Talk:Leo Frank

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Ridiculous Bias

This entire article needs to be rewritten. The man was guilty. 12 white jurors would gladly have hanged a negro instead of a Jew at that time. There must have been a lot of evidence against him. Instead of the endless discussions of anti-semitism, why not focus on the facts?

Use the term "black" not "negro". We're not in 1915, anymore jack. You're right though, this article does need rewriting. This here sentence for one, is profoundly racist:

       "Phagan's body was so dirty that some officers initially believed she was black, and they had   
        to pull down one of her stockings to verify her race."

No one can justify this kind of ignorance.


Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

An interesting to point out in the article is that the case, aparting from leading to the founding of the ADL, also sparked the revival of the Klan, now with a pronounced anti-Jewish, anti-Catholic, and anti-immigrant stance. I would do it but I'm just too tired. Danny 02:57, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Done. -- Viajero 12:12, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"ashes of populism"? Populism says it's alive and well. (The verb I'd prefer is admits; that article tastes of an anti POV.) Kwantus 21:34, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

Wikipedia even censors the discussion page. DBaba pulls the second highest Leo Frank traffic website on the internet


[edit] Mary Phagan's family

Perhaps someone could add a paragraph regarding Mary Phagan's family's take on the situation. As I've read elsewhere, while they were convinced of Leo Frank's guilt, they stated on several occasions they had no connection to the Knights of Mary Phagan nor did they support/agree with the revitalized KKK.

Mary's great-grandneice, Mary Phagan Kean, has written a book, The Murder of Little Mary Phagan, where she details her research into the case. It's pretty incredible that someone can compile that much information and still think Frank is guilty. She also discredits Alonzo Mann's deathbed confession from 1982 with little more evidence than "because I said so," so I guess her insistence of Frank's guilt shouldn't come as any real surprise. However, this book might be worth mentioning in a paragraph about the Phagan family's view. --Birdhombre 18:06, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the very useful suggestions. I added some text. -- Viajero 19:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

it sounds like that book needs to be converted into HTML, DOC, PDF etc... I will contact the right people to see that this solution to the problem is brought to the web net.

Lokison 07:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Impartial Additions / Comments

I recently attempted to provide some facts and/or comments about this case because I find that most of the reporting on this case has been somewhat selective. It really is not as clear cut a case as most writers seem to think. Viajero has written me a message suggesting that I may have used some editiorial comments. I revised my additions several times to avoid this; but I suppose I might have done a better job. At any rate, the quote from Mr. Busch which uses the phrase "the most one can say is" happens to be a direct quote from his book "Guilty or Not Guilty." This is not an editorial comment. Robbchadwick 11:53, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


[edit] There is no question that Leo Frank was guilty

Conley was an eye witness. Leo was a leach, constantly abusing his child employees, he killed Mary, tried to frame Newt Lee (watchman). His legal team bought off Leo's cook, his shift foreman, his office boy (Lorenzo Mann), the brothel madame,etc etc. When they hung him, his last words were "I will not disgrace my family with a confession".

Can you please post a source for Leo's last words? Thank you. Jtpaladin 17:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is Wikipedia's darkest hour

The unmitigated bias in this Leo Frank article is disgraceful. How the f*** do you remove a famous 90 yr old ballad?

I have seen twenty instances of pro-Jewish bias and it just degrades the total integrity of this Wikipedia website.


What ballad is it to which you're referring? Also, as has been noted, the article is essentially plagiarized, lacks appropriate citations, is clearly one-sided, lacks focus as to what this article is about, i.e. Is it about Leo Frank's life? His trial? His role in the rise of the ADL? His lack of justice because of his lynching? Etc.? I posted some info regarding what transpired between Leo and those that were about to lynch him and it seems that Leo regretted what he did (which would make him guilty) but refused to at least even defend himself by making any last statements protesting not only his guilty conviction but also a protestation regarding his rapidly approaching lynching. Clearly, this article is in desperate need of updating, clarification, and balance. Jtpaladin 17:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] comments to Robbchadwick

Robbchadwick, as I mentioned on your talk page, I have tweaked your recent additions a bit. I removed these lines:

Unfortunately, Alonzo Mann's assertion that he saw Jim Conley carrying the body of Mary Phagan may not shed much new light on this case. Jim Conley was prosecuted for being an accessory after fact at the time of the murder and served prison time for that offense.

