the urban sprawl of Manhattan. For the Jewish genepool the mega cities of America, like NYC, offered the best genetic protection, business opportunities and racial improvement for the Europeanized Ashkanazi. It was not just Manhattan, but Brooklyn that often attracted the best and brightest of the aggressive, racially conscious, eugenically minded, agitative, revolutionary and nation-state wrecking International Jew.

Back in the Summer of 1883: The Conception of Leo Frank

One day during the sexual heat of a hot and dry Texas summer in July, 1883, all the biological stars were in alignment, Rudolph and Ray had finally, after nearly 2 years of marriage and trying, conceived their first child.

It’s Official: Ray Frank is Pregnant 1883

The pregnancy would eventually be affirmed for sure, when during the early first trimester, Rachel began experiencing all those natural signs of being “prego”, including morning sickness and that peculiar craving for kosher pickle and matzo smoothies.

Rachel would put her hand on her bump and in turn it would become for Moma Ray and Papa Rudolph a glorious, momentous and celebrated moment of what was to eventually come, is it a boy or a girl? What do we name our child or who do we name our child after? With a high infant mortality rate back in those days, it was enough to make the newly wed couple frightened, uncertain and excited about their unknown future. Rudolph would have been walking around puffed and proud-chested, glowing and beaming, the old goat was going to become a father after all, he was beside himself with joy and praying for a son.

Hurray! It’s a Boy!

They did not know it at the time, because obviously there were no Medical ultrasonography machines or other gender determining sciences available back in “them days”, but they were to be eventually surprised during the birthing process when they saw Leo’s little schmeckle pop out.

Nine months after conception, on April 17, 1884, a son was born to a relieved Rudolph whose prayers were finally answered. Leo Frank had entered the world in their wooden frame home. The Frank’s humble little abode in Cuero was located about 100 or so miles from San Antonio, Texas.

Talk of moving away for better opportunities and “greener pastures” began before Leo was born and would intensify immediately thereafter, more importantly the social infrastructure and extended family network was mostly back in mean green urban machine of Brooklyn, NOT in the drab tumble weed fields and listless planes of wild west, 19th century Texas, where the total population was less than 2 million in the semi defacto republic of Texas whose fields that seemed endless.

It is said, that as hard as it is to believe in an age where every keystroke is recorded, they didn’t have birth certificates back then in Texas, at least in that “neck of the woods”.

It’s Time to Pack Our Bags HONEY, We’re Movin’ (back) to Brooklyn!

The freshly formed Frank clan would follow through with no doubts or hesitations, embarking on an arduous journey, and the Frank trinity would soon emigrate forever from the flat, rural, provincial, yawning and cowboyesque Texas, to the hustling and bustling cosmopolitan North East, where life was truly more bearable. Where one could live deeply and suck the marrow out of the bones of life, as Henry David Thoreau might have quipped about Brooklyn had he actually been born there.

Some of the best genepools in the world were forged in the womb of Brooklyn.

1884 Summer: Rudolph, Rachel and Sweet Baby Leo Frank

A tumultuous turning point for the new Frank family began in the summer of 1884, the complicated move at the time would have taken weeks of careful planning, organizing, and packing. The Frank family voyage was unfolding at a time in U.S. history when far-reaching travel was rough and painfully slow, but fortunately patience was plentiful, though trying at times.

The Frank family made the right choice when they decided to relocate from the slow small-town of Cuero, Texas, thousands of miles away, back to the home-town of Rachel, that place of brick, rock and brownstone clad buildings, the living suburb within the periphery of NYC known as the borough of Brooklyn or Kings County.

Home Sweet Home, Brooklyn had “better-everything” and it was where everyone would benefit and have more opportunities, but not unlike Texas, where during certain times of the year, their arrival was at the thickest and sweatiest time during the peak of humid mugginess in the sweltering New York summer heat.

No words might describe the ecstasy of finally settling in for a bit, sliding in and marinating in an oversized and soothing claw foot bath tub, after such a long stinky trip, which had many stop overs, random annoyances and delays. It was so nice to have plumbing and toilets with running water vs. Texan crescent moon, phone booth style, Earthen closets that perpetually stunk to high heaven.

Back to Brooklyn

Cute little coneheaded and round faced baby Leo Frank, who not only looked more like his mother than his father, also got her generic good looks too. Sweet baby Leo Frank was barely three months old at the time of this immense cross country pilgrimage and major relocation to the land of milk and honey, he was still suckling nourishing milk from his mothers bosom. The trip would naturally be a traumatic experience for him, instilling a little bit of that restless spirit into the environmental mix with his diasphoratic DNA, afterall Leo’s ancestors had all immigrated to the United States 1 to 2 generations prior. That long dramatic journey from one side of the country to the other, would not be Leos first or last and it certainly left a powerful impression upon him in a very abstract way, not unlike his future travels, which would be even more dramatic in 1905 and 1907, with two European Trips.

Finally, after settling into NYC at the Jacobs residence, Rudolph Frank took a job as a traveling salesman and Rachel “Ray” resumed her roll as homemaker. Two years later and in the chillier NY months, a baby sister had arrived, Marian Frank, who was born during a chilly fall day.

Aww, Leo and Marian looked so cute together. Mommy when I grow up, I’m going to become a fiendish serial killer!

Leo looks like the male version of his mommy Rachel as a child, but his Eastern European round plate face would narrow, and square down a bit, giving him a more oval and chiseled, athletically handsome, nerdish look during his physical prime in 1912.

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 prestigious artsy-fartsy prep school, Pratt Institute of Brooklyn (1898 to 1902), which is still running strong more than 100 years after Leo attended, but it’s now a college, instead of a highschool. One can only imagine what a fascinating place Brooklyn must have been like in the decades surrounding the turn of the century, as it was going through its own rapid development and evolution.

Leo M. Frank was a star student and matriculated into Cornell University in Ithaca, NY from the Fall of 1902 and he studied there until his college graduation ceremony in June of 1906. Frank studied Mechanical Engineering and dabbled in numerous hobbies, sports, collegiate activities and clubs.

During Frank’s college years at his Alma mater, he engaged in chess, cards, tennis, amateur photography and played basketball for his class team. Frank was a handsome athlete and scholar who looked a lot like the fictional character Donnie Darko (Jake Gyllenhaal) during his college years and during his murder trial looked a lot like Pee Wee Herman strung out on crackrock.

Something just isn’t right, an appropriate nickname for this human ticking timebomb, ready to explode at any moment, might be: Leo Freak.

During his free time Frank engaged in Jewish fraternal oriented activities and practiced amateur landscape photography of which many photos survived. 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 team. If Frank’s participation in the multitude that is the college experience and his ability to multi-task were any indication of his potential, he was destined for greatness, but on the flipside our intuition and instincts tell us there’s also something that just aen’t right about this guy. Some of Leo Franks pictures reveal a real kind of wide-eyed chizophrenic side about him.

Leo Freak

A posthumous core drilling of Leo Frank should be conducted to obtain his genetic equation and analysis performed to determine its multifactorial gene patterns and then compare it with other pedophiles who murder children. Multi-processor cloud computing can be utilized to see what gene patterns make one prone to these kinds of psychotic behaviors if enough samples are collected and analyzed.

Notice those creepy, bulging and psychotic serial killer eyes, can you imagine having to stare into them as a child laborer while he is winking cockeye’d sexual suggestions as his left lazy-eye rolls and turns out of alignment? Would you not be freaked out if you were a little girl? He definitely has some serious hormonal imbalance issues (hyperthyroidism?) going on and possibly physiological or mental problems from years of excessive consumption of drugs, alcohol, cigarettes and whoring. One can only wonder how those environmental and genetic imbalances may have affected his mind and propensities from time to time.

However, he also seems to be a good nature’d kind of guy too, who had great managerial talents. What we have here is a real Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, as Dorsey accurately put it (Dorsey, August 21, 22, 23, 25, 1913) during his closing arguments, something not at all uncommon in many people.

Employment 1906 to 1913

1906

After college, Frank took a job in the summer of 1906 as a draftsman for the B.F. Sturtevant (Sturdivant) Company in bone chilling and frozen tundra of Hyde Park, Massachusetts, 6 months later he returned to New York as the brisk chilly fall turned into a frigid shitty NYC winter.

1907

In early 1907 Frank began a new job working 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 the haughty Cornell University – the best school of higher education New York has to offer (no offense Columbia) – he was unable to connect with any kind of steady job, though not because he lacked talent. Leo Frank was a smart young man.

