Talk:Leo Frank/Archive 4

Opening paragraph: NPOV?
"Leo Max Frank (April 17, 1884 – August 17, 1915) was a Jewish-American businessman whose lynching in 1915 by a party of prominent citizens in Marietta, Georgia turned the spotlight on antisemitism in the United States and led to the founding of the Anti-Defamation League."


 * Why was the lynching of a convicted murderer an act of anti-Semitism? White Gentile murderers were sometimes lynched as well. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In the first place, your paraphrase of what the sentence actually says is inaccurate. In the second place, there is a fairly clear consensus among historians of these events that antisemitism was involved in the lynching, although some dispute the extent it was a factor in the trial.


 * Before starting yet another edit war on this issue, perhaps you can provide reliable sources that claim that antisemitism was not a factor. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't claim it wasn't a factor, but surely the phrase "turned the spotlight on antisemitism in the United States" is not exactly in the best traditions of a NPOV? It sounds like a breathless blurb off the back of a cheap novel, for crying out loud. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It sounds like you are unfamiliar with the impact that the case had nationally, especially after the conviction. It is the national attention and the antisemitism that made the case as historically significant as it is.  Exactly what reliable sources do you rely on that suggest that this wasn't the case? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There are no reliable sources that justify the use of unencyclopedic language like "turned the spotlight on antisemitism in the United States." If it was a large national controversy (I suspect it was primarily a regional controversy, but we can get into that at a later time), then the article should say something properly to that effect.  It shouldn't use lurid language that sounds like Public Relations blather off the back of a child's DVD.  This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not some tabloid publication. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The following are examples from reliable sources that show both the antisemitism and the attention the case attracted attention well beyond Georgia:


 * Dinnerstein p. xv. Dinnerstein writes, "One of the most infamous outbursts of anti-Semitic feeling in the United States occurred in Georgia in the years 1913, 1914, and 1915. ... The Frank case, which eventually developed into one of the most talked-about injustices of the Progressive Era, served also to highlight the dilemnas and difficulties of the American South during that period."


 * Higham (1988) p. 185-186. Higham notes that while "overt anti-Semitic sentiment played little part" in the trial phase, during the appeals process "[h]atred of organized wealth reaching into Georgia from outside became a hatred of Jewish wealth. From one end of the state to the other the story went: 'The Jews have said that no Jew has ever been hanged and that none ever will be.'... In the last stages of the Frank Case, anti-Semitism reached the fiercely nationalistic twist it had acquired briefly in the nineties, and it assumed also an explicitly racial tone." The influential Tom Watson wrote, "It is a peculiar and portentious [sic] thing, that one race of men -- and one, only, -- should be able to convulse the world, by a system of newspaper agitation and suppression, when a member of that race is convicted of a capital crime against another race. ... from all over the world, the Children of Israel are flocking to this country, and plans are on foot to move them from Europe en mass ... to empty upon our shores the very scum and dregs of the Parasite Race. [italics are in the original text]"


 * Oney p. 462. Speaking of the national perception of the Frank case in the first weeks of 1915, Oney writes, "Outside Georgia, the perception that the state and its citizens were involved in an anti-Semitic persecution of an innocent man became universal."


 * I see nothing "lurid" about the language -- it seems less "lurid" than the language used by the highly respected sources I just quoted.  I didn't write the text you question, but if you want to suggest a less "lurid" version that says the exact same thing we can discuss it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see any NPOV problem - it is quite factual, and completely verifiable and supported by sources. It would perhaps be a problem if the article stated that he "was lynched by a mob motivated by anti-semitism", but that is not what it says, it is talking about the directly observable effects of the lynching.·Maunus· ƛ · 23:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No need to add to the above. The points are crushingly obvious, but apparently must be repeatedly made here. IronDuke  04:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus
SV, I see you've put this article back on your watchlist. That's fine by me, the more eyes the better, but a couple things: 1) Some of the edits you made do not have consensus. You know this. Please don't reinsert them until you get consensus. 2) Please join talk. You refused to reply to the points that were brought up, then left the article, and now return without a word. 3) I'm leaving in some of what you did, for example, that Frank had flirted with Phagan, though I think it's very bad editing, because right now it's just your opinion against mine. Can you say more about why you think that should be in the lead? IronDuke  01:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead was like this for some time, and did indeed have consensus. You then removed it unilaterally, and have reverted whenever it has been restored. Rather than continuing to do that, please argue your case here.


 * My argument is (a) we have to say what the prosecution said the motive was, and flirting clearly plays into that; (b) we have to make clear that there was stereotyping on both sides, as you'd expect; you want to make a big case of the antisemitism, but ignore the racism; (c) we also have to explain why people were particularly upset about the governor's decision, namely that they saw him as involved. They would have opposed it anyway but that made things worse.


 * I can't think of a good reason to leave any of this out. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know that it ever had consensus (maybe a passive one?), but consensus can change, and clearly has. Or do you think, as of right now, that your version is supported? I'll answer that, actually: it isn't. Rather than abandoning talk and then coming to revert with no word, please argue your case here.


 * "we have to say what the prosecution said the motive was"
 * Not in the lead we don't.
 * "and flirting clearly plays into that"
 * Not in the lead.
 * "we have to make clear that there was stereotyping on both sides...
 * We absolutely, categorically do not have to do this. Indeed, we must not. Why? Because it's a tiny, tiny detail of the whole.
 * "as you'd expect"
 * That's wonderfully chilling in this context, but again no. The case isn't famous, isn't even marginally known, as a case in which some sort of injustice was perpetrated against Conley. I think that can be safely left out of the entire article, actually: under no circumstances can it be in the lead.
 * "you want to make a big case of the antisemitism,"
 * Did you really just write that? Of course I want to make a big case of it. The question is, given that a big case was made by observers at the time, and an even larger case has been made in modern times, why on earth don't you? The equivalence you're drawing is grossly out of scale with the sources we have. The only person in the world I know of who "highlights" it is you.
 * "(c) we also have to explain why people were particularly upset about the governor's decision."
 * I answered this already -- Tom even more succinctly.

Again, please try to get some consensus for this. Or better yet: don't. It's making the article much, much worse. I can't tell you how horrified I was when I first saw it -- I assumed Machn must have done it. IronDuke 02:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I asked you before which books you're using as sources, but you wouldn't tell me. Can you tell me now, please? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 02:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have already answered this. IronDuke  03:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You didn't answer it. I get the impression from your posts that you haven't read the source material. If you have, please let me know what you're relying on. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 03:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

[moved by IronDuke from his talk page]

ID, your stock-in-trade seems to be serial reverting. It leaves a person no response but to continue reverting too, but most people don't want to. You hadn't edited for five days. I restored the lead you'd removed at Leo Frank, and suddenly you're back, reverting twice so far, and you'd probably continue if I did. Here are your reverts in the last month of that material:

It had been in there without objection since August, until you started reverting on November 11, and practically all your contribs there seem to be reverts. It's not acceptable to engage in the serial removal of other people's work, there or anywhere else, just because you personally dislike it. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 02:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * SV, I've asked you several times to stop the invective and ad hominems, and each time you see to agree, only for it to pop up again. I assume it's bait, but whatever the reason, can you please pledge, here and now, never to do that with me again? It makes it very difficult for me to work with you. IronDuke  03:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You moved the above from your talk page. I posted it there because it's about you, not the article, and because it's the first step in dispute resolution. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 03:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess I'll take that as a "No." IronDuke  04:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead is too long
The lead is too long, has too much inflammatory POV language and goes on too much about the murder trial. It should not need cites if properly written, drawing on content below. This article is supposed to be about the man and the meaning of events, not just details of the trial.Parkwells (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

antisemitism
Leo Max Frank (April 17, 1884 – August 17, 1915) was a Jewish-American businessman whose lynching in 1915 by a party of prominent citizens in Marietta, Georgia turned the spotlight on antisemitism in the United States and led to the founding of the Anti-Defamation League.[2]

Can someone explain what the spotlight is, how the lynching turned the spotlight on antisemitism or how it had anything to do with antisemitism? This sentence seems to be loaded with presumptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldenali (talk • contribs) 12:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Grand jury
Elaine Marie Alphin writes that seven members of the lynching party sat on the grand jury that was convened to identify and indict them. She's not an academic source, so I'm reluctant to rely on her alone for a contentious detail like this. Does anyone know whether the academic sources say this too? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 21:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Will try to find something.Parkwells (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Issues with sources

 * Linder, Douglas O. "Famous Trials: The Leo Frank Trial, 1913", University of Missouri - Kansas City School of Law, 2008, accessed December 16, 2010. This is only a working paper, published online without any sources, so I don't think it's valid for these purposes. So far I've seen it cited only once, for the start date of the trial, but surely we can find that fact somewhere else.Parkwells (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point, I've removed it. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The second-to-last paragraph in the Conley section has material about Green and Mincey making statements against Conley. The NY Times article dated 25 May 1913 used as a reference has nothing that relates to this paragraph, so I've removed it and put in a "citation needed".Parkwells (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead RfC
Leo Frank, a Jewish-American businessman, was found guilty of the murder of a teenage girl in 1913 in Marietta, Georgia, and was subsequently lynched. Antisemitism is widely agreed to have been a factor, as was prejudice on the grounds that he came from New York and was seen as a Yankee capitalist.

The other murder suspect was a black man who worked with Frank and the murder victim. It was a plank of Frank's defense that this was too brutal to be a "Jewish crime," and was more likely to have been committed by a black suspect. Frank and his lawyers employed racist language against the black worker, just as others employed antisemitic language against Frank. The dispute is over whether the lead should mention this aspect of the case. See this version: "Frank and his lawyers resorted to stereotypes too: another suspect, Jim Conley—a factory worker who testified against Frank—was a "filthy, lying nigger," they said, just the kind who would commit such a brutish crime."

Should this (or similar words) be included in the lead? Input from uninvolved editors would be particularly welcome. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 19:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * Support inclusion. Albert Lindemann, professor emeritus of history at the University of California, Santa Barbara, wrote a book in 1991 about three cases of injustice traceable to antisemitism, one of them Leo Frank's. He makes the point, as do the other sources I've read about this case, that there was a great deal of antisemitism and racism in the South, and that Frank used the kind of prejudice against the black suspect that he insisted should not be used against him. This was not a Jewish crime, his lawyers argued, but a black crime. See Lindeman, p. 245.


 * The objection to including this in the lead seems (to me) to be based on the idea that, because Frank was almost certainly the victim of an injustice and was brutally lynched, the lead must present him as "all good." But to omit from the lead any criticism of Frank would be, in my view, to present a black-and-white picture of the case that does not reflect reality. Indeed, Lindeman makes the point that Frank's defense team was more explicitly prejudiced against the black suspect than the prosecution was against Frank. Even making concessions for the period, Lindeman writes, "there was something a little incongruous and hypocritical about such men, denouncing the bigotry against Jews ... yet resorting to a far more explicit and vicious bigotry against Blacks in his defense." This is an important aspect of the case, and an important aspect of the context and time within which the case took place. I believe that, per LEAD, it ought to be included. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support either balance or exclusion SlimVirgin has set up a strawman argument as to what the opposing position was.  Also relying on Lindemann, I made the following comments in the initial discussion (comments that SV has yet to reply to):


 * With respect to racist stereotypes of blacks, the prosecution's case was totally based on a racist stereotype. Conley was coached by the prosecution from day 1.  How did they justify the repeated major changes to his testimony to themselves.  Lindemann (p. 253) writes:


 * "The solicitor general [Dorsey, the head prosecutor] apparently reasoned that Conley, like most Blacks of his class, was an inveterate liar, a conclusion that was perfectly natural for a southern White, even one who was liberal in his views of Blacks, in confronting such a man as Conley. Indeed, in Conley's case that conclusion was also wholly justified: He was an inveterate liar, a perfect example of the 'lying nigger' of southern mythology; he lied constantly, blithely admitting as much.  Faced with transparent lie after lie from Conley, Dorsey could continue to question him until the truth emerged, until Conley 'finally' told the truth, as southern lore maintained would ultimately happen with a 'lying nigger.'"


 * It is extremely POV to make references in the lede to the defense's use of racist language while omitting the much more significant fact that he prosecution's entire case rested on the jury accepting the black stereotype.


 * My suggestion is that we either eliminate the reference to racial language in total or include language that both the state's and the defense's trial stategy relied on the use of racial stereotypes. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Exclude This fact is 1) presented misleadingly but more importantly 2) forms a very, very minor part of what's crucial to know about Leo Frank. It probably wouldn't be in the article at all, ideally. IronDuke  23:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment From the RfC guideline "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template." (emphasis in original) Though it doesn't look like it will matter, for the record, this statement was neither brief nor neutral. IronDuke  23:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion as it helps tell the full story of what happened in the lede. I think a compromise solution might be to state, as suggested above, that both the prosecution and defense used racist stereotyping as strategies in the trial. Cla68 (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion, although I think the language presently in the lead, without the quote, as per Maunus' edit, is more successful. The verbatim quote is important to have in the article, but the lead does a better job of summarising the case without it. -- JN 466  01:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support mention but rephrase. Alt text: "Frank and his lawyers too relied on stereotype, describing the heinous crime as one a Jewish man could not commit but one a black man like his accomplice, Jim Conley, would".  Leave the "nigger" quote out of the lead, especially if it's  this controversial. Ocaasi (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Either exclude altogehther or put in with the caveat that though this was seen as antisemitism but there were also other issues (and mention them). The content should be sourced to RS in the article, so summariseing a sentence as such in the lead should suffice.(Lihaas (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)).


 * Support but rephrase, leaving out the quote in particular per Ocaasi. The quote itself seems more appropriate to the details of the case rather than to an overview of the man, especially because those were not even Frank's, but those of his attorney. Quigley (talk) 05:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * I think there is a question of whether the particular fact that the defense also used a stereotyping approach is sufficiently significant to merit inclusion in the lead, and secondly how such an inclusion should be done. I think that the inclusion of the quote is overkill and that a more neutral rephrasing would be more becoming of an encyclopedia. And yes that is partly because of the inclusion of the N-word which triggers emotional responses in many readers - this I think will make them read the entire article in a particular light. In short I can support the inclusion of a single phrase mentioning that the defense also used racial stereotyping in trying to blame it on Conley, but without including the quote.·Maunus· ƛ · 19:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The item in question is the only mention of Conley in the article lead. A reader unfamiliar with the circumstances of the case would get the false idea from the lead that Conley was picked as a scapegoat by the defense simply because he was black.  Rather than merely being simply "another suspect" as SV's text reads, Conley was in fact, using Lindemann's language, "the prime suspect, if Frank could be shown to be innocent". Lindemann even goes so far as to say (page 254), "The best evidence now available indicates that the real murderer of Mary Phagan was Jim Conley."