First, presumably Conley was convicted for being a "watchout", not for moving the body around. Second, this statement has an editorial POV and needs to be attributed to someone. Do you have a source for it?

Most of the literature written since the middle of the twentieth century has focused on the religious prejudice surrounding the case, without presenting the considerable evidence that really did implicate Leo Frank.

Likewise, it would be better to attribute this to someone. Do you have a source for it?

It is indeed a tragedy that Leo Frank was the victim of religious prejudice, but that fact alone cannot determine his innocence.

This, as you perhaps can see by now, is clearly an editorial standpoint that likewise needs to be attributed or left out.

Thanks, -- Viajero 12:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mary Phagan was ONLY TWELVE YEARS OLD when she was killed. We can argue all we want about whether Frank was convicted as a result of anti-Semitic sentiment -- or whether he cynically tried to use anti-black prejudice to falsely implicate the black janitor -- but you CAN at least get the basic facts right.

http://www.ourgeorgiahistory.com/chronpop/584

Mary Phagan born June 1, 1900 - died April 26, 1913. That's TWELVE, not thirteen. I changed it where possible, but the error appears in the introductory section that I am unable to edit. Please fix the error. 65.17.23.46 22:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments regarding Jim Conley's conviction, etc.

Actually, Jim Conley was convicted for being an accessory AFTER the fact. He claimed to have acted as a lookout while Leo Frank entertained young ladies on a number of occassions; but he admitted helping Leo Frank move the body and write the notes after the murder; and this is why he was convicted as an accessory and served about a year, I believe, on the chain gang.

By the way, not that it makes any difference since I am not a member of the newsroom, but I work for The Tennessean in Nashville which actually broke the story of Alonzo Mann's "confession" back in the 1980's. About the only thing Alonzo Mann contributed to what was already known is that (if his statement is totally accurate) Jim Conley was alone with the body, while Conley had stated that he helped Leo Frank move the body in the elevator. (Frankly, I am just not so sure we can put a lot of faith in the memory of a 13 year old boy 6o+ years later. Is it possible that as a young white boy, Mann saw a large black man, whom he had been taught to fear, carrying a dead body and failed to notice there was a skinny white man there as well?) At any rate, Alonzo Mann's testimony was not that revealing. Mary Phagan was already dead when Alonzo Mann saw Jim Conley with the body. It really didn't change things all that much whether Jim Conley helped move the body alone or was accompanied by Leo Frank. Leo Frank was his boss; and according to him, he helped move the body and write the notes under orders from his boss. It seems that the State of Georgia saw it that way when they considered Alonzo Mann's statement.

Let me state for the record that I am a white male without any religious affiliation. However, I absolutely abhor any discrimination based on race or religion. It is wrong for a person's race or religious beliefs to have any effect whatsoever on the outcome of a legal proceeding. My statement that most of the written material on this case within the last fifty years has totally focused on anti-semitism instead of the murder and the evidence itself is simply an observation gathered by having read what was written early in the 20th century compared to what was written in the last half of the century. The facts of the case, especially the ones that are negative to Leo Frank, seem to have been lost. Anti-semitism certainly did rear it's ugly head in this case; but prejudice toward Jewish people was not generally that great in Atlanta at the time of this crime. Perhaps during the trial, anti-semitism did increase; but it is an absolute fact that prejudice and distrust toward African Americans was much more prevalent. I can't help believing that a white prosecutor and twelve white male jurors in 1913 Atlanta must have felt the evidence quite compelling to accept the word of an African American semi-literate man over that of a well educated, successful white businessman, Jewish or not.

Thanks. Robbchadwick 14:13, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Carlos Porter Is On Leo Frank's Side

In an odd turn of events the world famous 'Holocaust Revisionists' says Leo Frank was innocent!