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

Leo Frank’s wealthy world traveling uncle Moses Frank, known affectionately as Uncle Moe, had suggested to Leo M. Frank that he should consider becoming involved in a potentially lucrative opportunity and participate on some level in the technical and accounting management of a new manufacturing venture, a pencil factory in Atlanta, Georgia, one that Moses had just invested in with some serious shekels. After all, Leo Frank was no slouch, he had an engineering degree and it would be most useful and valuable to have a family member on the team being a serious player. Moses was no slouch either, he made his golden nest egg from cotton oil, and it was time to make another, because being on permanent vacation can slowly get very expensive and that’s the honest to G*d truth. Moses was a vibrant old man, but partially blind by 1908 (Koenigsberg, LeoFrankCase.com, 2011). Moses was the high-up and undeclared patriarch of sorts for the Frank clan.

1907 October – Life Changing Event, Atlanta & European Sojourn.

In the middle of October 1907 Leo’s uncle Moe and associates, invited Frank down south to Atlanta, it was part pleasure, but mostly about business. Moses offered Leo the opportunity of a lifetime, suggesting that Leo stop working for other people and making them rich, and instead come to work for a newly born family oriented business, which tragically could have been a dream come true, but sadly is remembered as the infamous National Pencil Company located in the blackened heart of Atlanta, Georgia. Defense leader, Luther Rosser in a loud basso voice would describe the factory as a vile hole in his closing argument at the end of the trial August 1913.

Frank thought it over as he experienced that warm tingly feeling of excitement getting a boner in his pants and agreed, after spending 2 weeks enjoying a little taste of Atlanta’s red light district, 23 year old Leo Frank returned to NYC momentarily and then embarked on a long and bitterly cold Atlantic journey, across that dangerous and unforgiving dark-wine Homeric ocean, to the conglomeration historically known at the time as the “German Empire” — papa Rudolph Frank’s and Uncle Moe’s ancestral home land in Europe.

In December 1907 Frank began a 9 month apprenticeship in scold and gruff Germany, to study the art of pencil manufacturing under the directorship of Eberhard Faber.

Today Eberhard Faber is a name found commonly on pencils, pens and erasers. 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.

1908

In August of 1908 Leo M. Frank returned briefly to NYC to kiss and hug his mom and dad, while giving noogies and purple nurples to his sister, then he practically ran out the door and off he left his home in Brooklyn, NY and permanently relocated with his broken-in leather luggage down south to Atlanta, Georgia.

After briefly settling in, on the 10th day of August 1908, Frank was given a medium level entry position at the National Pencil Co., and he embraced it. With hard work and dedication. Leo Frank vigorously moved up the ranks, building trust and developing a reputation for punctuality and meticulousness. In a matter of new york style energy, he shown bright in the South. In time Frank became more than superintendent, and accountant, but part owner of the National Pencil Co. as he gained shares in the company.

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 pencil Lead plant on Bell Street. Frank had a lot of responsibilities, and he worked long hours and his math-science brain were put to good use and as a result his accounting and management skills grew to the point where he could manage the books with his eyes closed.

The Creepy Boss with the Rattling Cash Box

Leo Frank was diligently focused on work flow minutiae and efficiency, and as a result his upward mobility at the pencil factory was reflective and worthy of his skill. HE worked for nearly five years, reaching the apogee of his career while he was at his prime age of 29, just before his arrest, and during this nearly half-decade (August 10th 1908 to Tuesday, April 28th 1913) of service he had developed a general reputation amongst the general public atleast face value wise, as a good chap with promising potential. His rich uncle Moe, was proud of Leo and saw him as the perfect gentleman to command the helm of the factory on the ground.

In general Leo Frank exhibited all the behaviors you would want in a leader, an early bird, punctual, hard working, obsessive compulsive, good at accounting, embezzling and cooking the books properly, and paying attention to details, and keeping 2 sets of books. Leo Frank monitored time cards with a magnifying glass fanatically and could account for every second of every minute and every agorot and shekel, this is precisely why the business was so successful. From it’s humble beginnings in 1908, it was a powerhouse by 1913, primarily because of Leo Frank and the occasional dressing down or scoldings he received from old Sigmund “Ziggy” Montag.

Although Leo Frank was a multitasker at running the show, he had a darkly fiendish and perverted side to him too. The alleged perception of his character amongst a bakers dozen or more of tweenage girls who had labored at the factory, was that Leo Frank was the creepy touchy-feely boss, one whose “claws” came out. Leo Frank got just a wee little bit too close for comfort if you know what I mean, but he wasn’t always so obvious when making innuendos, he was sometimes very subtle and not always so noticeable in his lecherous deviousness. Naturally given Frank’s position in the limelight of the Southern Jewish community, his high leadership position at the factory and his relatively new marriage, tended to ensure Leo Frank was reminded he had to display some semblance of stealthiness. Frank wasn’t a dummy after all, he knew on some level whether consciously and unconsciously, he had to try to maintain some measure of self-control and fertiveness for his frisky affection.

Population and Labor Surge

There was an over abundance of child labor available in Atlanta at the time, and no shortage of naive farmgirls who sought a better life in the “fast” urban cities, far away from the droll existence on the monotonous fields of east bumble-fuck Georgia. The lean muscle, rail thin and bespectacled handsome nerd was always making couched sexual propositions to a careful selection of his pre-teen and teenage girls working at the factory, they claimed Frank made “implied” innuendos, naughty suggestions, lecherous stares, was openly caught sometimes leering at the girls in the dressing room, at times winking and he got a little bit too familiar at times with some of the girls. There were other allegations too, besides aggressive sexual harassment (lasciviousness), the factory was also being used as a rendezvous for in-call and out-call prostitution under the winking eye of Leo Frank. There were after work, during the work week, and Saturday Dionysian stress relief parties involving booty, bubbles and beer. The gloomy poorly lit basement was one of those kinky places couples were allowed to rendezvous. In general the factory could be interpreted as becoming the work hard and play hard fiefdom for Leo Frank lording it over innocent factory girls, but in really, he was just trying to blow off some steam and it got way out of hand.

Concerning the culture at the factory, Even foreman NV Darley, another married man, was seen with a young girl at the picture show on Confederate Memorial Day (Koenigsberg, 2011).

Child Prostitution

The jammed rows of fire hazard, small detached homes on mechanic street, were brothels humping and pumping with activity, that were located just a stones throw away from the Pencil factory and at the time bursting at the seams with child prostitutes, hookers and fresh street meat. Not so ironically, the National Pencil Company factory was once a bed bug ridden sweaty hotel where grandpa dirties and horn dog men of all ages for that matter, could get their rocks off on the side and bring home fresh STD’s to their unfortunate and unsuspecting house-Frau wives at home. The bordellos were sadly filled with poor, naive and worn out farm girls and child laborers who had been ground down in the slave pits of the “meat grinding” mills and the filthy factories for just pennies an hour, and many finally were turned-out and began working for a dollar an hour, that is once they realized turning tricks could earn them a weeks wages at the mills.

Farming, during droughts or floods, weak market sales and down cycles, would cause the major cities of the South to become flooded with families who had young farm girls and boys looking for any work and wages available. Child Prostitution was an unfortunate part of city growing pains caused by surging population growth, where severe poverty was rife, and the testosterone-fueled demands were high. Though on its best day, Atlanta didn’t have even a fraction of the numerical whoring available as NYC did at the time, but pound for pound, Atlanta had more. Wages in the South were a fraction of what they were in the North, this was due to the crisis of poverty and the legacy of losing the Civil War.

Rattling the Money Box, Hey Baby, How About it?

In a slap stick kinda way, Frank would often make inappropriate sexual innuendos with the cash box flush with cash, on top of his office desk. Frank sitting in his swivel chair, with his long skinny bony looking legs spread like a turkey wishbone, slapping his knees together back and forth, he would rattled the swollen cash box against his desk smirking, grinning, winking and saying how bout it? Though sexual harassment was no stranger to women in the history of female labor, it was often the biggest complaint in the factories (People verses Leo Frank, 2009), mills and industrial sweatshops of the time. The number of teend girls sexually molested and raped in these horrendous environments are uncountable. However, the temptation was always there on both sides because of natural hormones. However for testosterone surging men, turning out girls was a game that today is called today in urban areas, “the crown and the jewels”. It’s a game that has existed and been playing out across history, whenever young girls were forced to come into contact and work in a mans world, which is why wine, women, whiskey, and hormones came into play.

Leo Frank’s Character for Lasciviousness was Bad

Frank’s character would be described by more than thirteen of the child laborers, who would testify against him, saying Frank was, what amounted to a lascivious (sexually aggressive) pedophile and some suggested he was a frequent dabbler in whoring. Though the words pedophile, whoring and whoremonger did not exist at the time, these kinds of descriptions were vividly implied during the Leo Frank trial (July 28 to August 25, 26 1913), and later even more affidavits supporting these notions would emerge at the Georgia Supreme Court hearings.