 * The bottom line is that the existing reference to Conley in the lead is unbalanced. The real issue with the lead is how to provide balance by admitting that both sides relied on racism and that Conley was more than just another suspect. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In reply to North Shoreman, I'm perfectly happy to include more information about the racism of the prosecution too. My aim is to produce a lead that reflects a three-dimensional view of the political context, not a two-dimensional one of Frank = good, everyone else = bad. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't make any difference whether Frank was or was not a good guy. If memory serves, Alfred Dreyfus wasn't winning any popularity contests, but that's not why he's important. SV, maybe that's what you're stuck on -- the idea that fairness dictates some fact -- any fact -- that might be less than flattering to Frank in the eyes of a modern reader must be in the lead, so that readers won't come away with the impression that Frank was some sort of saint. That's understandable, but misses the point entirely. The leads must be a precis of the article, not a place to promote insignificant yet prejudicial factoids. IronDuke  23:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead must be a summary of the key points made by the best sources, and the article should expand on those key points. We currently do neither. Your argument above that the racism issue shouldn't be in the article at all, I find puzzling, because it's the backdrop of the case. The evidence often seemed secondary. What seemed to matter were the caricatures created around the suspects, and which one of those caricatures seemed more murderous. That's a crucial aspect of the social history of the case, in the sense that, if you don't understand that point, you won't understand what happened. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with your first sentence wholeheartedly. The racism issue is a minor, minor point. It's nothing like "key." It's just a provocative detail. What matters is the evidence, the antisemitism, and the outcome. This was not a case remembered for racism. That's simple, unassailable fact. If this were an article about the trial of Leo Frank, I could see including it (in the body, never the lead), but if this article were written correctly and well, there wouldn't be room. IronDuke  00:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You're offering your personal opinion, but refusing to say which sources you're basing it on. The academic sources stress that racism infused the case at every level. North Shoreman makes the point above that the prosecution depended on both the antisemitism and the racism. The defense tried to rely on the racism.


 * Almost all lynchings in the U.S. were of black men, some black women, some white men, and I believe Frank was the only Jew. And he was convicted on the word of a black man, which is extraordinary. Leonard Dinnerstein, the historian, explains it by arguing that the black man was so poorly regarded that his death would not have been worthy of the murdered girl, but to catch a Jew for it was a prize. The lead needs to reflect that mass of prejudice, prejudice that Frank himself was both a victim and perpetrator of.


 * Jeffrey Melnick, the social scientist, in Black-Jewish Relations on Trial: Leo Frank and Jim Conley in the New South (p. 61) writes that the racism thrown at Conley by Frank's team was one of the most disturbing aspects of the case. His lawyer called Conley, "a black spider ... a great, passionate, lustful animal ... a black brute ... there are a thousand of them in Atlanta who would assault a white woman if they had a chance ...." This is the language of the lyncher. If you know anything about the background of lynching in the United States at that time, this is precisely the build-up to it. But it was coming from Frank's defense team, directed at Conley.


 * Albert Lindemann, another historian, agrees about the importance of this in his The Jew Accused, p. 245. You're arguing that we should ignore the academic sources, but without offering sources of your own to counter them. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You are up against a cabal of editors who will never stop cherry pick facts on behalf of rehabilitating and benefiting Leo Max Frank, that also includes deleting relevant facts which tend to incriminate him. The Leo Frank domain here will forever be plagued with editors like IronDuke and Tom North Shoreman who will stop at nothing, rewriting the article until it leaves the average reader with the conclusion Leo Frank was not only innocent, but framed. Thank you for being a light in the darkness and never giving up. You are a heroic editor.Goldenali (talk) 12:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * And yet another sock puppet arises. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Article is not encyclopedic
This article has gotten way off an encyclopedic approach and tone; it quotes too much from Tom Watson and other sensational news reports, seems to take pains to list all the gory details, and glosses over the larger meaning of the trial and social context. It is disappointing to see it turned into one that dwells on the sensational aspects of the trial. Three photos of the lynching are excessive; one is sufficient, so choose.Parkwells (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with your general sentiment and agree with your recent changes.·Maunus· ƛ · 17:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Images

 * The photo with the superior court judge labeled was identified as not to be used without written permission, but there was no permission for free use. This is a violation of WP.Parkwells (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's in the public domain because published before 1923; these images were all published at the time as postcards. They're important images, especially the one with the judge in it. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Three photos of the same event is giving too much weight to the terrible violence. You don't have to bludgeon people with it. This is not the standard used on other articles about lynchings.Parkwells (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I see you've removed them again. I don't agree with this removal. Posting the images is not just a question of "bludgeoning" people with the violence. These images are historically important because they were published and sold as postcards; and indeed the photographs would have been taken with that in mind. I don't know whether you're familiar with the history of lynching postcards; it's something I keep meaning to write about for WP. The photographs were not an incidental part of what happened. People posed for the images in front of a professional photographer, who copyrighted the images and sold them as postcards. The lynchings were often carried out the way they were (with the body in certain positions or wearing certain clothes or with certain people gathered around it) for the purpose of making the postcards, which were then sent to family and friends.


 * I feel it's important to reproduce this aspect of the lynching by showing the cards we have access to. There's some material about the history of these cards here. Also see the book that website is based on: Allen, James and Lewis, Jon. Without Sanctuary: Lynching Photography in America. And Apel, Dora, and Smith, Shawn Michelle. Lynching Photographs. University of California Press, 2007. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Illustrating that historical context still doesn't require more than one photo. There are lots of articles that have several possible photos that could be useful illustrations of the topic - we still need to choose which ones go and which do not.·Maunus· ƛ · 23:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * And I feel it is important to avoid giving more coverage to the photos than necessary. You are not the only person with an interest in this article or the topic. I'm quite familiar with the lynching postcards and worked on the major article on lynching. That does not mean they all have to be reproduced here. Write a separate article; as you noted, there is already a book on the topic and there was an exhibit. You will note above that Maunus agreed with my deleting the extra images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parkwells (talk • contribs)


 * (ec, to Maunus) I see where you're coming from, and normally I'd agree, but with lynching photographs I do think they should all be used because of the postcard aspect. The photographers would deliberately position certain people around the bodies (at their request) to take personalized shots so they could be sold and sent to family and friends. The timing and place of the lynchings were often chosen with the postcard aspect in mind. As you see in this one, they are posing, looking at the camera. Here too. The scene is still and calm, very far from the stories about the mob ripping down the body and tearing off his clothes. This is another common aspect of lynching photographs—participants knew what they had to do for the postcards before the violence continued. The photographs were an important part of the lynching ritual, what Apel and Smith (see above) call "spectacle killings." SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that specifically because of the fact that these pictures have a more than dubious ethical implication we should be cautious to use them in a way that does not lend it self to sensationalism. I think the fact that they were once sold as postcard is not a good argument for continuing to reproduce them as entertainment here.·Maunus· ƛ · 22:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No one has suggested reproducing them as entertainment. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Are there still objections to my restoring File:Lynching of Leo Frank 3.jpg and File:Lynching of Leo Frank 2.JPG, which were sold as postcards? Or at least one of them. I've added some more information about the photographs to the last paragraph of the hanging section. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 03:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think three of the postcards may be too much, two would be fine with me. How about creating a Commons category for Leo Frank, adding a copy of the WP images to Commons, and adding a commons link leading to the category to the article? -- JN  466  11:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 'I also think one is enough.·Maunus· ƛ · 22:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I object. You don't need to show it to make the point. One photo is enough.Parkwells (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Journalistic tone
Editors have overused quotes of newspaper accounts that were sensational and inflammatory. This is not a journalism article but an attempt to present a cooler account of what went on, with the benefit of material from academic researchers and the use of paraphrase, not lengthy quotes from participants.Parkwells (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Change sections
I disagree with treating Frank and Phagan is equal characters in this article - the early sections should be about him in standard format. The trial and its aftermath was part of his life, not the whole thing. Parkwells (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * He is only notable because of what happened to him. That's a fault of the article title, which arguably shouldn't be Leo Frank, but Murder of Mary Phagan, or Lynching of Leo Frank, or perhaps Trial and Lynching of Leo Frank. But whatever it's called, it's not actually a biography. Sometimes we do give non-bios a name as a title, when the name has become synonymous in the public mind with the incident. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Article is too long
The article exceeds WP guidelines and is nearly twice as long as recommended, largely due to the extensive detail about the murder and trial. It seems to want to retry the case. The trial can be covered in less detail; people should go to books if they want to engage in rethinking the whole trial. This is not supposed to be an extensive journalistic account, either.Parkwells (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's 5,881 words readable prose, which is normal. I agree that some of the detail could be written up more clearly, but it's not the length as such that's the issue. Also, some of the changes you introduced, especially the very short sections and paragraphs, weren't an improvement in my view (e.g. you left the lead saying less, but with five short paras, which isn't recommended by LEAD), so I reverted. Would you mind discussing here first what you see as the problems with the article? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Length seems fine to me; that's typical FA length. -- JN 466  11:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violations
So far I have discovered at least two copyright violations, in which content was copied word for word from sources and not quoted, nor was the author identified in the content of the article (not just the inline cite), per Wiki policy. This throws the integrity of the article into question, which has been worked on for a very long time by many editors and changed markedly. 1) In the lead, the phrase "a rich northern Jew lording it over vulnerable working women" is copied from Albert Lindemann's The Jew Accused, p. 239, without quotations. A few of his words were excluded, but it is unmistakably his work. The original is at (http://books.google.com/books?id=YCugGyqkYBQC&pg=PA239#v=onepage&q&f=false) 2)In the second paragraph of the description of the lynching, there is material copied nearly word for word from the NY Times report, as I show in quotes: - They tied "a new three-quarter-inch manila rope in a hangman's knot so it would throw his head back and his chin up." It was placed around his neck and slung over a branch of a large Georgia oak. He was turned to face the direction of the house Phagan had lived in, and was hanged at around 7 am. - Some editor added the unsourced detail of the large Georgia oak; perhaps it's OR, as it did not appear in this part of the Times article, which can be viewed at (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9E0CE4DD133FE233A2575AC1A96E9C946496D6CF.) The Times article was cited, but not quoted. It appears editors desire to use many journalistic details for color may have made them careless about avoiding copying without using quotations or proper sourcing.Parkwells (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I can only comment on the first example, and I did add "as one writer put it," followed by a citation, which made clear that the writing was borrowed—but it wasn't borrowed entirely, so quotation marks weren't appropriate.


 * Lindeman wrote here:


 * Leo Frank was a representative of Yankee capitalism in a southern city, with row upon row of southern women, often the daughters and wives of ruined farmers, 'at his mercy'—a rich, punctilitious, northern Jew lording it over vulnerable and impoverished working women.


 * I wrote here:


 * "His trial became the focus of powerful cultural and class interests; having been raised in New York, Frank was a representative of Yankee capitalism, a rich northern Jew lording it over vulnerable working women, as one writer put it.'"




 * If you prefer we can add "as Albert Lindeman put it," but it isn't really necessary.


 * As for the NYT piece, I have no memory of it, but it's not a copyright violation.


 * The NYT wrote:


 * "There was no cry for mercy when the lynchers produced a piece of brown canvas, placed it around his waist, and tied it behind him. He wore an undershirt and a night shirt, and on the latter garment, over his heart, was embroidered a name which looked more like 'Lee' than Leo. ... He had been handcuffed, and they had brought with them a brand-new three-quarter-inch manila rope, which they tied in a hangman's knot, so as to throw his head back and his chin up. They swung him to that tree which came nearest to facing Mary Phagan's house, and he hung there, his body four feet from the ground. It was 7 o'clock.'"


 * Our article said:


 * "The lynchers tied a piece of brown canvas around his waist. He was otherwise wearing a nightshirt and undershirt, and was handcuffed. They tied a new three-quarter-inch manila rope in a hangman's knot so it would throw his head back and his chin up. It was placed around his neck and slung over a branch of a large Georgia oak. He was turned to face the direction of the house Phagan had lived in, and was hanged at around 7 am."


 * SlimVirgin talk| contribs 00:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It sure looks like close paraphrasing to me. If a student turned that in to me I would to explain the academic code for him in no unsure terms. ·Maunus· ƛ · 02:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The first one seems entirely unproblematic to me. In the second one, only the description "throw his head back and his chin up" seems a tad close. Please remember that facts are not copyrightable, only creative expressions used to describe them are. Unlike the academic environment, we are not expected to do original research here, merely to accurately reflect fact and opinion available in reliable sources. -- JN  466  11:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Please note the sentences I have identified again below - here in quotes are the portions that are problems:
 * 1) with Lindemann, an editor copied "a rich northern Jew lording it over vulnerable working women", leaving out only 3 words.
 * Lindemann: "a rich, punctilious, northern Jew lording it over vulnerable and impoverished working women". That goes well beyond paraphrase; it is plagiarism.  If it is to be used, the whole phrase should  be copied, put into quotations and credited to the writer, per Wiki policy, which discourages leaving words out of quotes.


 * 2) In the second example, it is "a new three-quarter-inch manila rope in a hangman's knot so it would throw his head back and his chin up." that is the problem, as it is nearly copying the Times article without quotes or proper attribution.
 * Times: "a brand-new three-quarter-inch manila rope, which they tied in a hangman's knot, so as to throw his head back and his chin up." The structure, rhythm and most words are the same. That's plagiarism, not paraphrase. It brings into question how many similar instances may be in the article, which would mean copyright violations.  Active editors should carefully read the Wiki policy, which is demanding. Parkwells (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It says that plagiarism and copyright are not consensus issues.Parkwells (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * But I think you've misunderstood them. As I said, please feel free to add more in-text attribution wherever you think it's required. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 02:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The first example is explicitly marked in-text as another writer's words, and the source is cited. In the second, I agree that "throw his head back and his chin up" should better be rephrased. But a "three-quarter-inch manila rope" is not a creative expression. It is a factual description. A "three-quarter-inch manila rope" is a "three-quarter-inch manila rope". It is not any other kind of rope.
 * ... it should be borne in mind that an occasional sentence in an article that bears a recognizable similarity to a sentence in a cited source is not generally a cause for concern. Some facts and opinions can only be expressed in so many ways, and still be the same fact, or opinion. A plagiarism concern arises when there is evidence of systematic copying of the diction of one or more sources across multiple sentences or paragraphs. -- JN 466  03:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem with contentious articles is that, if you stray too far from the sources, you're accused of rewriting history; if you wander too close, you're accused of plagiarism; and if you add too much in-text attribution, you're accused of making it appear that only the NYT said something, when in fact lots of people said it. So the only thing to do is proceed with common sense and honesty, and hope you get the balance right overall.


 * The phrase "so as to throw his head back and his chin up" is important, because it explains how his neck was broken. It's hard to find a way to rephrase it succinctly. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 03:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You just did, in a way – it "broke his neck". E.g., instead of
 * "They tied a new three-quarter-inch manila rope in a hangman's knot so it would throw his head back and his chin up, placed it around his neck, and threw it over a branch of a tree."
 * we could use
 * "They placed a new three-quarter-inch manila rope over his head, tied in a hangman's knot so it would force his head backwards and break his neck, and threw it over a branch of a tree."
 * Something like that might work; if we reintroduce the tinted picture, say, that will help make the point as well. -- JN 466  13:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks, good paraphrase. I believe that's why I added one of the pictures (or added the text that described the image; can't remember which way round it was). SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright/Plagiarism
Here is some of the Wikipedia guidance on avoiding plagiarism. They note particularly that editors have to credit distinctive phrasing, and recommend using quotations and in-text attribution. [A problem may arise from:]
 * "Copying from a source acknowledged in a well-placed citation, without in-text attribution


 * Inserting a text—copied word-for-word, or with very few changes—then citing the source in an inline citation after the passage that was copied, without naming the source in the text.