[edit] Right aligned lead image

The right-aligned image makes it easier to read the page, with the TOC on the left below, and the next image alternating to the left. Does anyone have any problems with this design? --Viriditas | Talk 08:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] plagiarism

Some of the text seems to have been plagiarized from

http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/leofrank.htm

--Bcrowell 02:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems to be just the "Antecedents" section that was plagiarized. I've deleted the plagiarized text.--Bcrowell 03:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

There's more plagiarized text, taken from

http://gaslight.mtroyal.ca/penclfct.htm

I've deleted some more. --Bcrowell 03:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I eventually found out that almost the entire article was plagiarized from these two sources.--Bcrowell 15:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

With very few citations, most if not all this article must have been plagiarized. Jtpaladin 16:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] starting on a new version

I've started writing a new version to replace the plagiarized one:

Leo Frank/Temp

--Bcrowell 15:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I've replaced the plagiarized and copyright-violating version with a new one written from scratch. Copyediting and fact checking would be very helpful.--Bcrowell 04:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Your attempt to replace the article suffered from jaids and died. sorry that wont work here. You dont see the bigger picture of how things work here. Lokison 07:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conley's confessions?

At

http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/leofrank.htm ,

there are statements that Conley confessed to both his cellmate and his girlfriend about murdering Phagan, and that these were part of what convinced Slaton to commute Frank's sentence. However, I can't seem to find any information about these confessions in Oney's book. Can anyone shed any light on the matter?--Bcrowell 05:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I got in touch with Charles Pou, which was where I saw the statements about the confessions. His web site is one of the two that was plagiarized in the old version of the article, and I explained that to him. He doesn't remember the sources, but he's going to see if he can dig them up.--Bcrowell 23:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Pou spent some time searching for his source for those statements, and couldn't find them, so he's taken them off of his own web site. I've removed them from the article.--Bcrowell 16:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of Conley or Frank's guilt?

I think the article should have a discussion briefly summarizing the arguments that we can make, now, about whether Conley killed Phagan by himself, or whether Frank did it and Conley just helped him dispose of the body. I came into this believing that there was no question that Conley was guilty and Frank innocent. However, it doesn't seem so clearcut to me now. There's a huge amount of evidence, a lot of it is contradictory, and it's hard to make sense of it all. A lot of it, like Alonzo Mann's belated statement, incriminates Conley, but doesn't necessarily show Frank wasn't involved. I don't think Frank had a fair trial, and I don't think the jury should have found him guilty based on the evidence presented at the trial, but I think it would be helpful for the article to have a clear, well thought out summary of the arguments that can be made in hindsight about whether Frank was completely innocent. I guess if the confessions Pou talks about are documented, and if they show clearly that Conley killed Phagan, rather than just being involved after her murder, that would be very strong evidence. Otherwise...? Opinions?--Bcrowell 00:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

It's a complicated case, some points could be clearer maybe, the article discusses the Conley/Frank question and points towards Conley as the culprit, I think that　part is basically ok. What is more interesting than who did it, is the media involvement and the lynching. What about the people who lynched Frank? It says they were investigated... were they arrested? Ben T/C 11:50, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Nobody was ever arrested, and I don't think there was anything but a pro-forma investigation. I'll clarify that part.--Bcrowell 15:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
From the article: "Dorsey was also the solicitor general for the Blue Ridge Circuit, who would theoretically have been in charge of prosecuting the lynchers for murder (none of whom were ever even indicted)." --Bcrowell 15:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. Couldn't believe it when I first read it. One more question: John Tucker Dorsey and Hugh Dorsey, were they relatives? Which one of them was the solicitor general for the Blue Ridge Circuit? Ben T/C 06:14, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Ah, good question. I've changed the text to clarify that it was JT Dorsey. I don't know if they were related.--Bcrowell 15:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this article biased towards Leo Frank?

This article has a lot of bias in it benefiting Leo Frank, why is it that anytime a topic involves jews or judaism their is extensive bias in favor of jews and judaism, why are there no checks and balances on wikipedia and why are jews the only group on wikipedia that no fair and balanced articles are allowed if they might hurt jewish sensitivities?