After the trial, Dorsey worked overtime to counter the claims of the defense that the accusations of sexual harassment were false. Dorsey went ahead and secured more affidavits supporting Frank’s pedophilia and naughty tendencies, including one that was most chilling about a young girl that got knocked up by Frank and revealed a very kinky-sexually-aggressive side of Leo Frank…

Leo Frank was into Bruise Biting

Apparently Frank was into sadist sexual biting, he allegedly left teeth marks and bruises on a little teenage girl he had raped one year before he murdered Mary Phagan. Perhaps, the young degenerates DNA has lived on after all, not through his bloated and dumpy, infertile wife, who couldn’t conceive after 3 years of manual procreation, but the sweet, young and naive lass he debauched at the factory circa 1911that no one found out about until late 1913 and early 1914 during Frank’s Georgia Supreme Court Appeals.

At Least Ten to One Ratio: People attesting to Leo Frank’s Good Character vs. Bad Character for Lasciviousness

Though there were just as many, if not more, a lot more people that came forward to say Frank was not a licentious boss with perpetual wood in his pants, taking advantage of his position of power. However, the quantity numbers game could not save Frank in this situation, because of the “quality” and closeness of those speaking out against him. Most of the people who were attesting to Frank’s good character were bussed in from NYC, or knew him outside the factory, so those saying Leo Frank was lascivious was on parity with those saying he was a good guy.

Pedophile, Like accusing people of Racism and Anti-Semitism: Guilty Until Proven Innocent

The accusation people use today when they want to shame, smear and defame you is to call you a racist, antisemite, or pedophile. It’s a sad reality, but in a situation where a girl claims naughty overtures by the bossman, or any man for that matter, he is almost certainly and always socially considered guilty before innocent.

How Many Witnesses Corroborated Leo Frank’s Naughty Tendencies?

Dorsey put the number at 19 verifiers in his closing arguments (Dorsey, August 21, 22, 23 & 25, 1913) making it somewhat virtually impossible to counter the notion that the lascivious tendencies of Leo Frank were not true. Thus it did not matter how many character witnesses Leo Frank’s defense team “bussed down” from New York to Atlanta.

The claims of some of Frank’s female employees essentially amounted to pouring a cup of hemlock on his murder trial and poisoning it beyond recovery, because Leo Frank was not on trial for pedophilia, adultery, sexual harassment or whoring on the Sabbath.

The Leo Frank Defense Team would argue that bringing up Frank’s pedophilia and whoring escapades had no place at the trial, because Frank was not on trial to determine if he was a sexual pervert and predator, however, the prosecution brought it up only after the defense made the blunder of bringing up Leo Frank’s character first. The rule at the time is that you couldn’t challenge the honor of ones character, until the defense brought it up first and they did.

Once the defense gave the green light on the issue of character, Frank’s lascivious and licentious tendencies became fair game and the prosecution went to great lengths to show Frank’s propensities and tendencies for sexual aggression and whoring to support the theory of why he murdered Phagan and it helped the prosecution build their case in a big way. It tended to wipe out over 100 character witnesses Leo Frank had bussed down from the North East, including teachers, and associates from the Pratt Institute of Brooklyn and the uppity Cornell University. It became oddly alien that Frank had to bus in truck loads of Northerners, because the Jury would naturally wonder why, Frank, who lived in the south for 5 years, was unable to bring in more local support from the 500 member Atlanta B’nai B’rith organization of which he was leader or the Temple he was member. After all, 5 years in Atlanta was a decent amount of time as one of the most prominent member of the Southern Jewish Community and Frank’s local showing was average at best.

In Lucille’s July 17, 1909 picture with Leo Frank, Lucy looked her best.

When the Big Boned Lucy was Attractive: July 17th 1909, 6 years later Leo’s Throat Would Be Slashed in the Milledgeville Prison by William Creen

1910 – Marriage of Mr. Leo Max Frank (1884 to 1915) Marries Miss Lucille Selig (1888-1957).

Meet the Seligs: Daughter, Lucille, Mama, Josephine nee Cohen, and Papa, Emil Selig

Earlier in 1910, Leo’s baby sister Marian Frank, became Marian Stern after she had married Otto Stern in NYC, and Frank being older by a couple of years felt the half-joking half-serious social pressures at the time and knew he was overdue to marry.

Frank was fortunately introduced to Lucille Selig after he had arrived. Once Leo Frank settled in and took permanent residence in Atlanta in August of 1908, he began dating Lucy very seriously in 1909. Lucille Selig came from a prominent and wealthy Jewish family of industrialists who two generations earlier had founded the first synagogue in Atlanta.

The Selig-Franks lived in a modest rented home Home 68 East Georgia Avenue.

A Match Made in Heaven: Emil and Josephine

Both born on the same month and day:

Lucille’s father Emil Selig (Jun. 10, 1849 – Mar. 30, 1914) was a salesman for the West Disinfecting Co., a maker of soaps and supplies, before that, he was a liquor salesman. Son of Samsohn Seelig & Sara Loeb. Emil was buried in Oakland cemetery Jewish Section, Block 279, Lot 58, Grave 3.

Mrs. Josephine Loeb-Cohen Selig (Jun. 10, 1862 – Jan. 27, 1933), was a stay at home mother and her daughter Lucille would often spend their time as socialites lounging about, playing cards, and socializing with their sowing-circle of cackling Jewish housewives and gossipy yentas. Magnolia McKnight (Minola) was their personal cook, who also did light cleaning and laundry. Josephine and her daughter(s) lived the good life, the simple life, the pampered patrician life, by comparison to the toiling local crackers as they were called in local parlance (Oney, 2003), because they were light and flakey . Lucy’s (Lucille) zaftig figure and swelling beltline showed that there was no shortage of downright good ole fashioned “house negro” cooking lovingly made by their skinny high yellow “black mammy”, Minola (Magnolia McKnight) as they affectionately called her.

Josephine was buried a Oakland Cemetery, in Jewish Section, Block 279, Lot 58, Grave 2.

Josephine’s parents were Jonas Loeb Cohen (1823 – 1885) and Regina Abraham Cohen (1839 – 1918).

The Odd Couple “Opposites Attract”: Mr. Leo Frank and Miss Lucille Selig

An Engagement and Prelude to a Marriage Destined to Fail:

The colloquial that “opposites attract” tends to apply more to short term relationships and temporary lust, than anything else. Therefore the cliche “opposites attract” is a misnomer to the highest in the bigger picture of life. Every learned psychologist will tell you that studies show those kinds of relationships can tend to be very problematic, unstable, divisive and often don’t work out in the long run, but back then it “didn’t matter” marriage was for the most part a life long venture and people learned how to “suck it up”, not like today where 50%+ of people divorce over the pettiest of squabbles within the first few years. It also helped that life expectancies in the early 20th century were decades shorter than what they are today, but Jews generally have a longer life expectancy when they are affluent.

The marriage of Leo and Lucille, was sadly like too many marriages, eventually destined to fail even if they would have most definitely remained together till the end, but it didn’t really matter for Leo as there was an infinite supply of side action on the sly.

Leo Frank was very much a total opposite of sorts compared to Lucile, and they had more serious differences than things in common. The marriage between them appears to be more political and convenient than anything else, atleast based on some of the things that would come out about what Frank was doing on the down low at the factory, their marriage could not be described as happy by any stretch of the imagination, except on the surface for appearances, but definitely not under the Jewish Royal Marriage veneer.

Meet the Bride: Lucile Loeb-Cohen Selig

Lucille Selig Frank (February 29, 1888 – April 23, 1957) was very much different from Leo Max Frank (1884 – 1915). Lucille “Lucy” Selig was a “red boned” big thick girl, “chunky, but funky” in Jewish frat boy parlance. Lucy was part of the highly assimilated Jewish community of Georgia and very much Southern and sassy, moreover, irregardless of being from a well-to-do and prominent family, she was very much provincial compared to Leo. In fact as any born and raised New Yorker will tell you (which Leo Frank “essentially” was), everyone outside of NYC is provincial.

And Despite being intelligent with a sharp and witty tongue, Lucy’s highest educational level ended at high school, though she was well read and could still hold her own. Lucille was a strong loyal woman to the core, but she did something unexpected in 1954, three years before she died.