 * Here the editor is not trying to pass the work off as his own, but it is still regarded as plagiarism, because the source's words were used without in-text attribution. The more of the source's words that were copied, and the more distinctive the phrasing (my emphasis), the more serious the violation. Adding in-text attribution ("John Smith argues ...") always avoids accusations of plagiarism, though it does not invariably avoid copyright violations. Make sure the material being copied or closely paraphrased is not too long if the work is copyrighted. A few words would rarely be problematic."


 * 3) Also in the Lead is this sentence, which I have just checked against the Wade source:

p. 144 of Wade: When Frank was found guilty...(ellipses are mine), Watson wrote, "Our Little Girl...has been pursued to a hideous death..." This is distinctive phrasing. The source later quotes Watson as saying Frank is part of the "Jewish aristocracy". These were Wade's selection of quotes from Watson. Use of them without in-text attribution to Wade may be a problem. Parkwells (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Watson referred to him [Frank] as a member of the Jewish aristocracy who had pursued "Our Little Girl" to a hideous death."


 * I think you've misunderstood the copyright policy, PW, but the solution is to add more in-text attribution if you think more is needed. If it gets to be too much, we can always remove it again. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

A lot of criticism
Parkwells, you're steaming in with a lot of criticism, not all of it appropriate. You say the article is twice as long as recommended, but at 5,800 words it's a perfectly normal length. You say there are copyright violations, but neither of the two examples you've given are examples of that. You say the article should be written as though it's a biography of Frank, with the trial and lynching just part of his life, but it's not a biography of Frank, who wasn't notable apart from the trial and lynching. You turn the lead into five paras, though LEAD makes clear that four is usually the upper limit. You removed an image because the website that hosts it says permission is required (as they often do), but in fact all images are PD in the United States if published before 1923.

You're also removing important details from the lead and elsewhere. Why, for example, would you not want the reader to know in the lead when she was killed? Why remove that she was strangled? Why remove the view of Frank (the rich Jew lording it over people) that seems to have caused the problem for him in the first place?

Criticism is welcome, but it needs to be measured and at least arguably accurate. It also needs to reflect our policies. Responding to it is time-consuming, but if it's ignoring policy it just means we're chasing our tails. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 00:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * We just have different views on this article as a whole and how it is written - since the murder and the trial aren't news, I don't think the precise date or method of Phagan's murder is critical to the lead; how she was killed did not seem critical to the trial. To my view having both Lindemann's statement and the paraphrase from Watson were overloading the lead with inflammatory statements about Frank - which was part of, but not the whole story about why he was convicted. Also, neither the lead nor the major content of the article have to express the emotions of the time to convey something of the controversy and sensationalism. It seemed inappropriate in the lead to say that the buildings and streets in Marietta are named after those prominent men of the lynch mob and their descendants, especially as that observation does not appear in the body of the article, although the names of the lynchers are listed.


 * I think there should be much less detail about the circumstances of the crime and all the differing arguments at the trial, in favor of summary information. I think there should be considerably fewer quotations by Tom Watson; once he is established as inflammatory, it does not need to be repeated by more examples. It seems people are trying to achieve journalistic impact and I think the topic could use a more measured tone, rather than repeating the tenor of those days.


 * My reading of guidance on plagiarism and copyright violations is different than yours. I have a different opinion about using three photos of the lynching and think it is giving Undue Weight to them. This is not the article about the use of photographs at lynchings, so it does not need to be an example of them. I worked a lot on this article at an earlier time and disagree with the turn that it has taken.Parkwells (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article is not in good shape, but if you want to help sort it out the best thing would be to add references for the unsourced material. A lot of it stems from an editor having relied on primary sources; some of what he added was removed, but not all, and so a fair bit has been left unreferenced. It's also too detailed in places and not detailed enough in others, and in general there's a problem with the narrative flow. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 02:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I added sourced material to the lynching section to show that the large crowd arrived after the hanging (according to the NY Times), which was when it became a mob, and when Howell abused the body, and when more photos and souvenir taking occurred. This seemed a useful distinction. Why was this removed?Parkwells (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure which detail you mean, but I notice you're adding or removing details apparently with a view to saying the lynch party wasn't the main problem (and weren't known, and didn't necessarily belong to very prominent families etc), but rather it was the crowd later who caused the problems. I'm not sure how you're managing to draw these sharp distinctions. For example, the judge you want to say wasn't part of the lynch party was named as a ringleader, and can be seen in one of the photographs, looking at the camera, not obviously trying to hide himself.
 * Your interpretation is incorrect. I was trying to add more from the contemporary reports which described what was going on; I well understand the lynch party was known then to be of prominent men. See further below.Parkwells (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You said you're familiar with the history of these lynchings, so you'll be familiar with the concept of a good and bad lynching. It's clear that the lynch party wanted to make this a "good" lynching (i.e. quick, no mutilation of the body, no unseemly behavior). If we can find a source who says that explicitly, we can add it. But it's not saying much, and it doesn't mean the judge, for example, wasn't involved in the lynching simply because he asked that the body not be mutilated. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You have misread what I was trying to do. I understand the lynch party was known at the time to be made up of prominent men. Given that there is no mention in the main part of this article of how streets and buildings are named after them, however, I thought it was inappropriate to have that as the ending of the lead. The NY Times article on the lynching makes quite a point as to how methodical, organized and low-key the lynch party was, and how the larger, more rowdy crowd arrived later (of which Howell was a part). I was trying to review and catch up some of the information, and already changed my incorrect note that the judge had only come later. Reports said he gave the order for the hanging, went home and came back in time to try to keep Howell under control.Parkwells (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead leaves out important facts
Let's talk again about the lead - to convey the issues of the trial and aftermath, the lead should refer to the issue of the overcrowded courtroom and the large crowd outside whose presence was seen to intimidate witnesses and the jury. It should identify Conley as an early suspect, not just someone who testified against Frank, especially because of Mann's 1982 voluntary statement under oath, which might also appear in the lead, as it supports the idea that Conley was guilty. Ending with the power of the prominent members of the lynch group (the buildings and streets in their name) suggests they were right, and made right by their success in life.[User:Parkwells|Parkwells]] (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead also leaves out the sourced fact (Oney) that in Oct. 1914 Conley's own lawyer Smith said that Conley was guilty of the murder. This was buried in a reference to the photo of Smith, rather than being placed in the content of the article. I've put the longer quote in the appeals section, where it fits in time, but this seems worth highlighting more prominently.Parkwells (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm keeping your points together in one thread; I hope that's okay. I did add to the lead that Conley was a suspect, but it was removed. I agree that we should point that out.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright confusion
Parkwells, you wrote (quotation marks in the original):

"In the next year, new material was made public. 'The new development which stirred Atlanta and those working to save Frank was the announcement, made on October 2, 1914, by William M. Smith, lawyer for Jim Conley, the state's key witness at the trial, that his own client had murdered Mary Phagan.'"

Following by a citation to Dinnerstein (pp. 114-115). It seems to be Dinnerstein you're quoting -- the same quote is in footnote 39. Is there a reason it's in quotation marks, but without attribution? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 23:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Forgot after getting it out into the main body of the article.Parkwells (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, no worries. I tightened it a bit. Not clear what the significance of it is, given that (so far as I know) nothing came of it. Seems an odd thing for a lawyer to do. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 03:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

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.
I have read the entire official trial testimony record provided in 'References' and there is not a single word, sentence or phrase that suggests the Lindemann quote in the intro is true. This inserted quote is playing divisive politics and is unfounded. Please, if the Leo Frank entry in Wikipedia is going to be turned into a Gentile vs. Jews ethnic race war, at least provide some balance from the prosecution side of the case. The entire Leo Frank entry wreaks of taking Frank's side. The ethnicity of Frank was never brought up by the prosecution, though Reuben Arnold claimed if Leo Frank were not a Jew he would never have been on trial which is not true.

"His trial became the focus of powerful class and political interests. Raised in New York, he was cast as a representative of Yankee capitalism, a rich northern Jew lording it over vulnerable working women, as the historian Albert Lindemann put it."

Reference:

[http://www.archive.org/details/LeoM.FrankPlaintiffInErrorVs.StateOfGeorgiaDefendantInError.In 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.]

Closing Arguments of Counsel, Luther Rosser, Frank Hooper, Reuben Arnold and Hugh Dorsey. American State Trials V. X 1918. HernandoMaya (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Do we have yet another sock puppet -- I've lost track of the number that have been blocked who use the exact same argument and source. In any event, Lindemann is a reliable secondary source and his analysis belongs in the article.  The analysis of primary sources by individual wikipedia editors does not belong in the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Fact Check
Frank hired two Pinkerton detectives to help him prove his innocence.

Who were these two Pinkerton detectives? Harry Scott and ?HernandoMaya (talk) 09:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 74.93.121.214, 17 March 2011
Please change "Phagan's friend, 13-year-old pencil factory worker George Epps, came forward to say that Frank had flirted with Phagan and had frightened her.[citation needed]" to "Phagan's friend, 13-year-old pencil factory worker George Epps, came forward to say that Frank had flirted with Phagan and had frightened her." This provides a link to the images within an authentic Atlanta Journal of this specific report. Feel free to use the corresponding image alone, but giver credit to www.rarenewspapers.com

74.93.121.214 (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done, although more could be filled out in the citation. — Bility (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Elaine Marie Alphin
In regards to using Alphin, Elaine Marie. An Unspeakable Crime: The Prosecution and Persecution of Leo Frank. Carolrhoda Books, 2010 as a Wikipedia source. Reviews of her book on Amazon.com indicates she makes many mistakes in her book about the case and her research is very poor, can we really rely on her as a reliable source? HernandoMaya (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're talking about the reader reviews on Amazon? Not reliable.--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the reviews on Amazon.com the Alphin book is weak on the facts and it lists examples. I decided to take a closer look at the book to verify whether the allegations were true or not, they are all true. The book makes too many mistakes, with names, dates, locations and facts in the case. It is not a reliable, academic or scholarly source. HernandoMaya (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you substantiate any of the claims you make against this book? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * On Amazon.com the negative review by Koenigsberg spells out the series of errors which make this book not up to the standards of high schoolers and college students.

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 (according to the census) 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 Mrs. 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. [No Eulogies for Moses Frank make any mention of him being a Confederate Veteran]

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 miscited.

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. HernandoMaya (talk) 08:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

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.


 * HernandoMaya (talk) 08:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, this is getting tiresome. First, you needn't have reproduced the entire review here. Second,who the hell is Koenigsberg and why should we listen to him. Reader reviews on Amazon.com are not reliable sources. I think we're done here. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I checked the claims by Mr. Koenigsberg about the research errors made by Elaine Marie Alphin in her Leo Frank book. He is correct on all points. The book by Elaine Marie Alphin can not be considered a reliable source and should not be used on Wikipedia.HernandoMaya (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Dead Link April 21
Dinnerstein, Leonard. "The Fate of Leo Frank", American Heritage, 47, October 1996, pp. 98–109. HernandoMaya (talk) 03:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity
Please stop allowing "Jewish" to be referred to as an ethnicity. It is a religion. No group other than Christians (or Nazis) refer to it as an ethnic race. There are Jews from every portion of the world of many different ethnic backgrounds and every race. Then, if you allow it to continue to be listed on this bio as his religion, consider placing the religion of each person on every other bio provided in Wikipedia. The article itself states his religion repeatedly as a cause of action. There is no need to repeat it in the bio unless religion is to become a standard requirement of all bios on Wikipedia. 68.38.19.120 (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Tom Stoneman
 * First, you're wrong, "Jewish" is both a religion and an ethnicity. Second, the reason his religion (and ethnicity) are mentioned here is because they are important to his notability. That's not true of every person who has a bio on Wikipedia, so it's never going to be done on all bios. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And you don't feel the Jewish race is actually a race of people because of why? It does not matter what country they are located in the ethnicity does not change unless diluted. Where is the information obtained that only Christians and Nazis call them a race? One more thing is there is no "rule" that a religion can not be listed in a bio or that it must be listed in all if in one. Otr500 (talk) 04:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The question of Frank's innocence
I think we may be missing what is almost unarguably the central point of this case, which is that multiple (almost all) scholars see this case as a huge miscarriage of justice. I think this point needs to be made in the body of the article, and that the lead must also reference it. When I have a couple seconds to rub together, I'm going to make a stab eat that. IronDuke 02:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Fact validation check KKK inauguration date October 16, 1915
"On October 16, 1915, two months to the night after Frank was taken from the Milledgeville prison, members of the Knights of Mary Phagan burned a gigantic cross on top of Stone Mountain, reportedly inaugurating a revival of the Ku Klux Klan. The group was led by William J. Simmons and attended by 15 charter members and a few aging survivors of the original Klan.[60]" Woodrowvitz (talk) 06:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism
I just un-did some anti-Jewish vandalism from this page; please consider locking to prevent repetition. Thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyroneking (talk • contribs) 22:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

What significance?
A fresh mound of human excrement was found in the elevator, though the significance was not recognized until after the trial.[13], quoth the article. No significance is ever indicated. Rwflammang (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

In regards to the mound of excrement, I've found two websites that state it's significance. Can someone verify the validity of these findings, and if correct, incorporate them in to the article?

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/frank/frankaccount.html http://www.leofrank.org/wrongly-accused-falsely-convicted-wantonly-murdered/

StrangeApparition2011 (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)StrangeApparition2011

Steve Oney described the evidence as literally "the shit in the shaft" and it ended up being the definitive proof Leo Frank did not kill Mary Phagan. Carmelmount (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * James Conley said he dumped in the elevator shaft of the National Pencil Company around morning time April 26, 1913, but also claimed to have moved Mary Phagan's dead body by elevator in the afternoon. When the police followed Nightwatchman Newton Lee to the basement through a scuttle hole and down a ladder, they noticed the mound of feces in the floor tray of the elevator shaft was fresh and not flattened. It meant Jim Conley lied, and didn't take the elevator, but the stairs, when he moved Mary. Carmelmount (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Fake citations and Original Research
In the section "Immediate Aftermath", someone inserted a big section of Original Research, including comments about the Lindberg baby, citing it to page 81 of Blakeslee. That page can be found here: and does not contain references that support the content. Stop re-inserting the OR and read the sources! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.32.195 (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Although the material about the Lindbergh baby and Dreyfus is not in the Blakeslee source, the rest of what you deleted is and more of it is referenced to another source. You had no business taking that out. I have reverted your deletion and deleted the unreferenced material. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It might be OR, but it's true.Carmelmount (talk) 10:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Disinterested third party here. To be fair, the truthfulness of original research is irrelevant. It is still not allowed under WP:OR. -Dapper cthulhu (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Dreyfus case and Leo Frank case are monozygotic twins of anti-Jewish racism. Carmelmount (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Proof: http://www.archive.org/details/TheLeoFrankCase1966Dissertation Carmelmount (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Misrepresentation Of The Evidence
This article is in dire need of a major edit. I am currently collecting the mass body of evidence that, not only convicted Leo Frank of this brutal murder, but convinced no less than five higher courts to deny his petitions for reprieve.

A sampling of this convincing evidence that is, oddly enough, completely overlooked in this article, includes testimony by a pastor who stated he had overheard Conley confess his crime to another man, only to later admitted that this statement was false and that he offered the statement because Frank's defense attorneys "were just handing money out".

Also a parade of women testified about his reputation concerning “his attitude toward women,” and witness after witness replied, “bad.”