  • Possibly because many of the Wikipedians are actually Hillel-types?
  • Because when any Jew is mentioned in a negative light, the media come out with the big stick of "anti-semitism" to the point that that phrase is meaningless.
  • Just because this discussion chronically arises and causes such strife is evidence of a continuous white-washing of the event.
  • Look at murderers row: Son of Sam, Leo Frank, the Columbine duo, and now the trio that got caught burning churches...all Jewish.
Ironic that this comment itself should display the very double-standard which rightly makes a lot of Jewish people nervous about hatred toward them. -J21
Look at the topic and the people involved and remember who ever is in power has the right to prevent criticism or even worse "the truth", imagine if we had all the evidence of both sides presented on the article and imagine if we gave independent thinking people the ability to come to their own conclusions. Such a dangerous thought! Just watch how fast dangerous thoughts like that get you banned from here and then you will know the answer.


Boy, do you ever seem to enjoy taking on the same mantle of victimhood that so infuriates you when you think that Jews try to assume it. No one is taking away your right to spew whatever hatred you think passes for the "truth," but your allegations of "extensive bias in favor of jews and judaism" and that "jews the only group on wikipedia that no fair and balanced articles are allowed" smack of your myopic paranoia. You are the one with an agenda to carry out, not some amorphous yet threatening group of "the Jews," and the fact that you claim to be defending against bias is heavily ironic. Your instruction to "Look at murderers row: Son of Sam, Leo Frank, the Columbine duo, and now the trio that got caught burning churches...all Jewish" is inflamatory and ludicrous, first because it is pointless and proves nothing about either Jews or murders, and second, because you've gotten a bunch of them wrong: neither Eric Harris (of Columbine notoriety), nor any of the three recent church-burners were/are Jewish, and if you READ the relevant article, you'd note that the definition of Leo Frank as a murderer is a historically-disputed one. ---130.160.122.200 18:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Lokison 08:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this comment so biased against Jews?

[edit] The Leo Frank Story Suffers From Continuous Re-Writes

Unfortunately, the story of Leo Frank and the murder of Mary Phagan is a perfect example of revised history. If one goes back to the time of the crime and reads what was written then and up to about the middle of the 20th century, it is clear that determining the actual murderer of Mary Phagan is a very difficult (probably impossible) task. Since the middle of the 20th century, almost everything written or dramatized about this case has focused on anti-semitism. People who write about this crime seem to ignore facts which point to Mr. Frank's possible guilt. Even worse, when someone else attempts to draw attention to questionable points, these writers either eliminate those ideas (as is the case with the Wikipedia article) or they label the dissenter a prejudiced person or an ignorant southerner.

I am a southerner; but I am neither ignorant nor prejudiced. The fact is that some facts do point to Frank's guilt. Some other facts point to his innocence. After all this time, his absolute guilt or innocence will almost certainly never be proven. Certainly Alonzo Mann's belated revelations of the 1980's proved absolutely nothing since we already knew that Jim Conley assisted Leo Frank in moving the body. He was convicted of the offense and served prison time for his involvement. Whether he moved the body WITH Leo Frank's help or simply did so at the instruction of Mr. Frank is really not very relevant. Frank was his boss; and that was that.

Also, people go on and on about Governor Slaton and his conscience and difficulty with commuting Leo Frank's sentence to life in prison. What you don't hear anymore is that Governor Slaton had been (and probably still was) the law partner of Leo Frank's defense attorney. How's that for a conflict of interest? (Having said this let me also say that he probably did do the right thing, since Leo Frank's guilt really is at question.)

I could go on and on; but I won't. Like the previous poster, I SINCERELY DO have a problem with these people who want to make it all about Leo Frank and anti-semitism. This is about the murder of a little girl; and all the facts deserve to be out there for people to read. STOP eliminating what you don't like with feeble excuses about plagiarism. (If someone has commited plagiarism, just note the source!) No reasonable person is going to read this saga and come away without doubts about Leo Frank's guilt, even if all the facts are there. I'd be the first to say he probably should not have been convicted, because, in my opinion, there was reasonable doubt. (However he was not certainly innocent either.) He certainly should not have been lynched; and any reasonable person will agree with that.

Someone really needs to go back and insert facts into this article. I have tried previously only to have the article REVISED because someone didn't like the facts. Robbchadwick 00:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Response Below Is From Someone Who Believes In Leo Frank's Absolute Guilt

The case is absolutely open and shut that leo frank did it and what was an outrage was him being pardoned for what he did. "death to all child rapists and murderers" was the law of the land back then. I have never in my entire life read an article so obviously biased in leo franks behalf, you should be ashamed of yourself for making wikipedia a den of puffing and obfuscation. What a true shame, how can you live with yourselves lying over the death of a small female child. I ask the moderators to seriously investigate this case and bring forward all the evidence, not the bias or more pro-leo frank and no anti-leo frank. Look at the ratio honestly of pro and anti, it becomes clear how terrible the bias POV is in leo franks favor. Lokison 08:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Mary Phagan song, can I have permission to add it to the article?