Leo Frank was a lean, mean, whoring machine, and slim with that “low body fat” look. Frank was no doubt a high testosterone, heavy drinker, chain smoker, partier and fit to fuck after years of tennis and basketball at his Alma Matter. Frank was very cosmopolitan minded, well traveled, could speak basic German, and as for Hebrew and Yiddish, as a Jew Yorker, those dialects came as part of the natural ethnic enclave culture of Jewish Brooklyn, and to top it all off, Frank rightfully was a bit of an educated snob, the Ivy Leaguer of privilege had the opportunity to study at one of the best schools in the United States and then afterward take an educational “sabbatical”, experiencing first class training overseas in the cold, gruff, serious and no-nonsense Germany. These things were part of what made Leo Frank a cut above the rest.

After the odd-couple married, the big boned Lucille packed on the stereotypical post-marriage stones, her weight slowly swelled up like a hog soothingly grazing at a voluptuous landfill, though she was an extra thick woman that held her weight really well, it still left her looking frog necked, androgynous (like the fictional character “Pat” from the comedy show Saturday Night Live) and dumpy – as the unflattering evolution of her photos clearly shows before and during the Leo Frank affair.

Hillary Clinton Will Tell You Some Women Should Not Have Short Hair

Lucille’s masculine short-butch bull-dyke haircut like her weight issues didn’t help her either, but anyway you slice it or dice it, Leo Frank got bored with Lucy faster than a new york minute, “specially” when the factory was flooded with pre-teen and teenage former-farm-girls blossoming much faster than their city peer counterparts. The teen girl laborers matured years ahead of their time and were nothing like the girls who came from middle class families, who could ensure their daughters wouldn’t have to give up school to work in the “meat grinding” mills.

The thoughts Frank had of mounting that swelling provincial cow he wed gave him the visual notion of a mosquito trying to puncture and drill into a beached walrus with a matted afro. And naturally the fit and skinny Leo Frank took to his past time of buffet whoring more vigorously, when he got tired of hogging, with his “big fat wife” as he called Lucille behind her back (Jim Conley, August 4, 1913).

Steve Oney put’s Leo Frank at 5’6″ and 135lbs (Oney, 2003), but Frank’s passport application puts him at 5’8″ (1907) and so does his College yearbook (1906) that also puts his weight at 145lbs., we can rationally presume he put on 10 to 15lbs.

Frank could hang with the best of them, no pun intended, his liver was clad in iron, well trained and seasoned from years of partying at college and he certainly enjoyed the unlicensed “speakeasies” and underground poker halls of NYC, not to mention swilling the exquisite beer of Germania during his 9 month stint. Moreover, as a whoring aficionado, Frank certainly delighted in sampling some of Germanias Aryan Beast Whores in the half-underground half-above ground red light district there too in 1908. Frank proudly earned his International whoring wings in his fathers, ancestral homeland to crown off his whoring escapades in New York City and eventually his main-staple out-call bordello-ing headquartered on mechanic street in Atlanta.

Frank loved to bogart cigarettes and puff his tabacky pipe, and to wash it all down he guzzled black coffee by the pot during his work days and after the sun had already set and the hands of the big ole clock in his office stuck seven, the evening was inaugurated, it was time to drink whiskey and get frisky, to top off those the long stressful days and it was all just a phone call away.

Nina Formby

A simple phone call to the mischievous and twinkle in her eye Negress Nina Formby, Leo Frank’s favorite mamasan who worked down the street in the area of Atlanta that was jam packed and wall to wall with young meat child brothels. Frank could send order take out delivery directly to his office for mere dollars. Frank loved to sample and dabble in the endless experienced or fresh meat that was constantly churning, and burning through the “blink and look the other way” Atlanta Red Light District.

Frank had some major hormone issues and mental imbalances, its not clear if it was genetic or from excessive consumption (too much substance abuse), or both, however you can tell he had these problems at times, by the numerous pictures of him looking like a psychotic serial killer with his out of orbit big buggy bulging scary creepy eerie freaky eyes which seem to swallow you and even sparkle like black diamonds as Jim Conley described. At times Leo’s eyes appeared hyperthyroid (graves disease?), which might be more revealing about his physiology, psychology and personality than meets the eyes (no pun intended).

Barring Leo Franks Flaws

ASIDE from Franks sneaky-creepy-freaky predatory behavior against his pre-teen and teenage girl employees, after work and weekend drunken debauchery, swings of mentally and hormonally imbalanced states, Frank was actually exactly the kind of guy you wanted to run your factory, because barring his flaws, he was work-hard-play-hard, early to work and late to get home (not always late to get home because of work, though it certainly offered a good excuse). What also made Leo Frank, really valuable is that he kept obsessive-compulsively detailed records, and he monitored employee time cards religiously and fanatically. He was a human calculator and timeclock after nearly 5 years of accounting management at the factory.

Frank could be relied on because he was always punctual, but at a salary of $150 a month, even if he dipped into in the company coffers to finance his bingeing and whoring rampages, it went un-noticed and the embezzlement he conducted didn’t raise any suspicions or eye brows from Moses Frank or Sigmund Montag.

The surviving records and invoices of the National Pencil Company, show money was flowing in like it was going out of style, money in and pencil stock out. The numbers were growing fast and furiously at the factory’s bank account. Sales reports showed they were sometimes churning out $2,500+ to $5,000+ a week in gross orders, not bad by 1913 standards.

Aside from a little diversionary behavior on the side, during occasional evenings, and weekends, putting Leo Frank’s reputation at risk, Frank was mostly liked by his employees and he held the company together for the most part given it’s zillions of complicated variables that had to be juggled. Franks creepy innuendos towards his employees never became an issue, because the girls that got creeped-out would move on, the ones turned out ended up at the brothels and the ones that tolerated it and stayed would put up with it begrudgingly and stoically. The official record has numerous laborer girls who became former employees, and if you think about, it didn’t matter as there was an infinite supply of new young meat that needed a job.

Had Frank not gone off the edge on April 26, 1913, the National Pencil Factory would probably today be remembered as a shimmering icon of industrious glowing Southern Jewish history. Instead, the factory is remembered by Southerners as a vile sweatshop and bastion of pedophilia where little mill girls got tested and some of them turned out. For the Jewish community the factory is remembered as a mini Jewish Holocaust, by a people bent on its own exaggerated victim hood and obsessed with perfidious narcissism against perceived “out groups”, if only they had saved the western wall of the pencil factory before it got demolished, it would have become a spiritual shrine, a Southern wailing wall part 2, for Jews to bob, undulate and weave, to release all of the pain and suffering through prayer the Jewish people have had to endure, all dramatized by an egomaniac people who love to celebrate their own metaphorical “sadomasochistic” instigated persecution.

A Marriage of Politics

Leo Frank engaged in a highly political matrimony, marrying into a prominent Jewish family, one who generations earlier had founded the first synagogue in Georgia. Leo and Lucille were married by Rabbi David Marx on November 30, 1910 in a borderline-gouache pink wedding ceremony at their in-laws gaudy and dated McMansion.

Meet Rabbi David Marx, More than a Rabbi, he was the Catalyst and Lead Activist of Leo Frank’s Emotional Exoneration Movement

The prominent Dr. David Marx was the Rabbi of the Hebrew Benevolent Congregation, a popular Jewish reform synagogue of the highly assimilated Jewish community in the South, he had presided over the Selig-Frank matrimony. Atlanta at the time had the largest Jewish community in the south with several thousand Jewish families who were all highly assimilated and active in Jewish life.

The Insiders Version of the Marital Event:

The wedding was held at 68 East Georgia Avenue, Atlanta, Georgia, the home of the bride’s parents, Mr. Emil Selig and Mrs. Josephine Loeb-Cohen Selig. Rabbi David Marx performed the ceremony and members of Hebrew Benevolent Congregation attended 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 of songs 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.”

After their honeymoon, Lucille and Leo settled in with their in laws the Cohen-Seligs, at 68 East Georgia Avenue, the place of their pink-overload marriage. Lucille and Leo Frank became active members of Georgian Jewish Society. Frank a highly secure, confident, physically active man, with poise, had the highest honor bestowed upon him, he was elected B’nai B’rith president the largest Lodge in the South, over 500 members strong. It made sense that Leo Frank was elected as president of B’nai B’rith, as no nebbish, shivering, insecure and nervous nelly of a man would ever be elected to such an important position. Frank was a man who beamed with inner confidence and strength, he was the superintendent of the National Pencil Factory, he was married into a prominent Jewish family, he was active in Jewish Society and Philanthropy, he was physically fit, so naturally he was a perfect leader and face for the well networked B’nai B’rith.

Noon, April 26th 1913

In a shuttered factory on Confederate Memorial Day, Saturday, April 26, 1913, Leo Frank was wrapping up some last minute paperwork before intending to do some lite afternoon whoring and then call it a day to go to see a baseball game with his brother in law Mr. Ursenbach married to Lucille’s older sister. However, things took a wrong turn.