Most damaging was that of sixteen-year-old Dewey Hall who told jurors that she saw Frank talking to Mary Phagan “sometimes two or three times a day” and that she also saw him “put his hand on her shoulder.”, contradicting Frank's statement that he didn't know her. Another witness reported seeing Frank and a female worker slip into a dressing room and “stay in there fifteen to thirty minutes.”

A young friend of Mary's, George Epps, said that Mary said that Frank had made advances towards her. Several other employees at the factory also claimed they had seen Frank flirt with various females at the plant. Nina Formby, the owner of a "rooming house," stated that Frank had made repeated calls to her on the day of the murder attempting to reserve a room for himself and a girl.

C.B. Dalton, a railroad carpenter, testified he had met with several women in the basement of the National Pencil Factory while Jim Conley watched out for him, and that he had seen numerous women come to the factory to visit Frank.

Monteen Stover, testified that she had arrived at the factory at 12:05 PM to receive her pay, had waited in Frank's office for him for five minutes, then left. This contradicted Frank's statement that he had been in his office the entire time in which the murder took place.

R.B. Barrett, a machinist at the factory, provided new information when he said he had found Mary Phagan's empty pay envelope and bloodstains near a machine on the factory's second floor.

This is just a sampling of the testimony that proved Leo Frank, not only lied about everything, but that he was bribing witnesses to falsify their testimony.

Of course his attornys had the ultimate come back to this extraordinary evidence: "Arnold told jurors that “if Frank hadn’t been a Jew he never would have been prosecuted."

I shall return to repair this article just as soon as I finishing collecting the remaining volumes of evidence. Manson 16:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

http://www.leofrank.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manson48 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest you check the archives of this discussion page before initiating your crusade. Wikipedia is based in general on reliable sources and in particular reliable secondary sources. This article does not need any wikipedia editor's original research and conclusions based on their own take of the primary sources.  This was the problem when a previous editor attempted to do what you state you intend to do.


 * The article as written is largely consistent with the major secondary sources and proper weight is given to the issues you have raised. I suggest you discuss proposed changes here before making edits to the main article.  As a starter, you might want to go through the claims you made above and explain exactly what RELIABLE SECONDARY SOURCES support you. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not appreciate your tone nor your assumptions, especially considering the fact that I have already done exactly what you suggest. I gave a sampling here of some of the evidence I intend to add, including a source. If you take issue with anything that I've stated thus far, then attack the specifics of those issues, rather than harp on what others have done, or what you think I'm about to do. I'm very well aquainted with Wiki's policies, and I intend to follow them to the letter. Any edits, I intend to make to this article, I will post on this page first for everyone's considerations. I do not find where any of the issues I've mentioned thus far have been addressed in the current article. Rather any of those are redundant is left to be seen, but I can assure you that none could be considered original research. As for sources, I will post those along with the proposed edits. Manson 20:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manson48 (talk • contribs)


 * Some quotes from your website source:


 * For more than a century Jewish historians and scholars are continuing to re-writing history on the Leo Frank case, producing grotesque media of every possible sort distorting the case in books, magazine and newspaper articles, films, plays, musicals, and now on the Internet etc… all to suggest the Leo Frank epic saga was one big anti-Semitic frame-up, and conspiracy, with a Jewish twist, all of it colorfully inspired by a semi-literate, uneducated and sloppy black factory sweeper, resulting in easily the biggest bamboozle in US history.


 * The Leo Frank Case is a Microcosm of a Jewish Culture War Against Western Civilization that Continues Unabated and Grows More Grotesque Each and Every Year….


 * and:


 * The Leo Frank case has been seized as an effective weapon by the traditional enemies of Western Civilization for their relentless culture war. The Leo Frank case is used to remind, teach, proselytize, and indoctrinate Gentile, especially children and students about how innately evil, prejudiced, and anti-Semitic their forebearers are concerning their persecution of an “innocent” Jew, but more importantly the Leo Frank case is used to activate the persecution-victimhood pathology that is a prevalent genetic disease deeply interwoven in the the collective Jewish genome, psyche, culture and history.


 * To the extent that the website provides links to primary sources, this is interesting but of little use to this article. To the extent that it provides narratives that serve as a secondary source, you need to establish that it meets wikipedia standards of reliability.  The sections I quoted cast doubts on the authors' historical objectivity and professionalism.  Who operates the website and what are their academic qualifications? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I urge people reading this discussion to take a look at two of Manson48's wonderful "contributions" to Wikipedia: and. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ServioHumara (talk • contribs) 01:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The only things of value on http://www.leofrank.org/ are the images and primary source libraries. Some of the site content reads like an amateur Tom Watson reborn in the 21st century. Any website claiming Leo Frank made "four separate and distinct murder confessions" can not be considered reliable or mainstream. I have not seen the LF Supreme Court of Georgia records anywhere but there. Carmelmount (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually all of the trial evidence I posted on this page came from this site: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/frank/frankaccount.html http://www.leofrank.org/wrongly-accused-falsely-convicted-wantonly-murdered/, which I found posted above. I will admit that some of the statements posted above from the www.leofrank.org/ website are extreme. However, I don't see how this disqualifies any links to qualifying sources available from the website. I wish to include a mention of the prosecutor's closing argument. It is worthy of mention if only because it was an historical record of length at the time. Manson 17:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manson48 (talk • contribs)


 * You stated above:


 * "This is just a sampling of the testimony that proved Leo Frank, not only lied about everything, but that he was bribing witnesses to falsify their testimony"


 * No reasonable person, especially persons familiar with the weaknesses of the prosecutions case and the testimony of Conley, could accept such an absolute proclamation. The Linder article that you now reference certainly makes no such claim. What do you actually propose to add concerning Dorsey's closing statement and what secondary source do you intend to use to support it? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This odious site http://www.leofrank.org/confession/ belonging to Manson48 is claiming Leo Frank confessed to murdering Mary Phagan on the witness stand. Could you talk more about the weaknesses of the prosecutions case in the LF entry?Carmelmount (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The biggest weakness, of course, is the excrement issue. What this actually means is not currently in the article and should be added. Other weaknesses relate to the timeline.  This  version of the article in the section "April 26 time line" goes into quite a bit of detail on both the prosecution's and defense's versions of the timeline, but the material was deleted about a year ago because it was too detailed. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Is that the best we can do? "the shit in the shaft theory" (Slaton, 1915; Steve Oney, 2003). Did Conley throw Phagan down the elevator shoot? or did he take the elevator down? The police reported seeing drag marks from the elevator to Phagan's dumping site in front of the cellar furnace. Who ever threw or drove Phagan down the elevator shaft missed Conley's excrement. Was it Conley? Is it because Conley explained at the trial, Leo Frank stopped short a number of times and fell into him that the excrement wasn't crushed? Or is it the small space at the bottom of each elevator. Did Jim lie and take Phagan down the scuttle hole as Alonzo man contends? Was Phagan thrown down from the second floor or first floor? How come the autopsy report doesn't reflect a 4'11 and "heavy girl" (115 to 120?)unconscious being thrown down 14 or 28 feet?

Tom, what do we do about trial brief of evidence State's exhibit B (April 28, 1913), Leo Frank claiming the arrival time of Phagan's on April 26, 1913, was at 12:05 to 12:10 PM, maybe 12:07 PM. And then Leo Frank at the trial August 18, 1913, saying he was "unsconsciosly" at the toilet at 12:05 to 12:10 PM to rebut Monteen Stover saying Leo Frank's office was empty during that time. Isn't that the crux of the brief of evidence? We only have one more year to make the Leo Frank case an Antisemitic conspiracy, and right now it doesn't fit that description.Carmelmount (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Newt lee o'clock discrepancies
Newt Lee was supposed to punch his time card on the clock every half hour according to Leo Frank. Is it possible Newt Lee knew something about the Phagan strangulation? On Sunday the day of the murder discovery, Leo Frank in front of the police, Newt Lee and NV Darley said Newt Lee's timecard was punched correctly every half hour for April 26/27 1913. The next day, Leo Frank discovered Lee missed 4 half-hour punches on this same timecard, with the corresponding absences on the night of the murder (April 26) and the next early morning (April 27) the day after the murder of Phagan. Unanswered, Newt Lee never accounted for these 4 missed punches saying he punched the clock every half hour. Leo Frank told the police on 04-28-1913 about these four Newt Lee open discrepancies and submitted the timecard proof as defense exhibit 1 at the 1913 trial. Lee missed a punch at 10:00 PM and 11:30 O'Clock at night on April 26, and 12:30 AM and 2:30 O'Clock in the morning on April 27. Can anyone independently confirm these missed punches by the night watch from the brief of evidence, http://www.leofrank.org/images/georgia-supreme-court-case-files/2/0074.jpg why was this information either suppressed for the defense or used against Leo Frank? The LF Wiki entry does not do enough to show Antisemitism was the root cause of Leo Frank's demise.Carmelmount (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Antisemitism
An IP has changed the first sentence in the article to exclude the reference to antisemitism. The following are examples from reliable sources that show both the antisemitism and the attention the case attracted attention well beyond Georgia:

Dinnerstein p. xv. Dinnerstein writes, "One of the most infamous outbursts of anti-Semitic feeling in the United States occurred in Georgia in the years 1913, 1914, and 1915. ... The Frank case, which eventually developed into one of the most talked-about injustices of the Progressive Era, served also to highlight the dilemnas and difficulties of the American South during that period."

Higham (1988) p. 185-186. Higham notes that while "overt anti-Semitic sentiment played little part" in the trial phase, during the appeals process "[h]atred of organized wealth reaching into Georgia from outside became a hatred of Jewish wealth. From one end of the state to the other the story went: 'The Jews have said that no Jew has ever been hanged and that none ever will be.'... In the last stages of the Frank Case, anti-Semitism reached the fiercely nationalistic twist it had acquired briefly in the nineties, and it assumed also an explicitly racial tone." The influential Tom Watson wrote, "It is a peculiar and portentious [sic] thing, that one race of men -- and one, only, -- should be able to convulse the world, by a system of newspaper agitation and suppression, when a member of that race is convicted of a capital crime against another race. ... from all over the world, the Children of Israel are flocking to this country, and plans are on foot to move them from Europe en mass ... to empty upon our shores the very scum and dregs of the Parasite Race. [italics are in the original text]"

Oney p. 462. Speaking of the national perception of the Frank case in the first weeks of 1915, Oney writes, "Outside Georgia, the perception that the state and its citizens were involved in an anti-Semitic persecution of an innocent man became universal."

It is my recollection that all of the above was included in the footnotes at one time but were trimmed when the aricle underwent a major rewrite as unnecessary. The material can be added back if folks think it is necessary to support the first sentence. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

PS Checked some diffs and this version contains the documentation -- see footnote 1. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

A myriad of references to the Antisemitism in the 'Leo Frank Case' can be found in Leonard Dinnerstein's (1966) PhD dissertation http://www.archive.org/details/TheLeoFrankCase1966Dissertation. The LF lead expresses Antisemitism weakly, it needs to be backed up with examples. The LF wiki entry needs to show Antisemitism was the cause of his framing and conviction, not the falsified evidence against him. Carmelmount (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Slaton and Conflict of Interest
The body of the article contained this sentence, "The Atlanta area public was outraged, in part because of what they saw as Slaton's conflict of interest: during Frank's trial Slaton had been made a partner in the law firm headed by Rosser, Frank's lead defense counsel at his 1913 trial." It was sourced to Dinnerstein pp. 123-124 and a similar statement was included in the lede. I have removed the material.

The source does in fact discuss a potential conflict of interest. It was mentioned in the context of a possible excuse Slaton could have used to disqualify himself from making a decision on Frank. Dinnerstein does not, however, on these pages or elsewhere make the link that the spontaneous demonstrations were, in any part, a reaction to this potential conflict of interest. Oney, likewise, does not make any such connection.

Absent a reliable source that connects the rioting with the perceived conflict of interest, it is OR for wikipedia to suggest that the two were related. Also, if someone wants to add the material back with the proper context in the proper place in the section, they can do so. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree with this, only to add that if the material is reinserted, it should not be in the lead. It's hardly a "need to know" about LF. IronDuke  18:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Did we just put the cause of Leo Frank's lynching down the memory hole? What caused Leo Frank to be lynched was it Antisemitism or a most grotesque conflict of interest, or Both? Now that the Conflict of Interest has been erased from the wiki entry, we can now open the doorway to making the reason Antisemitism. So where is the explanation for the lynching? Since it is one of the major events in Leo Frank's life, I would think we should be able to know WHY according to the consensus. Why does the article put the spot light on Antisemitism but not back it up? Where is the Antisemitism, why isn't the article brimming with it with so many secondary sources claiming it?

Erased from existence of Wikipedia the most powerful lawfirm in Georgia was called Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips (some of the company stationary with their name has survived and is available online), the 'Slaton' was lawpartner Governor John Marshall Slaton. The populist Tom Watson described the perceived gross conflict of interest in his Watson's Magazine (August, September and October 1915?) and Jeffersonian newspapers (1915, 1916, 1917?) as the Gov. Slaton "commuting the death sentence of his own client". Watson used the "disqualified status" of the Governer-lawpartner Slaton and his controversial commutation to whip up anger in his readership and further enrage the public by making them aware of what many believed was a treasonous betrayal by one of their own and the Jewish community therefore inciting Antisemitism and AntiJewish feelings.

Now that the doorway has been opened to Antisemitism, What's the consensus on Antisemitism was it non-existent or rampant in the south except for some isolated incidents. What do the news records of the period say to the amount of Antisemitism.

The ADL says "hang the Jew" was shouted outside into the court room windows, and so do other notable sources on the Leo Frank case. Numerous reliable sources have made this claim about Antisemitism in the Leo Frank Case can we please have an articulation of it? Shall we add Antisemitism to the article to replace Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips, and the GA Supreme Court Case Archive filled with affidavits and statements about this lawfirms criminal behavior during the appeals?

What we are beginning to see is wikipedia is evolving into whoever can write the most about a subject and quote it in Wikipedia, becomes mainstream WIKIPEDIA. Shall we hire every professor in the country to write this way or that way on the LF case to make it the mainstream Wikipedia version? Does anyone see where wikipedia is going? Unreliable claims becoming Wikipedia mainstream like the Phagan Teeth mark fraud because numerous "reliable" authors wrote about it Dinnerstein, Oney, Melnick, Wilkes, Alphin and others. What's going on here?