I found this song on solargeneral.com/music but everytime I add something from solargeneral.com I get accused of trying to promote the site, which I am not, however it has a lot of concentrated impossible to find, unique and one of a kind works which can be found no where else in the world.

http://www.solargeneral.com/music/maryphagan/littlemary.mp3

I wanted to ask the permission of those people who will in a nano-second delete this link. Can we discuss this song? Because it brought tears to my eyes. Why would you try to block something like this from being added to the Mary Phagan article?

OK, I added the song, lets count how many nanoseconds it takes to be removed by the cabal. It's 5am EST right now

This is what I added to the Mary Phagan Article

  • http://www.solargeneral.com/music/maryphagan/littlemary.mp3 The Mary Phagan Song: A very old song preserved in MP3 about Mary Phagan.


Lokison 10:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Censorship and bias: SlimVirgin deleted the link to this song

Here is the Mary Phagan song

  • http://www.solargeneral.com/music/maryphagan/littlemary.mp3 The Mary Phagan Song: A very old song preserved in MP3 about Mary Phagan.

What do I need to do to bring this to arbitration?

[edit] Unconscionable bias in Mary Phagan Article

Every source and link is biased in favor of Leo Frank. Unfair, JPOV translate it.

Lokison 10:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs considerable work.

After reading this article, it is heavily POV, uses extremely sensationalized wording ("descended like locusts"?), and some of the sources are questionable at best. This article is so heavily biased in Leo Frank's favor that it will take a considerable renovation to even get this up to a reasonable NPOV standard. I wish people with the requisite knowledge of history will help renovate this article. If there's nobody out there, I can help do research and alter the wording when I get some time. As it stands now, this isn't acceptable for such a large article. --BWD (talk) 05:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I got so wrapped up in the article's focus on the murder that I forgot the article was about Leo Frank. That is probably an indication that the murder and this article need to be separated into two articles. --BWD (talk) 05:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ==================================

The link to the little Mary song at: http://www.solargeneral.com/music/maryphagan/littlemary.mp3 is a link to the very anti-Semitic and white liberation orientated Stormfront web site. Although the song is historic, it was very much a part of the biased material put out at the time to make a case for "the evil of all Jews". This should be noted as such.

The above unsigned comment was added by Revision as of 00:27, 8 May 2006 Ou tis (Talk | contribs)

[edit] ==================================

[edit] Mary Phagan's age

How old was Mary Phagan when she was killed? The article states both 12 and 13 in different places. --Pascal666 11:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Mary Phagan was 12 yrs old. She was born on 6/1/1900 and died on 4/26/1913

[edit] Disputed tag now on section on Jim Conley

I will leave this tag up for a day or two and then remove the entire section because it essentially tries and convicts an African American, in the most racist terms, of murder. It is pure viewpoint and it is not sourced. If anyone wants to clean it up, please do. I see problems with most of the article in that there is a a tremendous amount of opinin and yet nothing, except what I added today, is sourced. This violates Wikipedia rules for citation and NPOV. The claims in this article lack citations and are therefore not verifiable, which violates another Wikipedia policy. The article also slants in the direction of trying to prove what a fine upstanding upper class fellow was Leo Frank. I'm sure he was a nice person but just because he was educated or upper class or a nice guy -- but all of that is over done, making the article look very much like it is written by folks with an axe to grind. Skywriter 14:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second Disputed tag placed on second section on Conley

I do not know where this section came from. Its viewpoint is unmistakable and yet it is not sourced. It is not verifiable. It is most certainly biased. Let's take this point by point. 1. a "nigger lawyer"? is this the 21st century? why is this on Wikipedia? 2. a newspaper runs a banner headline on its front page with a subheading suggesting that a man, Conley, is a key suspect. 3. that same newspaper pays the legal fees for Conley. 4. the lawyer bought and paid for by the newspaper stalks his own client to obtain his fingerprints to find evidence of guilt? Is this the United States where the accused are entitled to fair representation that is absent conflict of interest? Is this the Wikipedia that is supposed to be fair and unbiased? 5. this Wikipedia article seems to take the position that the wrong man was lynched.