Thirteen year old Mary Phagan came in to the factory to receive her pittance of pay, $1.20, from a previously shortened week that ended early for Mary the Monday before on April 21st 1913. Phagan was one of Leo Frank’s child laborers at the factory working on his floor, she was bubbly and vivacious according to Phagan-Kean, with lovely blue eyes and well developed for her age. Mary Phagan had been laid off because supplies of brass sheet metal had ran out before the new shipment arrived. The brass was cut and formed into bands attached around the ends of pencils used to hold erasers to the pencils, and when the brass had intermittently ran out, 4 girls in the metal room had to be temporarily laid off until new supplies arrived. Phagan worked in the metal room’s tipping department, using a knurling machine, inserting erasers into the metal bands of the erasers at 7.5 cents an hour.

Dorsey Called it a Species of Coercion

Frank allegedly lured Mary Phagan down the hall from his second floor office into the metal room, which was where Phagan had toiled endlessly for the last 13 months at her workstation. It was theorized based on the testimony of Jim Conley and circumstantial evidence, that Frank convinced Phagan to follow him to the metal room on the false pretense of seeing if the brass metal supplies had arrived or not, and thus determining whether or not Phagan would have her job back on the following Monday morning.

Once Frank was alone inside the metal room with Phagan, Leo quietly closed the door shut and securely locked it, and according to Hugh M. Dorsey in his closing remarks, Leo Frank, using Phagan’s temporary laid-off status and potential job prospects on Monday, April 28, 1913, as a “species” of sexual coercion and leverage (Dorsey, August 1913). Frank bluntly demanded sex from Mary Phagan, implying if she wanted her job back, but when Phagan resisted him and tried to escape, Leo Frank grabbed her, bludgeoned her by pounding her in the face with his angry fist, he lifted her up and slammed her against the handle of the lathe, where her hair broke off and was spotted by an employee Barret et al, on Monday morning, August 28th 1913, and affirmed by numerous other employees who knew Phagan after identified her hair.

Frank then allegedly dragged Phagan into the bathroom of the metal room while she was unconscious, lifted her skirt up, ripped or cut open her underwear and raped her 13 year old virgin, rupturing her hymen and leaving her tornup underwear bloodied according to the physical evidence retrieved from Phagan by the Undertaker and presented at the trial (BOE, 1913). Frank then allegedly grabbed a nearby cord used to tie the boxes of pencils and garroted Phagans tender throat until she suffocated from a lack of oxygen and died of brain damage. A follow-up clean-up job ensued, once Leo regained his composure.

Mary Phagan’s strangulation became a national scandal once its discovery hit the media’s press machines and it became a cause celeb for the Jewish community which feared being disgraced because a high profile member of their tribal community might have committed such a disgraceful act and heinous crime against one of the host populations children.

According to Leo Frank’s own statements and behaviors which some say collectively 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 12:03 to 12:15. Though we will never know for sure, until the invention of a time machine or an identical simulation or our universe comes out near the end of this century, can’t wait to see the previews.

Murderer?

To be fair, Frank might not have had premeditated murder in his heart when his ulterior motives inspired tricking Phagan to go back with him into the metal room to see if the supplies had come in, 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, rape or not (rape-escape), the consequences would have been severe. White people back then did not tolerate the shit that goes on today, it was well known in those days when white people weren’t deracinated from their racial consciousness, their was the risk of mob vigilante justice, which at times included castration with rusty farming tools without anesthesia, followed by lynching for rapists or attempted rapists, and even if Frank did not hypothetically end in that fate because of his social rank and access to other peoples wealth, he knew either way his career, reputation, the factory and marriage would have been permanently ruined if it was found out about.

Mary Phagan’s last breath was at around 12:07 p.m..

After Leo Frank murdered Mary Phagan.

Based on interpretations and recollections of Jim Conley (Connolly) Statements:

Frank asked his roustabout, lackey and watchdog Negro custodian, Jim (James) Conley (also spelled Connolly depending on the primary source), to dump the body of Phagan in the rear of the basement in front of an over sized 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 allegedly asked Connolly to ghost write unheard-of and never before created murder notes, as if they were actually 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 Watchman Newt Lee (The Night Witch)

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 person trying to third-party frame and railroad a violently heinous rape and murder on an innocent Negro (Negro is the term they used back then to describe Afro-Americans), 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 (according to Jim Conley).

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 fully counter or explain away during his August 18, 1913 trial testimony. Newt Lee also told the police that the factory was being used by couples to have evening trysts.

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

Frank allegedly offered a $200 payment for Conley to cremate Phagan, and then took it away when Conley was resistant and then offered it again, but as a potential post-payment if Jim Conley or Connolly would go downstairs stuff the dead little girl 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 Connolly would do the job, he would pay him the money during the week.

Frank gave Connolly a small down payment of cash and smokes,telling him to light up, but Jim Conley later 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, without doing the final dirty work.

Frank sternly, firmly and directly ordered Jim Conley to come back later and finish the clean up job, including specific hints that Jim Conley must finish the makeshift crematorium work of burning Phagans body if he wanted to get the $200 at a later time. Jim Conley didn’t accept or reject the job, but got spooked, left the factory after Leo Frank left and went drinking across the street before going Home and falling asleep – not waking up until mid day Sunday.

Had Jim Conley done what Leo Frank had told him to do, this article might not exist today.

Based on different accounts, 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 nauseous and lost his appetite, stayed for about 10 minutes, didn’t eat anything and then left to go back into town. Frank silently prayed to himself, hoping that Jim Conley was doing the erasure of evidence deed.

Jim Conley never came back, can you blame him?

Frank Had the Worst Case of Butterflies in his Stomach

Leo Frank returned to the factory after his late low calorie “lunch” of allegedly eating nothing and his stomach was twisting in knots. Frank waited around desperately for Jim Conley to return promptly, on the promise of $200 in Greenbacks, that is if Jim would incinerate the body, but when Jim Conley never came back that late afternoon, Frank was Freaking out and became nauseously terrified and more nervous, agitated, frenetic and excited then ever, and in a last pitched act of desperation, Frank snatched the contrived murder notes he had dictated to Jim Conley he had him 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. Although Phagan was a low chunky girl at 4’11” she easily weighed 115 to 120lbs, almost as much as Leo Frank at 5’8″ and 135lbs and the dirt floor basement was absolutely filthy, covered wall to wall in black charred soot and cinders. Frank being a bit of a premadonna was smart and cautiously would have avoided getting unnecessarily dirty and stain himself up with filth and possibly blood in a way he could not explain away when he went home to his big fat wife (as he described his own wife). Had skinny Leo Frank tried to stuff that heavy little girl in the oven, A sarcastic moment… Lucille might say: Honey, why does your handsome suit have some blood and soot stains all over it? Frank might reply: Oh, I don’t know pumpkin, just a busy day on the job at the quiet office on this State holiday violently raping little girls and then strangling them off for good measure so they can’t snitch. Fortunately Frank was wearing a brown suit at work, brown is the best color in the world for hiding stains.

Frank then went back upstairs to possibly resume a poorly and partly consummated clean up job in the metal room that his step-and-fetch-it Jim Conley had not done a very good job, but possibly being a little bit of a premadonna it is unlikely he would have made much effort, for the same reasons he had not wanted to touch the nasty twisted and disheveled body in the basement that his actions in the metal room had earlier created.

If You’re Gonna Murder Someone, At Least Do a Good Clean Up Job

Since they didn’t have CSI at the time, Frank didn’t know any better, his training was in engineering, not forensic murder cover-up. In the second floor metal room there appeared to be a really badly executed clean up job, which included smearing and rubbing haskolene into the blood stains left by Mary Phagans head when she was accidentally dropped on the floor during her removal process. The haskolene smearing appeared to be 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 a major blunder, and Frank should have just had his Step-and-fetch-it Jim Conley use good old fashioned water, soap and a scrub brush. It was likely that Frank had the Janitor do the half-assed clean up job and that Jim did a half-heartedly poor job or was just simply unable to hide the soaked in blood stains on the metal room floor, so they were smeared with haskolene. They botched the clean up job big time. Even worse, no one thought to remove the hair left on the lathe after Leo slammed Mary’s head into it. Employees discovered the hair in the morning of Monday, April 28th 1913, and later Mr. Coleman, Mary Phagan’s step father would identify the hair as being Mary’s. That was another major blunder of Frank, he had the negro lackey sweep the floor and clean the bathroom, but he forgot about the hair that got on the lathe.