The commutation likely had everything to do with the lynching of Leo Frank (LF), not Anti-Semitism, and you can't help but blame the public being angry that a man who gave a blue moon to Mary Phagan's eye got clemency for the crime. The Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court file of appeals includes a number of incriminating affidavits against Slaton by former National Pencil Company employees accusing Slaton of being involved or associated in trying to criminally get them to rescind their LF trial testimony. Never before talked about is the GA Supreme Court Case archive on LF, it is there the devils in the details.Carmelmount (talk) 05:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If someone other than Slaton commuted the sentence to life, do you think there wouldn't have been public outrage and a lynching? In any case, without a reliable source for the answer it would be just our opinion, which can't be put into the article because of WP:NOR.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that there is nothing about the Slaton-Rosser law partnership in the article. Although there wasn't a reliable source that connected the Slaton-Rosser law partnership to the public outrage at the commutation, there are reliable sources that considered whether or not it was a conflict of interest. It seems that some mention of it should be in the article, being careful that what is added is supported by a reliable source. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: I made a corresponding edit. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "If someone other than [Governor John] slaton commuted the sentence to life, do you think there wouldn't have been public outrage and a lynching?" - Who else had the power or could have commuted the death sentence of Leo Frank scheduled to hang on June 22, 1915, with Slaton's term as Governor coming to an end less than a week later (June 28, 1913 – June 26, 1915)? Leo Frank had fully exhausted all of his appeals at the state and federal level of the united states appellate court system, the supreme court of the united states of america voted unanimously for no more reviews of the case. Followed by the GA prison board that voted 2 to 1 against a commutation of Leo Frank's death sentence, so who exactly else was going to commute the death sentence of Leo Frank other than the only person that had the power to do so, which was Governor John Marshall Slaton, the law partner of 'Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips', the lawfirm that represented Leo Frank during his trial and several appeals? The LF wiki entry still does not answer one of the most significant questions concerning one of the defining moments of LF's life, "Why was Leo Frank lynched or hanged (lead) by the most prominent citizens of GA"? Surely with all the books, magazine and newspaper articles written on the case, that question can be definitively and reliably answered with secondary sources.Carmelmount (talk) 04:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Height
It's a small issue, but I corrected the height of Frank based on Oney's work. The issue is reliable secondary sources versus primary sources and has been discussed to death -- both recently and the past. A while ago most references to primary sources were eliminated and there is no point in slowly adding them back. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm curious what Oney's and Lindemann's source was for Frank's height.  I didn't notice a source mentioned on the relevant page in Oney's book. Maybe his source was Lindemann's book?  Do you happen to know what Lindemann used as a source for Frank's height? (The relevant page in the Lindemann book wasn't available online.) Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a serious problem on wikipedia cherry picking "facts" from "reliable" secondary sources that are not accurate. The problem with human error, in the form of typos and sloppy research is why primary sources must be relied upon for accuracy. Two primary sources say Leo Frank is 5'8", his 1906 College Senior Year Book p. 345 and his 1907 Passport Application, but Oney and lindemann get Leo Frank's height wrong at 5'6". So guess who is correct about Leo Frank's height Oney and Lindemann, or the 1906 year book and official passport application notarized Dec 20, 1907? The perpetuation of the Phagan teeth mark hoax is not the only mistake Oney makes, he also made a mistake concerning Leo Frank's height and there are lots of other mistakes he made as well, that we will eventually flush in the future. The 5'6" height can not be verified by primary sources, but 5'8" can be verified by primary sources. Carmelmount (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding cherry picking, secondary and primary sources— Unfortunately, so far the  only secondary source for the 5'8" height is a website, www.leofrank.org, that is apparently self published and  has a biased anti-semitic style, and is thus not reliable. That website has a copy of a passport application with 5'8" and a copy of a Cornell yearbook with 5'8". Frank is student #177 on p.345.  That website may or may not have cherry picked  sources for the 5'8" height.  On the other hand, student #178 in the yearbook is 5'6", so  the ultimate source of Frank's 5'6" height might have been a misreading of this data table in the Cornell yearbook. But this is speculation. So far, I'm inclined to agree with North Shoreman and only use the reliable secondary sources for Frank's height since that is more in keeping with Wikipedia policy. But it would give me a better feeling if I knew that Oney and Lindemann had good sources  for Frank's height. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Lindemann does not footnote that portion of his narrative but based on his other footnotes I assume he got the info from another secondary source. Dinnerstein (page 6) uses a description from the Atlanta Constitution describing Frank as a "small, wiry man" without giving an actual height.  I assume that it is likely that 5'6" was widely circulated by the newspapers at the time and that this is the ultimate source.  Wouldn't his height have been noted on his arrest and reported in he press?  When facts are generally accepted, non-controversial, and/or unquestioned, there is a tendency not to footnote. Leofrank.org has a very specific agenda and a reason to cherry pick on an otherwise insignificant two inches -- objective writers and historians have no such bias. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Leonard Dinnerstein's book in general is filled with relevant errors, but we need not flush that out here at this time. Can you produce primary sources that say Leo Frank's height is 5'6" or some other height? Are we to presume Lindemann, Steve Oney et al. made a typo or a copy of a typo? Why not? Does anyone check primary sources anymore? Perhaps we could put in a foot note that says there is no primary source known in existence that records Leo Frank's height at 5'6", but two known reliable primary sources that put his height at 5'8". We should also mention all the authors that list Leo Frank's height and weight incorrectly. What we have here is sloppy research being requoted by secondary source authors that can not be considered reliable when their books are compared against the primary sources. We are all human and make mistakes, 5'6" is a typo, Leo Frank's correct height is 5'8" according to his official passport and his college weight was 145 lbs as listed in the Cornell U. 1906 class book p. 345 row 177.Carmelmount (talk) 10:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that North Shoreman made a good point, "Wouldn't his height have been noted on his arrest and reported in he press? When facts are generally accepted, non-controversial, and/or unquestioned, there is a tendency not to footnote." Regarding the two primary sources at leofrank.org, since the site is self-published and has a biased anti-semitic style, it's not reliable and may not be reporting all the relevant primary sources. Your points are reasonable but aren't good enough to overrule reliable secondary sources in my opinion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please show me a primary source that says Leo Frank's height is 5'6". You claim the Leo Frank web site http://www.leofrank.org is not reliable likely because it presents Antisemitic views and you appear to refer indirectly to the Leo Frank Alma Mater page http://www.leofrank.org/alma-mater/ for the 2 primary sources under suspicion. However www.Ancestry.com and Cornell university are reliable sources of information and report Leo Frank's height is 5'8". On Ancestry.com you can find Leo Frank's original passport application notarized on December 20, 1907, and Cornell University has uploaded the 1906 Cornell University Senior Year Book to www.archive.org (copies of the 1906 year book are for sale on Amazon.com). Once again Steve Oney shows himself to be a sloppy researcher and unreliable, as for Lindemann, despite his obvious biases, i'd give him the benefit of the doubt and say it was a typo and not sloppy research, he mistakenly used the information on page 344 for entry Edward Elway Free #178 (5'6") instead of Leo Frank #177 (5'8") in the Cornell University Year Book page 345. How many other secondary sources make this error of 5'6" concerning Leo Frank's correct height of 5'8"? Can we perhaps meet half way between the typo 5'6" and reliable primary sources recording 5'8"?Carmelmount (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Re "However www.Ancestry.com and Cornell university are reliable sources of information and report Leo Frank's height is 5'8"." — Do you have any direct link to the 5'8" info that doesn't go through leofrank.org? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For the Cornell Year Book, 1906, it is available on Archive.org at http://www.archive.org/details/seniorclassbook00cornuoft and the Leo Frank passport application is located at Ancestry.com which offers 15 day free trial right now, so have a look. On http://www.archive.org/details/seniorclassbook00cornuoft you can download the PDF on the left hand side it is 17MB. MSN Books is responsible for this digital scan http://www.archive.org/details/msn_books and it appears to be exactly reliable when compared to an original Cornell Year Book, 1906, which can be purchased on Amazon.com.Carmelmount (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yearbooks and passport applications are primary sources, regardless of whether they are archived by a legitimate online or offline organization. We have reliable secondary sources that say one thing and there is no reason to second guess based on the primary sources offered. Both are, likely, self reported and, when you're talking about 2 inches could be subject to any number of variables (i.e. vanity, thick soles of his shoes). Since there is no indication that either Oney or Lindemann ever reviewed these documents (why would they?), speculation about misreading the yearbook is purely a smokescreen.


 * What other primary sources are there that list Frank's height? We don't know.  Are the two primary sources cited absolutely determinative?  Obviously not. Are their any secondary sources that give a different height?  None that I know of but if this is important enough to anybody than it is the secondary sources that need to be checked. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Any thoughts on leaving the info box at 5'6" and adding to the footnote so it includes the Cornell info?
 * ^ Oney 2003 p. 10. Lindemann 1991 p. 244.
 * (5'8" according to )

--Bob K31416 (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Why? So we can have this discussion over and over again as Carmelmount tries to incorporate the leofrank.org info into this article and label secondary sources as sloppy and biased?  These discussions,  and  tackle the relevant issues. Check the editing history -- this article was filled with primary sources, some accurate but many cherry picked or misleading, and they were eliminated (not by me) after considerable discussion.  Why should we start going down that road again? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Bob, you should also add the Leo Frank passport application as well to that footnote, Ancestry.com has a free 15 day membership and provides LF PP. Tom, a passport and college yearbook are considered reliable sourcse on wiki for non-contentious information. There exists no primary sources saying Leo Frank is 5'6", the 5'6" is a result of typo and sloppy research.Carmelmount (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Re "Why?" — I thought it was interesting information that may be true and improve the article. Putting it in a footnote, where it is subordinate to the 5'6" in the info box, seemed appropriate. I'm still uneasy about not knowing where the authors of 1991 and 2003 books got their info about Frank's height in 1913. The points you brought up did not include whether or not you thought it would improve the article. Perhaps you could give your opinion in that regard.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No -- I don't believe the selective quoting of primary sources that are in conflict with reliable secondary sources improves this article, or any article. This is a problem that continually arises in the areas that I primarily edit (Civil War, Revolution, and Antebellum America). There is always "interesting information" that can be added to articles from primary sources, but much of it is anecdotal, taken out of context, or just plain wrong.


 * If you want to make it both more interesting and reliable, why don't we add in the body of the article a physical description (see Oney p. 10, Dinnerstein p. 6, and Lindemann p. 243-244)? This would be of more interest than simply noting a possible discrepancy in whether he was two inches taller or not -- frankly a subject that I only find interesting because of the anti-Semitic Jewish conspiracy aspects introduced by leofrank.org. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Re "but much of it is anecdotal, taken out of context, or just plain wrong" — That doesn't apply here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure it's anecdotal -- two instances out of how many documents that might contain his height OBJECTIVELY measured? Two instances we wouldn't even be discussing but for the agenda of leofrank.org. If these two inches were an important issue then they would be discussed somewhere in a reliable secondary source. What is discussed is the relevant fact that Leo Frank was not a physically imposing person (i.e. small, wiry, poor vision). Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as anecdotal, any more than I see its mention in Oney as anecdotal. It's data from a table in a publication of the period.  Do you know of any  sources for the height from that period, or from the following decades? Any idea where Oney and Lindemann might have gotten their height data? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * From your link, Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis. Oney has done a "rigorous" analysis of the Frank case. Citing two examples listed on a badly biased website is about as "casual" as you can get. Oney's bibliography lists 16 different newspapers and 14 archive/library collections as well as numerous published secondary sources -- I imagine it's in there somewhere (probably a newspaper). As for Lindemann, as I said, he most likely got it from a secondary source. There is no reason to believe that either relied on the Cornell Yearbook or that either made it up. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think the 5'8" Cornell info should go into the footnote because it might be true. Please note that the 5'6" value would be in the most prominent position and would clearly be given the most weight.  Most readers probably wouldn't  even look at the footnote.   --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we supposedly have 96 watchers on this article. Let's see if anyone else chimes in by the middle of next week.  I don't see any further purpose in the three of us discussing this. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's the part of the infobox that is under discussion, along with the affected footnote 1 in  the Notes section at the bottom of the article page.


 * The change would add the part in parentheses to the footnote. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

leo frank teeth xrays and teeth bitemarks on mary phagan's neck and shoulder (fake or real?)
The state's files on the case were lost (state and federal court records on LF all survived, including brief of evidence) and with them the opportunity to apply modern forensic techniques, such as comparing Frank's dental records with photographs of bite marks on Phagan's body.

Alphin, Melnik, Oney, Dinnerstein, and others make the conviction-overturning statement there were teeth bitemarks on Phagan's neck and shoulder and xrays were taken of Frank's teeth that didn't match them. There seems to be nothing about this recorded in the brief of evidence (police, doctors, medical examiners), Leo Frank's appeals (1913, 1914, 1915) or any Atlanta/Georgian newspapers. The citation comes from Pierre Van Paasen in 1964 about a claim in 1922. What do we do when a secondary source makes statements not supported or passing minimum scrutiny? 'To Number Our Days' by Pierre Van Paasen (1964), page 237 and line 27, and page 238.

"The Jewish community of Atlanta at that time seemed to live under a cloud. Several years previously one of its members, Leo Frank, had been lynched as he was being transferred from the Fulton Tower Prison in Atlanta to Milledgeville for trial on a charge of having raped and murdered a little girl in his warehouse which stood right opposite the Constitution building. Many Jewish citizens who recalled the lynching were unanimous in assuring me that Frank was innocent of the crime. I took reading all the evidence pro and con in the record department at the courthouse. Before long I came upon an envelope containing a sheaf of papers and a number of X-ray photographs showing teeth indentures. The murdered girl had been bitten on the left shoulder and neck before being strangled. But the X-ray photos of the teeth marks on her... continuing on page 238... body did not correspond with Leo Frank’s set of teeth of which several photos were included. If those photos had been published at the time of the murder, as they should have been, the lynching would probably not have taken place. Though, as I said, the man died several years before, it was too late, I thought, to rehabilitate his memory and perhaps restore the good name of his family. I showed Clark Howell the evidence establishing Frank’s innocence and asked permission to run a series of articles dealing with the case and especially with the evidence just uncovered. Mr. Howell immediately concurred, but the most prominent Jewish lawyer in the city, Mr. Harry Alexander, whom I consulted with a view to have him present the evidence to the grand jury, demurred. He said Frank had not even been tried. Hence no new trial could be requested. Moreover, the Jewish community in its entirety still felt nervous about the incident. If I wrote the articles old resentments might be stirred up and, who knows some of the unknown lynchers might recognize themselves as participants in my description of the lynching. It was better, Mr. Alexander thought, to leave sleeping lions alone. Some local rabbis were drawn into the discussion and they actually pleaded with Clark Howell to stop me from reviving interest in the Frank case as this was bound to have evil repercussions on the Jewish community. That someone had blabbed out of school became quite evident when I received a printed warning saying: Lay off the Frank case if you want to keep healthy. The unsigned warning was reinforced one night, or rather, early one morning when I was driving home. A large automobile drove up alongside of me and forced me into the track of a fast-moving streetcar coming from the opposite direction. My car was demolished, but I escaped without a scratch."

X-ray photographs are unable to show teeth indentures on skin in 1913 and 2013. X-ray technology was not used in 1913, 1914 or 1915, on teeth anywhere in Georgia. No defense autopsy reports in brief of evidence mention teethmarks on Phagan's neck and shoulder, or LF teeth x-rays, nor is it mentioned in any of numerous appeals or newspaper articles. Why are we trusting someone (P. Van Paasen) who said LF's appeals lawyer, said LF didn't have a trial yet. LF was not lynched on a train to prison work farm in June 1915 either. Head-on car wreck in 1922, with no scratches? What do we do when a statement does not pass minimum scrutiny, but is added in the lf wiki entry?Carmelmount (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * At wikipedia we rely on reliable secondary sources and the info in question has passed "minimum scrutiny" from these sources. Has a reliable secondary source noted the problem with the dental records that you cite above.  I did a quick Google search and couldn't find anything.  I did find this  at Amazon -- a reviewer that seems to be on a crusade against all reliable sources on the Frank trial. And of course the claim is made at leofrank.org by whoever organzed the website. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you do a google search and study xray technology and forensics for 1913. It is not possible to X-ray teethmarks on skin then or now. Journalists and authors are prone to cite erroneous information from time to time. It doesn't make the book or author invalid, just the citation. Wiki editors should check statements for their validity, not just insert anything that tickles their fancy. This particular example about xray photographs of teethmarks on skin doesn't pass the science class and is not mentioned in trial or appeals documents or newspapers of the time. What do others have to say about this problem.Carmelmount (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is that "Alphin, Melnik, Oney, Dinnerstein" (your list -- I only verified Oney) read Van Paassen's work and judged it credible enough to include in their works. As Wikipedia editors, we don't have the luxury of second guessing their judgement in evaluating the source.  They could very well have concluded that Van Paassen did not fully understand what he saw (i.e. did he actually see a photograph of Phagan instead of an x-ray and an x-ray of Frank's teeth instead of a photograph?). They could have judged that any errors made were not significant enough to dismiss everything else contained in the book. This of course is assuming that the transcription from the book is accurate -- where did you get it from?