Evidence of Conley's guilt Conley's lawyer William Smith began to be suspicious of his own client. He learned that there were fingerprints on the basement door that had never been compared with Conley's. He twice attempted to get Conley's fingerprints by tricking him, but failed. The Georgian and the Constitution ran headlines saying "CONLEY IS GUILTY SAYS HIS LAWYER." The Jeffersonian virulently attacked Smith, and hinted at the possibility of lynching, writing, "LET W.M. SMITH BE CAREFUL!" A clearcut lie was detected in Conley's testimony concerning a pile of feces at the bottom of an elevator shaft, which became a major factual issue because according to the prosecution's theory, it should have been mashed by the elevator, but was not. There is some evidence pointing to Conley as the murderer:...

I have one more thing to say. This is the single most prejudiced article I have ever seen on Wikipedia. That there was a terrible wrong done to one man, Leo Frank, there is no question. To turn his murder into an attack against another is sheer, unsubstantiated slander. That there was no fairness and no justice and that there were prejudiced newspapers, there is no question. That those newspapers whipped up public opinion against blacks and Jews, there's no doubt about that either. That is the story, not who murdered a young girl. That we may never know.

The central issue with this article is that it violates central tenets of Wikipedia: verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research.

Not one alleged fact in this article is sourced except this. The only sourcing of alleged facts in the article points to a song. Songs are not acceptable confirmation of facts. A brief bibliography does not substitute for sourcing within the article.

Wikipedia has standards. They are not being enforced here. This is not a whim. It is policy. This page is flagged for the absence of specific citations. Citing sources will be a service to readers, especially student readers who will know that we enforce policy against sloppy research techniques. Skywriter 15:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

One user removed the tag from the section on Conley. Please do not remove totally disputed tag without discussion. This section is highly controversial. If you wish to discuss it, please do so. The reasons for the tag are part of this record. Skywriter 17:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Any reworking of this article should take into account that the import of this article is not to get to the bottom of who killed the young girl. That is not possible. Rather it is to reliably describe a time of lawlessness. Please take into account that many of the thousands of black men lynched in the United States were falsely accused of crime. If you do not believe that, please say so, and I will provide references to demonstrate facts to support the statement. Fully 80 percent of the people who were lynched during the period statistics were kept were African American.

This article is weakened by all the claims of what a nice guy was Leo Frank. Factual biographical details are more persuasive than the argument, which exists now below the surface in this article, that he ran in the right circles and therefore did not deserve to be lynched. Nobody deserves to be lynched. It is lawlessnes, pure and simple, an act of murder by a mob. Lastly, it appears to me that this and the accompanying pages appear to be both factual and knowledgable. http://www.leofranklynchers.com/addendum.html