4pm: The Night Watch (“Night Witch”) Arrives

Newt Lee, the Tall Slim Negro

When Newt Lee finally arrived at work at a few minutes to 4pm, Frank was bustling with nervousness, frantic, agitated, frenzied and excited. Leo M. Frank in a wild frazzled and pumped-up state practically pushed Lee out of the building. Frank ordered a very tired and resistant Newt Lee to leave the factory, requiring Lee to come back to the factory in about 1.5 to 2.5 hours, have a good time and come back at 6PM or 6:30PM. Frank had one last hope Jim “James” Conley would hopefully come back for the potential $200 bribe offering and final clean up job, but alas, he was not returning that day, he was in drunk and happy lala land back in his “nigger shack” as Steve Oney accurately described what they were called at the time.

“What Time is It?”

Newt Lee made a strong resistant hesitation to leaving the factory, because he was exhausted, he had to come into work an hour earlier at 4pm instead of 5pm on Saturday April 26 1913 by Frank’s request made on Friday April 25 1913. Frank said he wanted to go to the baseball game, which he canceled after he murdered Phagan. When Newt Lee asked Frank if he could please sleep in the packing room for an hour or two, but Frank flatly refused, wouldn’t let him stay and was insistent that Newt Lee leave the factory and go out and have a good time – finally Leo Frank practically forced Newt Lee out of the factory.

Newt Lee left and came back at a few minutes before 6pm , Frank was still in a panicked and nervous state, asking him in a frantic state what time it was, this was coming from the man who spent the last 5 years in front of a large faced time clock and meticulously recorded everything.

6PM

At 6PM, Frank told Newt, “Don’t punch yet!”, saying that he needed to change the time sheet. Newt watched Frank butterfinger and fumble with the changing of the time sheet in the time clock, his hands were bumbling and fumbling with it even after 5 years of changing the time sheets, it took him twice as long as usual. It was something Leo Frank could normally do with his eyes closed, blind folded and one hand tied behind his back, but today for some strange reason he was struggling with it. Newt went downstairs after he punched to smoke a fag, on a crate in the doorway downstairs.

Frank frantically gathered his stuff, put on his hat and goat, then left the building briskly. As Frank exploded out of the door, he became terrified with horror when on the way out he ran into a former employee and bookkeeper named Gantt, and fell backward scared trying to practically crawl backward into the building, but it was too late – he had been spotted by Gantt and Newt Lee who was smoking finishing off his fag looked at Frank perplexedly. Frank knew that Gantt had known Mary and the Phagan family quite well, but Frank was deeply relieved when he discovered that the former employee was there because he wanted to collect his shoes he left there in the factory previously and was not looking for the missing Mary Phagan who at this time had spent nearly 6 hours slow-rotting in the basement.

As the former employee Gantt, had requested to go into the factory to get his shoes, Frank lied in a non-challant manner to the former employee saying he had seen the Negro Jim Conley sweep them out of the factory, Frank was trying to get rid of him without seeming overly concerned, However, Gantt outmaneuvered Frank by saying they were a different color, and Frank who was in no position to get into a heated debate, quickly acquiesced, Frank wanted to “get the hell out dodge” as soon as possible 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 would be discovered by the “Night Witch” during his rounds.

Gantt convinced Frank 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 security rounds.

630PM

When Frank got home at 6:30pm, he did something he had never done before with Newt Lee, he immediately called the factory but no one picked up the phone.

7PM

Then Frank 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 curtly said goodbye and slammed the phone. Frank had never called the factory on a Saturday or any other day for that matter before, to check up on things, according to Newt Lee who worked there for 3 weeks.

Frank also never asked about Gantt.

At the trial, Leo Frank said he called to see what the status was concerning Gantt, but Newt Lee said Frank did not ask about Gantt.

Frank might have been calling the factory twice 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 rear of the basement or at all until the early morning of April 27th 1913 during his visit to the negro toilet to drop the Cosby’s off at the pool, but that was still about 8 hours away.

Ironically, Leo Frank in his August 18 1913 trial testimony would make subtle complaints against Newt Lee for not finding the body sooner, henceforth throwing even more suspicion on his own two never before made phone calls to the factory at 6:30 and 7:00 PM on April 26th 1913.

That evening Frank chain smoked cigarettes and guzzled booze like it was going out of style, he drank the liquor cabinet dry, he was attempting to medicate himself and his copious binging would ensure he would be badly hung over the next day and may have contributed to his inability to hide his guilt-revealing body language or it could have made him appear guilty because he was so worn out, pale, nervous and had a trembling hoarse voice, he would fire off questions at the police before they could answer the questions and fumbled with his shirt and tie.

April 27th 1913

At approximately 3:15 AM in the morning, the Negro Nightwatch named Newt Lee, during his lantern beholden factory rounds, went down to the cellar to use the negro latrine in the rear of the basement, the Cosby’s were knocking, and they were asking if they could use the pool in the back yard, when he finished his business, without wiping he pulled up his draws and pants, and buttoned up, he spotted and discovered the mangled twisted body of a little girl in the gloom of the rear of basement, about 150 feet back.

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, Leo was drunk as a skunk and passed out stone cold, finally giving up on ringing Frank, Newt Lee called the police station at 3:28AM and one of the biggest Jewish scandals of the early 20th century was about to unfold.

Newt loped to the ladder at the beginning of front area of the basement and shimmied back up, he ran up the stairs, 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.

A Phone Call at Half Passed Three in the Morning, the Investigation Begins

The Police and Detectives were on the scene within minutes in their model T fords, they were left with the engines on, 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 lanterns 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 virtually empty and 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 day after the verdict 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.

The undertaker had also arrived afterward 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. 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 and where Mary Phagan’s work station was in relation to them.


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.


Herbert Schiff

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. Herbert 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 together voted unanimously 7 to 0 recommending Leo M. Frank held for murder and 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 as expected.

Deputy Plennie Minor delivered the unanimous verdict of the Coroner’s Inquest Jury to Leo M. Frank who was being held in the infamous Tower. Frank was sitting perusing a local newspaper at the time. Deputy Plennie Minor approached Leo M. Frank and told him about the unanimous verdict of the Inquest Jury, which had ordered that Frank be held for murder and for a more thorough investigation by the Grand Jury! Newt Lee slumped his head dejectedly when the bad news was delivered, however, Leo Frank insolently replied that it was no more than he had expected and continued crackling away and folding at the big sheets of his newspaper.

More than two hundred witnesses, factory workers and affiliates had been subpoenaed providing testimony at the Inquest.

Grand Jury: A Decisive Moment, to Try or Not to Try.

On May 24th 1913, the day the Grand Jury of twenty three men were to vote after a long, grueling and exhaustive review of testimony and evidence concerning Leo M. Frank, they would be short some members. Two Grand Jurors where not present on the day of the vote, one member, a Jewish member went to New York City and M. Beutell, a Gentile, had an important event he was unable to miss, and as these two men were out of town, they were not permitted to vote by absentee ballets, it therefore reduced the Grand Jury from 23 to 21 voting men. The importance of this reduction was that only a majority of 11 instead of the former 12 votes were necessary to indict Leo Frank in this nail biting moment for the police and prosecution that had tirelessly spent a month building their case.

Even though Leo Frank was a businessman partly responsible for creating more than a hundred jobs for the community, they were not sympathetic, because primarily the evidence was solid and overwhelmingly strong against him. With twenty-one men remaining, some close observers may have wondered if the vote was straddling the fence in either direction, and questioned whether the majority of 11 out of 21 would come forward and vote for an indictment or not.

A Close Call?

In a result that set another powerful tone for the future of the case, just as the Coroner’s Inquest Jury vote had done, 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 Frank, it puts serious doubts about the veracity of the Jewish Communities historical and contemporary race-baiting hatred claims over the last 100 years that Leo Frank went to trial because he was Jewish; an innocent Jew railroaded and framed collectively by European-Americans who are innately anti-Jewish and the whole Leo Frank affair was a widespread anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic conspiracy.

Countering the Jewish position, Southerners are wondering why Frank supporters must resort to making false, bigoted and racist blood-libel smears against them for the last 100 years, when the evidence against Frank is solid, and every level of the U.S. legal system sided with the Jury.

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 Frankites, like Steve Oney and Dinnerstein, would claim the outlandish claim the entire Leo Frank case can be reduced to the word of Jim Conley vs. Leo Frank. Though the indictment had absolutely nothing to do with Jim Conley, and after powerful and compelling evidence (without Jim Conley) was presented to the Grand Juryman, the following 21 Grand Jurymen of which four were Jews unanimously signed the bill of indict against Leo Frank (Bill of Indictment, 1913, Atlanta Publishing Company, The Frank Case, 1913; and Mary Phagan Kean, 1987).