 * You would have a better case is our article relied on van Paassen's book alone and nobody else choose to use it as a source. However that's not the case. To repeat an earlier question, Does any reliable source question Oney's use of this material?


 * The wikipedia article on Pierre van Paassen and the list of his works does not suggest that van Paassen is a crackpot given to making stuff up. Of course we can't really tell what he saw because the actual records mysteriously disappeared. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Carmelmount, you are misrepresenting what's in the article. The article contains no information sourced to van Paassen and says nothing about x-rays. None of the information in the paragraph you reproduce above is in the article. It merely says that when the parole board reviewed the case in the 80s the case files were missing and consequently they had no way of comparing Frank's dental records to photographs of the bite marks on Phagan's body. This statement is sourced to Oney. If you have any reasonable challenge to those facts as cited by Oney or to Oney's reliability as a source, you're welcome to bring it, but so far all you're doing is whining about something that isn't even in the article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oney made a mistake including this erroneous/false claim in his book. Several doctors testified at the LF trial for LF and the State. The defense/state doctor autopsy reports at the LF trial and appeals mention no teethmarks or bitemarks on Phagan's shoulder and neck. None of the newspapers of the era 1913-1914-1915 mention teethmarks / bitemarks on Phagan. Authors/journalists do make mistakes from time to time, it doesn't invalidate the author or book. The origin of Oney's citation about teethmarks / bitemarks on Mary Phagan comes from Pierre Van Paasen 1964, clearly an unreliable source. Mary Phagan was evaluated by several doctors, buried, exhumed, evaluated by doctors and buried again. There are no bitemarks / teethmarks on the neck or shoulder of Mary Phagan's embalmed body. You should read the brief of evidence, appeals and newspaper reports to know there are no teeth or bitemarks on Phagan.Carmelmount (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

North Shoreman, Re your edit summary "revert -- the source cited (Oney p. 647) specifically mentions 'Frank's dental X rays' and 'photograhps of the bite wounds' " — Could you give the excerpt from Oney p. 647 that includes these two phrases that you quoted, and any references that Oney gives for the excerpt? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This is the paragraph from which the quotes are taken (you can access it yourself by using the green link to the book in the article's bibliography):


 * Conley's disappearance from the scene was not the only factor complicating the Board of Pardon and Paroles' attempt to delve back into the Phagan mystery. Also gone were the state's files. In 1947, an Atlanta lawyer and writer named Allen Lumpkin Henson visited Hugh Dorsey in his office to discuss the possibility of writing about the case. "Magazines all over the country keep on distorting the facts," Dorsey told Henson before directing his attention to a large cabinet packed with the documents and pieces of physical evidence that had factored so large during the summer of 1913. "Every scratch of the pen, including my notes and memoranda made during the trial" were there, the former solicitor remarked. Not long after this meeting, Dorsey was dead. Seventeen years later, his oldest son, James, wrote historian Leonard Dinnerstein: "During the years since my father's death I am afraid that any old papers which he might have preserved have been lost or destroyed." As a result, the men looking into the matter in 1983 were unable to apply the tools of contemporary forensic science to such items as Frank's dental X rays and the photographs of the bite wounds supposedly covering Mary Phagan's body. Simply put, the argument would never move beyond that of Conley's word versus Frank's.


 * The reference in the "Notes" section of Oney's book is to Van Paasen.


 * PS There is a specific discussion of van Paassen on page 617. Oney specifically quotes van Paassen:


 * The photos of the teeth marks on her body did not correspond with Leo Frank’s set of teeth.


 * Note that Carmelmount slightly changes the quote to:


 * But the X-ray photos of the teeth marks on her... continuing on page 238... body did not correspond with Leo Frank’s set of teeth of which several photos were included.


 * Carmelmount makes much of the inclusion of the word "X-ray", but the question is now whether Oney or Carmelmount is accurately quoting van Paassen (shame on Oney, however, if he failed to use ellipsis).Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Sections of the Jewish community may well have been cautious about re-opening the case, but I am cautious about assuming that this feeling was as strong as this quote makes out, given that there was a lot written about the case in the 20th century e.g. Harry Golden, a leading Jewish journalist, wrote a book about the case in 1966, arguing strongly for Frank's innocence. PatGallacher (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The reluctance on the part of the Jewish community to reopen the case refers back to the 1920s, not the 1960s. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is the excerpt from Oney's book that quotes Paassen (presumably Paassen's 1964 book), and the corresponding part of Paassen's book that was provided by Carmelmount.


 * Oney — There, he discovered what seemed to be a critical new evidence — Frank's dental X rays and photographs of Mary Phagan's body "showing teeth indentures." Confirming long-standing speculation, Van Paassen later wrote: "The murdered girl had been bitten on the left shoulder and neck before being strangled." What was truly startling, however, was this: "The photos of the teeth marks on her body did not correspond with Leo Frank's set teeth ... If those photos had been published at the time of the murder ... the lynching would probably not have taken place."


 * Van Paassen via Carmelmount — Before long I came upon an envelope containing a sheaf of papers and a number of X-ray photographs showing teeth indentures. The murdered girl had been bitten on the left shoulder and neck before being strangled. But the X-ray photos of the teeth marks on her body did not correspond with Leo Frank’s set of teeth of which several photos were included. If those photos had been published at the time of the murder, as they should have been, the lynching would probably not have taken place.

Comparing the excerpt from Oney's book that quotes Van Paassen's book, with the excerpt that Carmelmount got directly from Van Paassen's book:

Oney might have thought that Van Paassen's memory got mixed up about what were X-ray photos and what were ordinary photos, and Oney may have been correcting Van Paassen's mistake. That would explain the selective quoting by Oney that didn't include quotes with the term "X-ray". --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oney mentions Van Paassen's use of the term X-ray but doesn't give a quote of Van Paassen using the term X-ray.
 * Carmelmount gives the corresponding excerpt from Van Paassen's book that uses the term X-ray.


 * You are assuming that Carmelmount took the info from the book. I asked him/her above where the excerpt came from and have not received a reply.  It is more likely that the quote came from leofrank.org (see, for example ).  While the website does have links to legitimate websites, much of the material (see discussion above) that is original commentary is extremely unprofessional and antisemitic. On the portion of the website that I linked, the following commentary occurs right before the van Paassen material is quoted:


 * Pro Leo Frank revisionists and partisan authors have been intentionally perpetuating a known fraud called the “1964 Mary Phagan Bitemark and Leo Frank X-Ray Hoax” for the specific purpose of tricking the general public into thinking Leo Frank was an innocent White man wrongfully convicted for the murder of Mary Phagan by an evil Goyim conspiracy orchestrated by the people of Georgians who knew he was innocent, but were bent on framing him because Leo Frank was Jewish. The fraud has been perpetuated by Pseudo-Historian Leonard Dinnerstein, Emeritus Professor of History, University of Arizona; Tabloid journalist-author Steve Oney; Pseudo-Scholar Donald E. Wilkes, Jr. Professor of Law, University of Georgia School of Law; and children’s book author Elaine Marie Alphin, along with many other members of the Jewish community. 


 * I don't think it is reasonable to accept w/o question that van Paassen is quoted accurately by this website. Of course, the bottom line, regardless of my opinion or what the actual language is, is that reliable sources have found van Paassen to be a reliable source for their works.  If I seem to be beating a dead horse, it is because a little over a year ago the article was attacked by an editor using numerous sock puppets and Carmelmount and Manson48 are using the exact same arguments and sources used by the other editor. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Personally, I trust Oney to quote van Paasen accurately more than I trust Carmelmount or leofrank.org. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If an editor gives an excerpt from a book that is available to the public, it seems reasonable to get the book from a library and check the excerpt if there's some doubt about the authenticity of the excerpt. Here's a link for finding nearby libraries that have it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oney's citation about teethmarks on Phagan comes from Pierre Van Paasen (1964), 'To Number Our Days'. The copied quote from Pierre Van Paasen's book is accurate, and if anyone has any doubts about the accuracy of the quote they can purchase the book from Amazon, or borrow a copy through the US inter-loan library system. No where in the LF trial brief of evidence, appeals or slaton commutation hearings is there any mention of teethmarks on Phagan's neck and shoulder, or photographs of teethmarks anywhere on Phagan. None of the three local Atlanta newspapers, Constitution, Journal or Georgian mention anything about teeth marks on Mary Phagan.Carmelmount (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Re "No where in the LF trial brief of evidence, appeals or slaton commutation hearings is there any mention of teethmarks on Phagan's neck and shoulder, or photographs of teethmarks anywhere on Phagan. None of the three local Atlanta newspapers, Constitution, Journal or Georgian mention anything about teeth marks on Mary Phagan." — Do you have a link to any reliable sources that made these claims? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Please search on 'Leo Frank' once inside the Georgia State Virtual Vault. There are three links of Leo M. Frank vs. The State of Georgia. The state archive contains three identical copies of the LF trial brief of evidence (28th of July, 1913, to 26, of August, 1913) http://cdm.sos.state.ga.us/index.php some versions are clearer than others (2nd copy of the brief of evidence is clear with the motion for new trial). State and defense doctors who examined Phagan testified to what they found on Phagan's body in the brief of evidence. I checked again for the fourth time to be sure and nowhere does it mention teeth marks on Phagan's neck and shoulder (or anywhere on her body). American State Trials v. 10 by JD Lawson LLD, has the closing statements of State / Defense attorneys http://www.archive.org/download/AmericanStateTrials1918VolumeXleoFrankAndMaryPhagan/american-state-trials-1918-volume-X.pdf nothing by Dorsey, Hooper, Rosser or Rube Arnold about teeth marks on Phagan. Leo Frank and his counsel filed a motion for a new trial on more than 100 grounds, and nowhere in those 100 grounds does it mention teeth marks on Mary Phagan. The motion for a new trial is also available to read on http://cdm.sos.state.ga.us/index.php see Leo Frank vs State (second example Leo Frank vs. The State of Georgia). There is a bill of exceptions on http://cdm.sos.state.ga.us/index.php and nothing about teeth marks on MP. The original 30 page clemency order of Gov. J.M. Slaton is listed on http://cdm.sos.state.ga.us/index.php and again nothing about teeth marks on Phagan. I found a 1818 page GA supreme court file on LF on the unreliable source called the Leo Frank library http://www.leofrank.org/images/georgia-supreme-court-case-files/ it appears to be authentic when compared against Georgia State Archive documents. The newspaper articles taken from proquest on http://www.leofrank.org/newspapers/ appear to be authentic as well. The Internet Archive http://www.archive.org contains numerous books on the Leo Frank case, eg. CP.Connolly The Truth about the Leo Frank Case http://www.archive.org/download/TheTruthAboutLeoFrankCase/the-truth-about-the-leo-frank-case-1915.pdf Night fell on Georgia http://www.archive.org/download/NightFellOnGeorgia/Night_Fell_on_Georgia.pdf The case of Leo Frank by Rascoe Burton http://www.archive.org/details/TheCaseOfLeoFrank and none of the legal docs, or books before 1964 describe teeth marks on Phagan. 1964 appears to be the birth of this fabrication.Carmelmount (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry that you went through all that effort with your last message, but that doesn't seem to be what I was asking, although I appreciate your effort. I was asking for a reliable source that came to the same conclusions that you made in your previous message that I quoted.


 * Also, what concerns me is that it is difficult to say that evidence regarding bite marks never existed. There seemed to be an atmosphere around the time of the trial that may have suppressed exculpatory evidence and kept it from the defense attorneys. It's my understanding that Van Paassen claims to have come across the bite marks evidence in 1922, 9 years after the trial when things may have settled down somewhat. I can only speculate that he may have been able to find the evidence when others during the trial didn't, because it wasn't as carefully guarded and hidden anymore. Do you think that's a reasonable possibility? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * So much of what Van P says misrepresents facts of the LF case. He provides incorrect information about the trial, lynching, Henry Alexander. Most amusing he claims while driving his car in 1922 he was forced into a head on collision, but he escaped with out a scratch. The airbag must have saved him. Autopsies were performed on the naked and embalmed body of Mary Phagan by LF Defense doctors and their reports http://cdm.sos.state.ga.us/index.php are in the LF brief of evidence. None of the Lf defense doctors describe teeth marks on Phagan or xrays of LF mouth proving him innocent. The LF teeth xrays and Phagan bodily teeth marks are made up. Had there been teeth marks on Phagan, it would have been reported.Carmelmount (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Re "Autopsies were performed on the naked and embalmed body of Mary Phagan by LF Defense doctors and their reports http://cdm.sos.state.ga.us/index.php are in the LF brief of evidence." — I went to the link you provided and only got the home page. Could you give the link to the webpage that has the autopsy reports by the LF defense doctors?  Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I checked again for teeth marks on MP or LF mouth xrays/photos at Georgia Virtual Vault http://cdm.sos.state.ga.us/index.php search on Leo Frank, look for three items Leo Frank vs. The State of Georgia. The second and third copy of the brief of evidence are clear to read. The State made it's case first, then the Defense made it's case. You can find the Defense's case in the second half of the trial portion brief of evidence. Then comes the exhibits at the end. No defense doctors who examined MP's naked and embalmed body and reported teeth marks on Phagan's neck or shoulder, they reported nothing about LF xrays, mouth indenture molds or photos of his mouth. I checked again LF made a motion for a new trial on 107 grounds http://cdm.sos.state.ga.us/index.php nothing in their either about teeth marks on MP's shoulder or neck, nothing in their about xrays, denture molds or photos of LF mouth. Same with all of LF appeals, nothing about teeth marks on MP shoulder and neck, or LF mouth xrays, photos or mouth molds. I downloaded and checked the agonizing long http://www.leofrank.org/images/georgia-supreme-court-case-files/ supreme court of georgia file on LF, nothing in their either. Gov. JM Slaton says nothing about teeth marks either in his 30 page clemency order. I checked every book written about the LF case before 1964, none mention teeth marks anywhere on MP. Van P is an unreliable source and his claims can not be verified.Carmelmount (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that but you didn't give the requested link. Could you give the link to the webpage that has the autopsy reports by the LF defense doctors? --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I went through the brief of evidence, 1913, and focused on defense doctors. Page 154 Prof. Geo Bachman, p. 143 Dr. Owens, p. 156 Dr. Thomas Hancock, p.159 Dr. Thomas Hancock, p. 159 Dr. Willis F. Westmoreland, P. 161 Dr. J.C. Olmstead, p. 162 Dr. W.S. Kendrick, p165 Dr. Leroy Childs, p228 Dr. SC Benedict, p. 236 Dr. Clarence Johnson, P. 238 Dr. George M. Niles, p240 Dr. John Funk. The central argument by defense doctors seems to be over things like stomach digestion, cause of the black eye on Mary Phagan, inflammation found in her vagina, LF penis examinations. The examinations of Phagan were primarily conducted by undertaker Gheesling and Dr. Harris, probably Atlanta police, not defense doctors as far a I can see. However, there is still no mention of Leo Frank teeth examination, photos, molds, xrays or teeth marks on Phagan by defense doctors. Can someone please provide evidence before the Van P claim in 1964 that there were teeth marks on phagan and xrays or photos taken of LF mouth. Otherwise there is no proof of it and Van P is not a reliable source because he gets everything wrong about the frank case.Carmelmount (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