If this were a parlor game of Who killed Mary Phagan?, my money would immediately be placed on the editor of the Georgian who bought Conley's lawyer, then got the lawyer to betray Conley. As long as this case is purely about circumstantial evidence, a strong case can be made that the editor of the Georgian had the most motive for raping the young probable virgin, killing her, framing a Jew, and then reframing a black man for the crimes. Scapegoating when it is not recognized as such is a hell of a story that sells a hell of a lot of newspapers. Skywriter 05:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I vigorously disagree with the comments by Robbchadwick who studiously ignores the role of the press in the sordid murder of Leo Frank, and betrayal of Conley who also was robbed of his civil rights not so much by the courts but by a deeply racist newspaper. This is a story about the murder of Leo Frank by a mob. Whether he was guilty or innocent of killing a young girl is beside the point-- because of what happened to him. When there's such a complete breakdown of law and order, that is what of historical interest. All of the whodunnit parlor games in the world won't change that. If he had been convicted and executed legally, then there might have been an article proving whether he did or did not do it. But that did not happen. What did happen is that justice was aborted by a murderous mob. That should be the emphasis of this article, and the contributions by the dead girl's grand niece, whose given name was Mary Phagan, concerning who killed Leo Frank become all the more important. Phagan's family, it seems, recognizes the wrong that was done to Leo Frank. Let's see if Wikipedia can frame the larger picture in place of playing the parlor game.Skywriter 05:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have a separate article on Mary Phagan, then, to discuss the investigation of her murder. I do think the trial is a very important piece of any biography on Leo Frank, but by compiling all that information here, it removes some emphasis from the original victim, i.e. Mary. It's akin to all the people who talk about "the O.J. Simpson trial" rather than "the search for Nichole Brown Simpson's murderer" (an investigation that was never completed once OJ was acquitted). --Birdhombre 05:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I do not ignore the role of the press in this case. As with many other cases, the press certainly produced an effect on the outcome of the case and the aftermath. However, this does not change the facts surrounding the murder; and to discuss Leo Frank without a full discussion of the murder would be ridiculous. It was only because of his association with this crime that we even remember him today. I do not know if Leo Frank was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If I had been on the jury I probably would have voted to acquit because I would have had doubts. However, I would not have been certain of his innocence either; and at the time even the most liberal people who honestly looked at the case felt the same. The evidence available was simply very conflicting. Books and articles written by scholars of the time and even later (such as Francis X. Busch) were very fair to Mr. Frank; but most of them could not reach a definite conclusion.It was only after the middle part of the 20th century that all attention became focused on anti-semitism. (For that matter if you go back and honestly look at the period of time in question, anti-semitism really wasn't that prevalent in Atlanta. The real cause of the bitter feelings of the people of Atlanta surrounded the influence exerted by The New York Times & other publications. This was viewed as interference from outsiders. Of course, human nature being what it is, some people did use Mr. Franks religion in their remarks about him; but this was not something that was very prevalent at the time of his arrest. Anti-semitism certainly increased during the trial and afterward; but it was not the root cause of the problem.) RobbChadwick 16:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Politicians

why isnt taking part in a lynching part of their bios on wikipedia. sounds important and based on facts--85.180.63.229 02:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parade - Theatre

Why not add Parade as a link to this article? Although it may not correctly portray the story of Leo Frank correctly, it does give you an insight into his pain - and that of Lucille Frank and also the fall of Jack Slaton. It also has a great musical score - not that it really matters but I do believe that such a link would be relevant.

I certainly support the inclusion of "Parade" as related to the story of Mary Phagan and Leo Frank. However, it is very important that people understand that this play, as well as a television mini-series from the 1980's, were very loose with the facts of this case. Perhaps, the authors of these productions simply did not go back very far in their research; but both these productions certainly lean very heavily toward the innocence of Leo Frank without regard to some of the less clear-cut aspects of the case. RobbChadwick 17:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

The article is clearly biased in favor of Frank, a convicted pedophile and child rapist, while at the same time assuming the guilt of Conley, an African-American, and attempting to shift the blame on him. That is just goddamn sick and racist, especially in this day and age. Let the facts speak for themselves and stop injecting your racist opinions into this article. Szygny 15:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's what's happening. And the facts are speaking for themselves. IronDuke 16:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you think you could at least take a few minutes to explain yourself and your reversion???? Would that be asking too much???? Szygny 11:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The overwhelming consensus is that there is no direct evidence of Frank's guilt, thus "circumstantial." Also, please do not remove legitimate categories. Thanks. IronDuke 19:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Where are your sources??? The article itself is missing a TON of sources, so please back up your claims. Szygny 21:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Plus, reading the bits where you claim show "overwhelming" scholarly evidence - well, I don't see any references - just claims. I wonder what the agenda here is? Is it so the ADL can save face? Szygny 21:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
And those categories are POV since it's not a fact that he was wrongfully convicted. This is like the Twilight Zone. Szygny 21:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
ADL? What are you on about? Anyway, there's a very good source in there now, will try to get more. IronDuke 21:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Nice source, but maybe the quote should go later in the article and not in the intro.