The 21 Members of the Grand Jury Unanimously Voting to Indict Leo Frank are:

1. J.H. Beck, Foreman,
2. A.D. Adair, Sr.,
3. F.P.H. Akers,
4. B.F. Bell,
5. J.G. Bell,
6. Col. Benjamin,
7. Wm. E. Besser,
8. C.M. Brown,
9. C.A. Cowles,
10. Walker Danson,
11. G. A. Gershon,
12. S.C. Glass,
13. A.L. Guthman,
14. Chas. Heinz,
15. H.G. Hubbard,
16. R. R. Nash,
17. W.L. Percy,
18. R. A. Redding,
19. R.F. Sams,
20. John D. Wing,
21. Albert Boylston

After the twenty one Jurymen unanimously signed the murder indictment of Leo M. Frank, would be put on trial before a cohort of 13 men, a Judge and a petite Jury of 12 men to decide his fate.

Trial of Leo M. Frank


Judge Leonard Strickland Roan Presiding Over the Leo Frank Murder Trial

The Murder Trial Testimony Captured in The State of Georgia vs. Leo M. Frank, July 28 1913 to August 26 1913

Leo Frank late July 1913 at his Murder Trial

After being virtually silent during nearly three months of incarceration at the tower, Leo Frank finally emerged in fore of the public stage, for a sardine packed courtroom and a drama which would last 29 days. Unknowingly at the time, the Leo Frank trial would become one of those rare cases in U.S. history that would enthrall and capture the imagination and tribal emotions of the masses for more than a century after the whole ordeal. Put before a freshly created Jury and showing signs of being physically sunken, mentally worn out and emotionally weathered, Leo Frank sat in the middle of the court room, not obscured by a table, but fully exposed in full view, flushed and emaciated – a shrunken and empty shell of the former man.

Leo Frank’s perturbly cocked head with a gentle sideways lean exuded a very subtle plea for mercy, pity and sympathy, coming from his eyes impenetrable walls. Throughout the entire trial, Leo Frank’s crossed arms and legs exuded at times lonely, insecure, arrogant and insubordinate body language which gives one the nearly imperceptible psychological feeling of wanting to ask: what are you hiding? More Particularly, Leo Frank’s shifting crossed arms could easily be interpreted as an overtly defensive body language you might expect of a teenage boy who painfully waits in the tension of anticipation just moments before being sternly scolded by an incensed mother. Though psychology was in its infancy at the time (1913), today more than a century later, contemporary psychologists suggest most people unconsciously interpret crossed arms as different mental degrees reflecting defensive, “conflicted” and closed symbolic behavior. Moreover, Leo Frank’s testicle crushing tightly crossed legs gave off the most imperceptible haughty, stimulated and shielded tone.

There was something unnerving about Leo Frank’s body language and appearance at the trial, which seemed entirely out of place, giving one the feeling of an unsettling notion. Frank’s body language seemed out of sync with everyone else in the Courtroom and most certainly the Jury placed in front of him, and as such, Leo Frank’s demeanor whether intentional or unconscious was setting a disadvantageous posture, working against him from the starting block of his trial.

On the witness stand Leo Frank changed his alibi and admitted he was “unconsciously” in the toilets, where Phagan was murdered, so it was an easy conviction.

The Conviction

The Leo M. Frank conviction, along with what was perceived as defamatory portrayal of Jews in the media, became the impetus and directly inspired the founding of the ADL.

Appeals – Majority and Unanimous Decisions during the Appeals Process Affirm the Murder Conviction Given 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) reflecting a snap shot the Leo Frank Defense League movement, 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.

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.

A Request for a New Trial: on 31 October 1913 – Judge Roan denied the motion 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. More specifically on 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 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.

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).

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 4 to 2, with Mr. Justices Holmes and Hughes dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Ultimately Leo M. Frank had fully exhausted completely every possible court appeals process.

Georgia 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.

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.

During the two Year Appeals Process, The National Letter Writing Campaign and Emotional Appeals Process Was in Full Force

With every possible court appeal fully exhausted, Leo M. Frank’s last hope was utilizing the full extent of his 2 year old flush bankroll of his legal defense fund which was made possible by advertising magnate A.D. Lasker and newspaper mogul Adolph Oct the owner of the New York Times. With a swollen treasury of hundreds of thousands of dollars, the culmination of a vast 2 year political bribery and manipulation machine had been unleashed across the United States and even some major cities throughout Europe. The Governor of Georgia had been flooded with more than 10,000 letters in support of Leo M. Frank from people who never read the official trial record in the case which included all the facts, testimony and evidence against Leo Frank. See Brief of Evidence in Primary Sources.

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.

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

Frank had one last hope. The 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.

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. The firm was called: Rosser, Brandon, Slaton & Phillips.

John Marshall Slaton, Clemency, Commuted Leo M. Frank’s death sentence to life in prison.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.

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.

July 17 1915 – Leo Frank Gets Shanked

Frank was attacked at the State Farm Prison in Milledgeville on July 17, 1915, by a fellow convict named Green who cut Leo’s throat with a 7 inch butcher knife. Two inmate doctors got to him in the nick of time and stitched him up. Frank lingered between life and death for several weeks, but finally recovered. The wound never fully healed. The wounds were slow to heal in the boiling and humid heat of the Georgian Summer. Those wounds would split open again a month later, during the culmination of the Leo Frank case.

August 17 1915 – Knights of Mary Phagan, Founding Fathers of the 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.

Lynching of Leo Frank – August 17 1915

See: The Lynching of Leo Frank

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.

The Burial of Leo Frank

Last Name, First Name Location Date of Death
FRANK, LEO 1-E-41-1035-2 8/17/1915

Section: 1
Block: E
Map:
Path: 41
Lot: 1035
Line:
Society:
Grave: 2

Cemetery Gates Close at 4:00 P.M.

Lucille returned to Atlanta where she opened a dress shop and became sporadically active in the work of The Temple.

Lucille’s asexual, dumpy, androgynous, and butch physical appearance, plus her weight issues and having been married to Leo Frank, along with the rumors of extensive extracurricular whoring activities surrounding him, and including the grueling and grissly crime leading to his conviction (two years of higher court affirmation), had tended to severely diminish and limit Lucille’s dateability and sex appeal. Lucille Frank never remarried, and always signed her name as “Mrs. Leo M. Frank,” until her death at age 69. In her later age, her weight seemed to normalize.

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

Lucy Selig died on April 23, 1957 (1888-1957). Even then, in 1957, Frankites have suggested: her family was unsure of burying her in Atlanta, and it wasn’t for another number of years 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 as the life expectancy in the early 20th century was around 40 years and she was very clear about her own ultimate verdict in the Leo Frank Case, her wishes were 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 throughout the whole ordeal, even though her cook Minola Magnolia McKnight had tipped her hand revealing Lucille knew approximately what really happened. The official records indicates Lucy Selig knew the real score, In truth what could Lucille really do?.. other than the only option she really had, cognitive dissonance and double think, her honor, the honor of her family and the Jewish community was on the line. Lucille did what any good loyal wife would do in this situation, stand by her husband – right or wrong.

Infallible Wives and Mothers

We can not hold the same black and white, right or wrong lens to loyal mothers and wives who stand by their sons and husbands invincibly, and we do not live in a black and white world, but one of subtle shades and variations of gray. The moral lens of what is right and wrong, can not be applied to mothers and wives who loyally stand by their children and husbands, even if deep down they know of their guilt. Lucille did what she had to do, which was a hard decision and she should not be negatively judged for fiercely standing faithfully by her husband loyally all the way to the end, even though cosmetically she had to put on veneer pretenses and appearances, pretending publicly her husband Leo Frank was not guilty of the murder. On some level it was probably difficult for Lucy Selig to trick herself into not believing the dozen or more employees who came forward and suggested Frank was a sexual predator, pedophile and whore monger (in essence), some suggesting he was regularly whoring on the Sabbath and trying to turn out girls at the factory.

William J Burns Detective Agency of New York

The alleged persistent theme of the Leo M. Frank Case according to Frankites 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. William Burns had been driven out of Georgia with threats of lynching when it was discovered he was hired by the money bags supporting the Leo Frank defense to try to bribe any witnesses he could and turn the Mary Phagan murder investigation into a carnival side show by publishing grandiose announcements in the local newspapers.

1980’s – Pardon without Exoneration

Alonzo “Lonnie” Mann – 1982 / 1983

March 7, 1982,

A questionable and suspicious chapter 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 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 Frank 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 with the dead body of Mary Phagan and when Alonzo Mann told his family and parents, they allegedly told him to keep quiet about it.