All of the discussion concerning YOUR analysis of primary sources and YOUR analysis of Van Paassen's book are irrelevant. What is relevant is that ACTUAL RELIABLE SECONDARY SOURCES have accepted Van Paassen's claim regarding dental records as credible and NO RELIABLE SECONDARY SOURCES question it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Carmelmount, Re your comment, "The examinations of Phagan were primarily conducted by undertaker Gheesling and Dr. Harris, probably Atlanta police, not defense doctors as far a I can see." — Thanks for correcting your previous comment, "Autopsies were performed on the naked and embalmed body of Mary Phagan by LF Defense doctors..."
 * Re your comment, "However, there is still no mention of Leo Frank teeth examination, photos, molds, xrays or teeth marks on Phagan by defense doctors." — Couldn't that be because the exculpatory evidence related to bite marks was withheld from the defense doctors and they didn't know about it since they didn't examine the body themselves? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * A number of sources suggest at 3 AM-ism on Aug. 27, 1913, when the Nightwatch Newt Lee found Phagan in the basement she was fully clothed. Could someone have take off her dress, bit her shoulder and then put the dresss back on? Possibly, but there is no evidence about teeth marks on MP except from an unreliable journalist Van P. in 1964. Leo Frank was not arrested until Tuesday, so between Sunday and Monday, nobody reported teeth marks on Phagan's neck and shoulder. Had someone bitten Phagan they would have reported it and taken teeth molds of Lee, Gantt, Frank, Bailey, Mullenaux (sp) and all the other people suspected. The media would have likely reported the police where looking for the suspect whose teeth marks were on Phagan. To suggest Gheesling, Dorsey, Harris, Atlanta Police, others knew of teeth marks on Phagan and they took xrays of Leo Frank's mouth and they didn't match, but prosecuted him anyway, amounts to intentionally murdering an innocent man. This is nearly impossible to reconcile with the evidence, when considering Leo Frank told the police on he never left his office between noon and 12:45. Monday the 28 of April, Frank said miss Phagan came into his office between 12:05 to 12:10PM (states exbht b), but at the trial (aug. 18) he changed his story and said he was using the toilets in the metal room during this time to account for his office being empty (Monteen Stover). According to one site, in a prison interview, Atanta Constitution, March 9, 1914, Frank one more time confirmed his presence at the toilets in the metal room regarding Monteen Stover, this again during the time he once said Phagan was in his office. Apparently the only toilets on second floor / office floor are in the metal room based on defendents exhibits and states exhibit A. Pretty incriminating to put yourself so near the crime scene at the time claimed for Phagans arrival. About the teeth marks, I'm not saying Oney is an unreliable source, but journalists do make mistakes from time-to-time, and the question arises, should we include their unverifiable mistakes in the wiki entry.Carmelmount (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I went to a library and photocopied the part of the Van Paassen 1964 book on pages 237–8 that discussed the Leo Frank case. I compared it with Carmelmount's excerpt, word for word. With regard to the teeth marks part, Van Paassen's book was identical to that part of Carmelmount's excerpt. There were some minor transcription errors in other parts of Carmelmount's excerpt. Those transcription errors were also found in the excerpt that was at http://www.leofrank.org/steve-oney/.

The Jewish community of Atlanta at that time seemed to live under a cloud. Several years previously one of its members, Leo Frank, had been lynched as he was being transferred from the Fulton Tower Prison in Atlanta to Milledgeville for trial on a charge of having raped and murdered a little girl in his warehouse which stood right opposite the Constitution building. Many Jewish citizens who recalled the lynching were unanimous in assuring me that Frank was innocent of the crime.

I took to reading all the evidence pro and con in the record department at the courthouse. Before long I came upon an envelope containing a sheaf of papers and a number of X-ray photographs showing teeth indentures. The murdered girl had been bitten on the left shoulder and neck before being strangled. But the X-ray photos of the teeth marks on her body did not correspond with Leo Frank’s set of teeth of which several photos were included. If those photos had been published at the time of the murder, as they should have been, the lynching would probably not have taken place.

Though, as I said, the man died several years before, it was not too late, I thought, to rehabilitate his memory and perhaps restore the good name of his family. I showed Clark Howell the evidence establishing Frank’s innocence and asked permission to run a series of articles dealing with the case and especially with the evidence just uncovered. Mr. Howell immediately concurred, but the most prominent Jewish lawyer in the city, Mr. Harry Alexander, whom I consulted with a view to have him present the evidence to the grand jury, demurred. He said Frank had not even been tried. Hence no new trial could be requested. Moreover, the Jewish community in its entirety still felt nervous about the incident. If I wrote the articles old resentments might be stirred up and, who knows, some of the unknown lynchers might recognize themselves as participants in my description of the lynching. It was better, Mr. Alexander thought, to leave sleeping lions alone. Some local rabbis were drawn into the discussion and they actually pleaded with Clark Howell to stop me from reviving interest in the Frank case as this was bound to have evil repercussions on the Jewish community.

That someone had blabbed out of school became quite evident when I received a printed warning saying: "Lay off the Frank case if you want to keep healthy." The unsigned warning was reinforced one night or, rather, early one morning when I was driving home. A large automobile drove up alongside of me and forced me into the track of a fast-moving streetcar coming from the opposite direction. My car was demolished, but I escaped without a scratch....

--Bob K31416 (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Van Paassen claims, Leo Frank was lynched on his way from the Atlanta tower to Milledgeville for a murder trial, but Leo Frank had his trial in 1913, and was lynched 2 years later in Marietta August 17, 1915. Van P also claims, he went to the courthouse and found records concerning teeth marks on Phagan and photos of LF's teeth, how come no one else ever saw these records? How did they get there? How do we know they are real? What ever became of the evidence? Why did LF never mention his teeth were photographed to compare them with teeth marks on Phagan? Van Paasen claims, "Mr. Harry Alexander, whom I consulted with a view to have him present the evidence to the grand jury, demurred. He said Frank had not even been tried. Hence no new trial could be requested". Why would Frank's appeals lawyer Henry Alexander be talking about presenting evidence to a grand jury and that Leo Frank did not have a trial yet? Van Paasen claims he was in a head on collision and escaped without a scratch, "A large automobile drove up alongside of me and forced me into the track of a fast-moving streetcar coming from the opposite direction. My car was demolished, but I escaped without a scratch....". Van Paasen is indisputably a crackpot and any references to his unverifable and unreliable teeth mark claims by sources such as Dinnerstein or Oney should be added to the wiki entry if it is to maintain scholarly integrity.Carmelmount (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Much of your message is off the topic of this section which is evidence related to teeth marks. Regarding the questions you are raising about the credibility of Van Paassen's recounting of the teeth mark evidence, I don't think those questions are enough reason to exclude the material from the article. See my comments of  23:53, 13 January 2012 in the section below. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Comparison of excerpts from Oney and Van Paassen
From Oney p. 617,
 * Shortly after landing a job at the Constitution, Pierre Van Paassen immersed himself in the records at the Fulton County Courthouse. There, he discovered what seemed to be a critical new evidence — Frank's dental X rays and photographs of Mary Phagan's body "showing teeth indentures." Confirming long-standing speculation, Van Paassen later wrote: "The murdered girl had been bitten on the left shoulder and neck before being strangled." What was truly startling, however, was this: "The photos of the teeth marks on her body did not correspond with Leo Frank's set of teeth ... If those photos had been published at the time of the murder ... the lynching would probably not have taken place." 

From Van Paassen pp. 237–8,
 * I took to reading all the evidence pro and con in the record department at the courthouse. Before long I came upon an envelope containing a sheaf of papers and a number of X-ray photographs showing teeth indentures. The murdered girl had been bitten on the left shoulder and neck before being strangled. But the X-ray photos of the teeth marks on her body did not correspond with Leo Frank’s set of teeth of which several photos were included. If those photos had been published at the time of the murder, as they should have been, the lynching would probably not have taken place.

Oney misrepresented and misquoted Van Paassen's book regarding X rays.
 * 1) Misrepresentation — Oney referred to X rays of Frank's teeth, and photographs of teeth marks (indentures) on Phagan's body, whereas Van Paassen wrote  the opposite, i.e. there were X rays of  teeth marks (indentures) on Phagan's body, and photos of Frank's teeth.
 * 2) Misquoting — Oney quote of Van Paassen, "The photos of the teeth marks on her body did not correspond with Leo Frank's set of teeth ..."
 * Van Paassen actually wrote, "But the X-ray photos of the teeth marks on her body did not correspond with Leo Frank’s set of teeth of which several photos were included."

Oney summarized his comments later in his book on p. 647,
 * ...Frank's dental X rays and the photographs of the bite wounds supposedly covering Mary Phagan's body.

The corresponding material currently in the Wikipedia article is,
 * ...comparing Frank's dental records with photographs of bite marks on Phagan's body.

Before considering whether to do anything about this, I would like editors' thoughts on whether Oney misrepresented and misquoted what Van Paassen wrote. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * To me, "misrepresented" suggests intentionality (for example see []. There is nothing to suggest that there was any attempt by Oney to deceive anybody.  Did he "misquote"?  It seems likely that he did, but it probably was nothing but sloppy note taking or sloppy editing. It should be noted that Dinnerstein (page 158) also used van Paassen.


 * Does any of this suggest that van Paassen did not see something that he concluded were Frank's dental records and bite wounds on Phagan?


 * I would suggest rewriting the paragraph as follows (bold print indicates new language and strike out indicate deleted material):


 * Mann's deposition was the basis of an attempt to obtain a posthumous pardon for Frank from the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles. The effort was led by Charles Wittenstein, southern counsel for the Anti-Defamation League, and Dale Schwartz, an Atlanta lawyer, though Mann's testimony was not sufficient to settle the issue. The board also reviewed the files from Slaton's commutation decision. It denied the pardon in 1983, hindered in its investigation by the lack of available records. Conley had died in 1962. The state's files on the case, which were last in the possession of lead prosecutor Hugh Dorsey, were lost or destroyed and with them the opportunity to apply modern forensic techniques, such as comparing Frank's dental records with photographs bite marks on Phagan's body. It concluded that, "After exhaustive review and many hours of deliberation, it is impossible to decide conclusively the guilt or innocence of Leo. M. Frank. For the board to grant a pardon, the innocence of the subject must be shown conclusively." At the time, the lead editorial in the Atlanta Constitution began, 'Leo Frank has been lynched a second time'.


 * Absent any discussion in reliable sources regarding the x-ray/photograph discrepancy, I don't see where any attempt to speculate on it in the article is warranted nor is it sufficient to justify exclusion. What would be inappropriate is to claim that evidence proved Frank's innocence but we don't do that.


 * I do think it is appropriate to explain, as Oney does (page 647), who had the evidence before it was lost or destroyed. I also think that elsewhere in the article it is necessary (since the issue of forensic evidence is being raised) that more details be added on the evidence reviewed by Governor Slaton which includes the shit in the shaft, the lack of blood where it should have occurred, the language of the murder notes and the location of the pads, the faulty hair analysis, etc. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (Let's first settle the Van Paassen/Oney teeth marks issue before going onto something else.)
 * The teeth marks info looks unreliable. It comes from the 1964 memoirs of a journalist who makes the uncorroborated claim to have seen X-ray photographs of teeth marks  42 years previously in 1922. So far, there hasn't been presented on this talk page even a hint of this evidence from any other independent source.   Oney's  report of Van Paassen's account was carefully crafted, not sloppy,  with the result that a  part of Van Paassen's recollection that casts doubt on its credibility, was changed. Editors can read the excerpts from Oney and Van Paassen at the top of this section and judge for themselves. In any case, sloppy or otherwise, wouldn't you agree that Oney incorrectly reported and misquoted Van Paassen's account with respect to the X-ray photos?


 * I don't think we should propagate in Wikipedia clearly erroneous reporting (e.g. Oney's report of Van Paassen's X-ray info)  or present info in a way that is not NPOV. However, if you think the Van Paassen account is worthwhile information for the article, then for NPOV why not put its information in the article with its problems? (Note that Van Paassen's book is a secondary source for the information in the X-ray photos and photos, and thus OK in that regard.)  One possibility is the following,
 * The state's files on the case were lost and with them the opportunity to apply modern forensic techniques, such as comparing Frank's dental records with photographs of bite marks on Phagan's body .[1]
 * 1. For example, a journalist claims in his 1964 memoirs to have seen in 1922,  records containing X-ray photos of  teeth marks on the corpse of Mary Phagan, and photos of Leo Frank's teeth which did not match the teeth marks.
 * Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree with most of your comments. Memoirs certainly are primary sources -- see [] and [].  While the lines may blur depending on the scope of the memoir, this memoir is a primary source for the salient issue (i.e. what van Paassen saw).  As far as corroboration, van Paassen's work was published in 1964, after the records were lost or destroyed.  The basic charge by van Paassen (i.e. that the prosecution improperly handled and interpreted evidence) is certainly not extraordinary -- there are numerous examples of this happening.  With regard to autopsy results, see Oney pages 91-92 -- Dorsey (the last man known to have the records in his possession before they disappeared) placed very tight restrictions on the release of evidence from the autopsy.  You ignore the fact that it is not just Oney who relied on van Paassen but numerous other authors.  The most significant scholarly use of the material was the book by PHD Leonard Dinnerstein.


 * I really object to you statement, "I don't think we should propagate in Wikipedia clearly erroneous reporting (e.g. Oney's report of Van Paassen's X-ray info)  or present info in a way that is not NPOV."  There is nothing POV about the existing language -- it is properly sourced and uncontradicted by any reliable source.  Perhaps you can show us what part of Neutral point of view has been violated.  I think the error would be to ignore evidence reported in the two most significant works on the subject.


 * Having said all that, your proposal merits consideration. I object to the use of the weasel word "claim" (see WP:CLAIM.  I also believe, as I suggested earlier, that specifics on who last had the evidence is significant.  I suggest the following:


 * The state's files on the case were lost[1] and with them the opportunity to apply modern forensic techniques, such as comparing Frank's dental records with photographs of bite marks on Phagan's body .[2]
 * 1. Oney 2003, p.647. Hugh Dorsey admitted to having the records in his possession in 1947, but after his death Dorsey's son replied in 1964 to historian Leonard Dinnerstein's request that the records had "been lost or destroyed".
 * 2. For example, a journalist claims states in his 1964 memoirs to have seen that he saw in 1922,  records containing X-ray photos of  teeth marks on the corpse of Mary Phagan, and photos of Leo Frank's teeth which did not match the teeth marks.


 * Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Since we disagree on a number of peripheral items but seem to be moving towards agreement about what should be in the article, I'll focus on the latter.


 * Here's a version that edits your latest version (including a part which was also in my previous version), mainly by changing to the relevant quote from Van Paassen's book and the relevant quote of Dorsey's son in Oney's book.