Phiwum 23:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks... I feel that the heavy majority opinion favors Frank being railroaded, and putting it in the intro makes sense. We could summarise and ref it, too. But just so everyone is clear. IronDuke 02:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Category Wrongly convicted Americans or whatever

Can this be sourced that Frank is considered to have been wrongly convicted? --68.9.116.87 03:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

SlimV why do you revert with NO explaination? Can you provide ANY sources to back up your revert other than "it reflects the standard view" whatever that means. PLease respond here before reverting, thanks--68.9.116.87 04:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Just because you're too lazy to check out the numerous links and sources listed and notated in the article, does not mean they don't exist. If this Wikipedia article really is as biased as you claim, it should not be that hard to see why Leo Frank can be included in the "wrongly convicted" category. --75.117.255.101 04:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
no need to be uncivil. I never said the article was biased. I just ask for a source that says that Frank was wrongly convicted. I don't see it in the article, do you? --68.9.116.87 04:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
75.117.255.101 is not being uncivil, or at least not by much. Your comments seem to indicate you have not read the article. IronDuke 15:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't appreciate be called lazy. This category should not be added since it is disputed and not well sourced. A ADL article screaming he didn't do it should make his inclusion a done deal. He was NEVER "cleared" or "proven" innocent ect. Did he get screwed and murdered, looks like it, but the other people in that category look like they were "cleared" or PROVEN innocent which still hasn't happened and 90 years after the fact it is still debatable. I am sure the OWNERS of this article will now revert it back, very NPOV..NOT!--68.9.116.87 14:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC) .

[edit] Why does SlimVirgin revert without explaining?

All you need to do is provide a source.--68.9.116.87 17:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

All you need to do is read the article. IronDuke 18:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Please try to be civil. I am trying to bring a NPOV to this article. What is your agenda?? SlimVirgin COTINUES to revert without ANY explaination.Why not try to IMPROVE this article so it moves toward NPOV??--68.9.116.87 20:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I added some sourced material that was here before. I will try to find better sources going forward.--Backroomlaptop 23:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leo Frank Appeared To Be Guilty

From what I read in that article, "Terrified Boy Feared for His Life"[1], Alonzo merely saw one part of the crime. If his final confession is to be considered true, that only means that Conley was involved in the crime. Conley may have committed the crime and been the sole participant in the entire event, but Alonzo's confession does not automatically acquit Frank.

The part I thought was most revealing was when Frank was abducted by a number of people intent on lynching him. According to (I think this is the source) "And the Dead Shall Rise: The Murder of Mary Phagan and the Lynching of Leo Frank" by Steve Oney:

Somewhere during the trip, the occupants of Frank's car briefly engaged him in conversation. Citing a source whose bona fides were "beyond all question," the Associated Press later reported its gist:
"Is there anything you would like to say before your execution?"
At first there was no reply. Then, slowly and perhaps painfully, the recently wounded man shook his head.
"No," he said. The word was scarcely audible above the throb of the engine.
For a long time following the only sound was that of the automobiles.
Then Frank was asked if he had killed the Phagan girl, and the captors say he made no reply. This question was not repeated again until near the journey's end, and again, it is said, there was no reply. The final interrogation was:
"Is there nothing you wish to say?"
"No."
These four questions constituted the sole conversation in the death car as it sped along the miles which were steadily bringing Frank nearer to Cobb County. (End of quote)

I would think an innocent man would be raising Hell knowing he's about to be hung for a crime he didn't commit. At least, say, "Hey, you bunch of idiots, I'm innocent, I didn't do anything. Conley committed the crime and I didn't know anything about it. If you hang me, you hang an innocent man. And, as Christians, you're going to have to pay the price of going to Hell!!" Anything, something would have been better than quietly resigning himself to dying as a guilty man without any last words regarding an insistence of innocence. When asked directly at the end if he killed the girl, he makes no reply!! For an innocent man, Frank's went to the noose as a man who seems to regret what happened but refused to at least say something to indicate he didn't commit the crime. Considering this to be true, shouldn't we add this info to the article? Thoughts? Jtpaladin 17:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Wehave to be careful not to violate WP:NOR. We cannot speculate as to Frank's guilt or innocence. What we can and should do is report what other notable, respected scholars, etc., think. IronDuke 18:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable claim

I took this out. If someone can find a source supporting it, please put it back. "Great suspicion was cast on the notes, and there was debate about whether Phagan would have used the word "Negro," which was seldom used by white people in the South at that time." IronDuke 00:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/e/o/Talk%7ELeo_Frank_f368.html"