Despite Alonzo Mann alleged “taking a lie detector test” and signing an affidavit, the Alonzo Mann’s story lacks the common sense test, truth and veracity, because at the time “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. It doesn’t make sense and comes off like total bullshit, to be blunt. There was something about Alonzo Mann’s testimony that tends to affirm Jim Conley was called in to work on a holiday to sit in his usual place under the stairwell and watch for Leo Frank.

Alonzo Mann State’s Adds More Evidence that Leo Frank Lied on the Witness Stand

What is more interesting is that Alonzo Mann’s 1980’s revelation, is that he said he saw Jim Conley numerous times in the morning and early afternoon on April 26, 1913, sitting on a box under the stairs on the first floor. Because Mann says it was from the morning till noon, this eye witness account may further prove that Leo Frank lied on the stand on August 18, 1913, about Frank not knowing Jim Conley was sitting on a box under the stairs on the first floor, acting as a watchdog and look out for him. Leo Frank said he had come and gone from the factory in the morning, and would have seen and known about his roustabout lackey waiting there for him, (Read the August 18, 1913, murder trial testimony of Leo Frank)

Alonzo Mann: Dead Man’s Affidavit

However, the ADL of B’nai B’rith, American Jewish Committee, Atlanta Jewish Federation and numerous other Jewish organizations 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.

First Pardon Failed

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

Pardon Achieved: Posthumous Pardon without Exoneration – March 11 1986

Pyrrhic Victory for the Jewish Community

After successful 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.

Jewish Power and Political Correctness Prevailed

On March 11, 1986, the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles granted Frank a pardon, citing the state’s failure to protect him or prosecute his killers, though they stopped short of exonerating Leo M. Frank of the murder of Mary Phagan. 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.

Spun Pardon and Pyrrhic Victory

The Jewish Community saw the Pardon at face value as vindication of Leo Frank, but it was really a Pyrrhic victory. First, because in order to pardon someone of a crime, the person has to be guilty, you can’t pardon someone unless you acknowledge they are guilty. Therefore the guilt of the individual has to be affirmed and in Leo Frank’s case it was indisputable binding settled law. So the Prison Board in the 1980’s basically acknowledged the veracity and truth that Leo M. Frank was guilty, but 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 – there is only one problem with that…

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

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

The Prison Board Affirmed Leo Frank’s Guilt By Proxy

The board affirmed Leo M. Frank’s guilt and quelled the powerful and wealthy Jewish Community, that has for 100 years has been vociferously screeching Leo M. Frank was a “noble and innocent Jew, Framed, railroaded and scapegoated in a vast Anti-Jewish conspiracy”, because in order to Pardon someone they have to have first committed a crime, you have to basically first acknowledge openly or in an unspoken manner, that the individual is guilty of a crime, before they can be pardoned.

References:

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 (Click Here) .

American State Trials Volume X (1918) By John D. Lawson

Oney, Steve (2003), And the Dead Shall Rise.

Koenigsberg, Allen (2011) The Leo Frank Case and Leo Frank Yahoo.com discussion forum, see: http://www.LeoFrankCase.com

Mount Carmel Cemetery NY, where the lynched body of Leo Frank is interred http://www.mountcarmelcemetery.com/

Last Name, First Name Location Society Date of Death
FRANK, LEO 1-E-41-1035-2 NONE 08/17/1915

FRANK, RAY 1-E-41-1035-3 NONE 01/01/1925
FRANK, RUDOLPH 1-E-41-1035-4 None 01/15/1922
FRANK, SARAH 1-E-41-1035-6 None 08/01/1937
STERN, MARIAN 1-E-41-1035-12 None 04/02/1948
STERN, OTTO 1-E-41-1035-11 None 05/26/1963

Fair Usage Law

April 26, 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, Holocaust, Holocaust Denial, Holocaust Revisionism, Israel, Jerusalem, Jewish, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism, Leo Frank, Multicultural News, Race Relations, Racism News, Racist News, White Nationalism, White Supremacism, Zionism  Comments Closed

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.org

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: www.LeoFrank.org).

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: www.LeoFrank.org

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 www.Archive.org). Written by Mary Phagan Kean, the great grand niece of Mary Phagan. A neutral account of the events surrounding the trial of Leo Frank. 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 www.Archive.org and LeoFrank.org) 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 www.LeoFrank.org and you can see what was left out.

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

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 LeoFrank.org.

5. The Atlanta Constitution, April 28 to August 27 1913. One can sign up at www.AJC.com 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 www.AJC.com 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 www.Archive.org and LeoFrank.org). Tom Watson’s best work on the Leo M. Frank case was published in September 1915. Watson’s five works written collectively on the Leo M. Frank topic, provide logical arguments confirming the guilt of Leo M. Frank with superb reasoning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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: www.LeoFrank.org

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

Prerequisites:

Before reading any reviews of “An Unspeakable Crime, The Prosecution and Persecution of Leo Frank” here and on amazon.com, 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:
http://www.lernerbooks.com/anunspeakablecrime/.

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 Amazon.com 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?

Hogwash

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.

I WANT MY TWO DOLLARS!

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.

Dumfounding

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 Amazon.com 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.

Moreover

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:

Amazon.com, Unspeakable Crime Review

An Unspeakable Crime: The Prosecution and Persecution of Leo Frank
By Elaine Marie Alphin http://www.lernerbooks.com/anunspeakablecrime/. 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
me.

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
crime.

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.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT MADE BY DEFENDANT,
LEO M. FRANK.

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.

DEFENDANT Leo M. Frank CLOSES.

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).

http://www.leofrank.org/georgia-archive/B056/D260-B056-1218.JPG

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.

http://www.leofrank.org/georgia-archive/B056/D260-B056-1219.JPG

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.

References:

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 archive.org 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

Tom Watson Caused the Jew Leo Frank to be Lynched on August 17th

In this day of fading ideals anddisappearing land marks, little Mary Phagan’sheroism is an heirloom, than which there isnothing more precious among the old red hillsof Georgia.Sleep, little girl, sleep in your humblegrave but if the angels are good to you in therealms beyond the trouble sunset and theclouded stars, they will let you know […]

Fair Usage Law

May 2, 2011   Posted in: 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, Race Relations, Racism News, Racist News, White Nationalism, White Supremacism, Zionism  Comments Closed

Leo Frank Case: State’s Exhibit B (Ignored by Leo Frank Partisans)

Monday, April 28 1913A Brief Analysis of State’s Exhibit B, followed by the Official Documented Statement Included in the Brief of Evidence, 1913. On Monday morning at 8 AM, April 28th 1913, more than a day after the discovery of the strangled body of Mary Phagan was found dumped on a cinder and sawdust pile […]

Fair Usage Law

May 2, 2011   Posted in: Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism, Leo Frank, Race Relations, Racism News, White Nationalism, White Supremacism, Zionism  Comments Closed

Book Review: The Murder of Little Mary Phagan (Required Reading)

Mary Phagan Kean, a Southern Historian and self-professed military brat, is one of those very rare and insightful historian scholars. Not only prodigiously knowledgeable about the subject of the early 20th century murder of Mary Anne Phagan and lynching of Leo Max Frank, but one willing to emotionally distance herself from the subject and consider […]

Fair Usage Law

April 26, 2011   Posted in: Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, Ashkenazi, B'nai B'rith, Discrimination News, 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, West Bank, White Nationalism, White Supremacism, Zionism  Comments Closed

Jewish and Gentile Relations on the Brink: The Murder of Little Mary Phagan 98 years ago April 26, 1913.

The Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean, Publisher: New Horizon Press; 1st edition (September 15, 1989). Brief Biography of Leo FrankLeo Frank was born in Cuero, Texas on April 17, 1884. His family moved 3 months after his birth to Brooklyn, NY, where Frank was raised and educated, before attending college at […]

Fair Usage Law

April 26, 2011   Posted in: Anne Frank, Anti Racism, Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, Ashkenazi, B'nai B'rith, Christian, Discrimination News, Holocaust, Holocaust Denial, Holocaust Revisionism, Jewish, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism, Leo Frank, Multicultural News, Race Relations, Racism News, White Nationalism, White Supremacism, Zionism  Comments Closed

98 Years Ago in Jewish History, April 26: The Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Leo Max Frank, on April 26, 1913.

Corporate Standard of the National Pencil Co. Circa 1913 The National Pencil Company was conceived in the Jewish imagination of 1907, and born on April 8th, 1908. The business became terminally ill Monday, April 28, 1913, when early-bird employees of factory found a tress of what looked like it could be Mary Phagan’s hair on […]

Fair Usage Law

April 26, 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, Holocaust, Holocaust Denial, Holocaust Revisionism, Israel, Jerusalem, Jewish, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism, Leo Frank, Multicultural News, Race Relations, Racism News, Racist News, White Nationalism, White Supremacism, Zionism  Comments Closed

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


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."