 * The state's files on the case were lost[1] and with them the opportunity to apply modern forensic techniques.[2]
 * 1. Oney 2003, p.647. In 1947 shortly before his death, Hugh Dorsey admitted to having said he had the records in his possession in 1947, but after his death Dorsey's son replied in 1964 to historian Leonard Dinnerstein's request that the records had "been lost or destroyed" . Seventeen years later, Dorsey's son James wrote in a private communication, "During the years since my fathers death I am afraid that any old papers which he might have preserved have been lost or destroyed." Oney 2003, p.647.
 * 2. For example, a journalist states in his 1964 memoirs that he saw courthouse records in 1922,  records containing X-ray photos of  teeth marks on the corpse of Mary Phagan, and photos of Leo Frank's teeth which did not match the teeth marks. evidence relating to teeth marks on Mary Phagan's body.  "But the X-ray photos of the teeth marks on her body did not correspond with Leo Frank's set of teeth of which several photos were included."


 * And here's the same version without the struckout text and underlines.
 * The state's files on the case were lost[1] and with them the opportunity to apply modern forensic techniques.[2]
 * 1. In 1947 shortly before his death, Hugh Dorsey said he had the records in his possession. Seventeen years later, Dorsey's son James wrote in a private communication, "During the years since my fathers death I am afraid that any old papers which he might have preserved have been lost or destroyed." Oney 2003, p.647.
 * 2. For example, a journalist states in his 1964 memoirs that he saw courthouse records in 1922,  containing evidence relating to teeth marks on Mary Phagan's body.  "But the X-ray photos of the teeth marks on her body did not correspond with Leo Frank's set of teeth of which several photos were included."
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Works for me. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's wait awhile before making the edit to see if anyone else would like to comment. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It was not scientifically possible to xray teeth marks on the surface of someone's skin in 1913. I ask for proof it was forensically possible. Other than Van P's 1964 fabrication, can anyone show any evidence their were teeth marks on Phagan's neck and shoulder before 1964? Before LF was arrested on the 29th of April, 1913, there are no reports of teeth mark's on Phagan, or immediately afterwards. Phagan was exhumed and May 5th Dr. Harris performed an autopsy, their are no reports of teeth marks on her from any of the police, the undertaker or Dr. Harris. Why between 1913 till the trial transcripts disappeared in the 1960's does no one else report xrays / photos of teeth marks on Phagan and xrays / photos of LF's teeth? The claims are unverifiable and the original source of the claims is an unreliable source.Carmelmount (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned before, the teeth mark evidence wouldn't be known beyond the police or prosecutors if they suppressed it. They may have thought it would help free a man they "knew" to be guilty. Regarding the x-rays, Van Paassen's memory might have been faulty and there may have been just ordinary photographs of both the teeth marks and Frank's teeth, which may have been enough to see whether they fit or not. Another possibility is that Van Paassen viewed the negatives of the teeth marks photos and thought they were X-ray photos since X-ray photos look like negatives of regular black and white photos.


 * Although I think Van Paassen's account is flaky, the basic point that there was teeth marks evidence may be true. You and I don't know for sure one way or the other. I also think Van Paassen's account  is notable because of its use by historians and other reputable writers after 1964. Considering both these aspects, flaky (IMO) and notable, I think the above proposal is appropriate, i.e. a footnote that quotes the unsanitized sentence from Van Paassen's  book.  I don't think there's enough reason to exclude the material completely. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Tom, did Van Paassen go to the courthouse when he found the non-existent xrays of teeth marks on Phagan or did he go to Dorsey's office (not in the courthouse) and find them?Carmelmount (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Bob, calling Van Paassen flaky does not accurately describe him, he is an outright crackpot and con artist extraordinaire (read his 1964 book 'To Number Our Days'), his claims of finding evidence at the courthouse showing teeth marks on Phagan amounts to an indisputable fraud and hoax of the worst kind. Van Paassen's claims are unverifiable when compared against the official records and newspaper articles of the time, and just because some notable authors quote him doesn't mean we should put in the wiki entry when we know his claims are patently false. This is really POV and bad cherry picking to the benefit of Leo Frank. With all the volumes of evidence out there to exonerate Leo Frank, why do we have to use this fabricated evidence in the wiki entry? Are we really that hard up for evidence to show Leo Frank was innocent, that we have to use made up stuff to achieve this position?Carmelmount (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The proposed change moves the teeth mark material from the more prominent place in the main text, to the less prominent place in a footnote. With the understanding that you want it completely removed from the article, and with the understanding that accepting the proposal does not preclude your continued attempts to argue for its removal completely, would you agree to have the proposal implemented? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Bob, the problem here is vaster than the perpetuation of an indisputable 1964 manufactured fraud about teeth marks on Phagan's neck and shoulder by notable authors like Oney, Dinnerstein, Aphin, Wilkes and others, who use this fraud trying to convince people into thinking LF was indisputably innocent. Wiki editors here feel that because a "reliable" or "notable" author writes something it should be cherry picked and included in the article if it favors LF, even if there is no question it is an unverifiable fabrication. It should be mandatory that any editor who wants to contribute to the LF wiki entry should be required to learn the LF trial brief of evidence and appeals, and end this practice of just adding anything they find in secondary sources favoring LF. This wiki entry suffers from the problem of having a group of editors who are bent on working together to add anything they can find favoring Leo Frank and removing anything incriminating against him. If the end goal of the group of editors who hang out on the LF entry is to blame Antisemitism for Leo Frank's conviction and lynching use real evidence not fabrications, frauds, rumors and hoaxes. If the goal of this same group is to make Leo Frank innocent of the murder then use secondary source materials backed up by original evidence, not unverifiable claims by authors. Recently put down the memory hole in the LF wiki entry is the fact about Governor John Marshall Slaton being a lawpartner of Luther Rosser in the lawfirm Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips, the firm representing Leo Frank at the trial. Now no one will know that it was this gross conflict of interest that lead to the lynching of Leo Frank, not Antisemitism. So with that down the memory hole, I guess the next step is to insert Antisemitism as the cause of Leo Frank's lynching? or do we just leave that as the conclusion people can draw themselves, now that they don't know Slaton commuted the death sentence of his lawfirm client Leo Frank (while siding with the judge, jury and appeals courts sustaining LF's guilt, last page of the 29 page clemency order, June 21, 1915).Carmelmount (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that but you didn't answer the question in my last message. Would you agree to have the proposal implemented? --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Bob is showing remarkable patience in staying on point. All of Carmelmount's arguments have been rejected in the past when made by a banned user and his/her numerous sock puppets. I have generally avoided going into detail and refuting Carmelmount's repetitive claims, but I am making a one-time exception to his/her latest effort.

Carmelmount: Bob, the problem here is vaster than the perpetuation of an indisputable 1964 manufactured fraud about teeth marks on Phagan's neck and shoulder by notable authors like Oney, Dinnerstein, Aphin, Wilkes and others, who use this fraud trying to convince people into thinking LF was indisputably innocent.

Response: Conspiracy theory? So Oney, Dinnerstein, and law professor Wilkes have deliberately “manufactured fraud.” Of course this conspiracy theory is exactly the claim made by leofrank.org which attributes it to a Jewish conspiracy. Do you accept the Jewish conspiracy charge or is their some other reason why these people “manufactured fraud”.

Carmelmount: Wiki editors here feel that because a "reliable" or "notable" author writes something it should be cherry picked and included in the article if it favors LF, even if there is no question it is an unverifiable fabrication.

Response: Not true. Wikipedia policy fully supports including information widely reported in reliable secondary sources.

Carmelmount: It should be mandatory that any editor who wants to contribute to the LF wiki entry should be required to learn the LF trial brief of evidence and appeals, and end this practice of just adding anything they find in secondary sources favoring LF.

Response: Bad idea. Wikipedia relies on reliable secondary sources. We have established in these discussions that no reliable secondary sources support your interpretation.

Carmelmount: If the end goal of the group of editors who hang out on the LF entry is to blame anti-Semitism for Leo Frank's conviction and lynching use real evidence not fabrications, frauds, rumors and hoaxes.

Response: So now the editors of this article are involved in your conspiracy. And the conspiracy is to find anti-Semitism where it doesn’t exist? This is straight out of leofrank.org. In fact, the existence of anti-Semitism as a factor in the Leo Frank case is widely accepted by historians.

Carmelmount: If the goal of this same group is to make Leo Frank innocent of the murder then use secondary source materials backed up by original evidence, not unverifiable claims by authors.

Response: The goal is to create an accurate article that adequately reflects the significant information included in reliable secondary sources. In your arguments you have failed to cite even one reliable secondary source.

Carmelmount: Recently put down the memory hole in the LF wiki entry is the fact about Governor John Marshall Slaton being a lawpartner of Luther Rosser in the lawfirm Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips, the firm representing Leo Frank at the trial. Now no one will know that it was this gross conflict of interest that lead to the lynching of Leo Frank, not Antisemitism.

Response: Not true. What was eliminated was the UNSOURCED claim that a belief in a conflict of interest was related to the spontaneous demonstrations in Atlanta after the commutation was announced. In fact, there is no objection (see “Slaton and Conflict of Interest” below) to including the material in the proper context. Slaton became a partner ONLY because he had an existing law firm that he could not operate while Governor. As Dinnerstein (page 124) states, “After the new law partners commenced operations, Slaton had nothing to do with the defendant: he shared neither the burdens of the work nor the rewards of the fee.” It should also be noted that Tom Watson actually offered to politically support Slaton if he would allow Frank to die.

There’s an interesting story there and I am fine with including everything from the reliable secondary sources.

Carmelmount: So with that down the memory hole, I guess the next step is to insert Antisemitism as the cause of Leo Frank's lynching?

Response: Good idea. We really do need to add further information to show the extent to which secondary sources discuss the role of anti-Semitism in the Frank case. It is interesting that in the Slaton section below that you call Watson a populist while ignoring the anti-Semitism and racism that was found throughout his writings. Higham (pp. 185-186) for example notes that while "overt anti-Semitic sentiment played little part" in the trial phase, during the appeals process "[h]atred of organized wealth reaching into Georgia from outside became a hatred of Jewish wealth. From one end of the state to the other the story went: 'The Jews have said that no Jew has ever been hanged and that none ever will be.'... In the last stages of the Frank Case, anti-Semitism reached the fiercely nationalistic twist it had acquired briefly in the nineties, and it assumed also an explicitly racial tone." The influential Tom Watson wrote, "It is a peculiar and portentious [sic] thing, that one race of men -- and one, only, -- should be able to convulse the world, by a system of newspaper agitation and suppression, when a member of that race is convicted of a capital crime against another race. ... from all over the world, the Children of Israel are flocking to this country, and plans are on foot to move them from Europe en mass ... to empty upon our shores the very scum and dregs of the Parasite Race."

Do you (Carmelmount) really disagree that referring to Jews as the "scum and dregs of the Parasite Race" is baltant anti-Semitism?Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Why is not all the Antisemitism proof being put into the article if the Lead defines the spot light being put on Antisemitism?To borrow Newt Lee's quote, All im seeing is a gas jet lowered to the level of a small lightening bug. Turn the spot light on it in the LF Wiki entry. Where was the Antisemitism during the murder, investigation, coroner's inquest, jail, grand jury, trial, appeals, lynching and aftermath? Please articulate it.

The absolute bottom line is a known hoax that should be called the 1964 Pierre Van Paassens fraud perpetuated by Leonard Dinnerstein, Steve Oney, Elaine Marie Alphin, Melnick, Professor Wilkes (and other notable and reliable authors) perpetuate a known fraud about xray photographic proof concerning teethmarks, bitemarks, indentures, imprints, whatever you want to call vicious biting, on Mary Phagan's neck and shoulder, and Photographic xray photos of Leo Frank's teeth and mouth disproving he strangled Phagan. Hopefully Verifiability is the highest God on wikipedia.Carmelmount (talk) 06:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

bob i have no other choice but to agree to your proposal about the inclusion, im in the minority here about this and outnumbered. The world deserves to know it was a fraud perpetuated by numerous notable and "reliable" authors.Carmelmount (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for recognizing that it is an improvement even though you still question whether the evidence ever existed. And thanks to North Shoreman for coauthoring the proposal. I've incorporated the proposal into the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The origin of the Mary Phagan neck and should bitemark claims. Paassen, Pierre van. To Number Our Days. Origin of bite mark photographic evidence on Mary Phagan's neck and shoulder that did not match Leo Frank's teeth, see pages 237 and 238. Published by Charles Scribner's Sons, NY, 1964. Accessed February, 13, 2012. The description in van Paassen's book is he went to the courthouse, but Dorsey's office was not in the courthouse in 1913 or 1922, so the inclusion of this information is incorrectly formulated in the Leo Frank wiki. Carmelmount (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hugh Dorsey's office was not in the Fulton County Superior Courthouse, so Tom NorthShoreman's premise is false. Is this odd claim another issue that needs to be brought to arbiters, because I haven't gotten a response from you Tom about it. Carmelmount (talk) 12:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Height (cont.)
(Editors new to the discussion are invited to comment in the above section on the proposal there.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * On page 10, Steve Oney (2003) puts Leo Frank at 5'6" and 120 lbs. (2 demograhic mistakes, not 1), which is not accurate and there is no foot note for this inaccurate info in oney's book. I thought I would mention the weight too as another error made by him. No way was a 5'8" Leo Frank only 120lbs., his year book puts him at 145lbs and we all know people fatten up when they leave college and marry. He was likely 150lbs or more by 1913.Carmelmount (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you looked in the Georgia archives for height data? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Robert, I have checked the Georgia Archive for height data and there is no mention of Leo's height at 5'6" or weight at 120lbs. I've also checked the Georgia Supreme Court Case file on the unreliable and antisemitic hate site Leo Frank Archive on http://www.leofrank.org/images/georgia-supreme-court-case-files/ (unfortunately the document file volume 1 and 2 with 1,800 high resolution images of the GA Supreme Court file are indeed accurate from the unreliable http://www.leofrank.org site, because I compared them against the CD you can purchase from the Georgia State Archives with GA Supreme Court Leo Frank file for $130). It appears only unreliable secondary sources put Leo Frank's height at 5'6" (Steve Oney, Elaine Marie Alphin, others) and weight at 120lbs (Oney). There are only 2 reliable sources for Leo Frank's height that have survived into the 21st century after carefully searching the 3 local newspapers for information on his height (AC, AJ, GA). The most reliable source of Leo Frank's 5'8" height is the passport application (notarized Dec 20, 1907, and approved by Government Jan. 13, 1908), and the second most reliable is the college year book, 1906, page 344-5, row #177. Bob, that foot note needs to include the passport application available from Ancestry.com. Bob would you download the Leo Frank passport document that was notarized and published on Ancestry.com and please upload it to wikipedia.org and archive.org if it isn't already there, even though the passport application is indeed correct on LeoFrank.org I dont think we should link to it on that site because of its politically incorrect views are incompatible with wikipedia.org rules against anti-Jewish opinions. Archive.org or Wikipedia.org would be a better place to put Leo Frank's PP.Carmelmount (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Re "Bob would you download the Leo Frank passport document that was notarized and published on Ancestry.com and please upload it to wikipedia.org and archive.org " — I'd rather not open an account at Ancestry.com and I have no experience with the uploading process. So at least for those reasons I'll pass. But out of curiosity, what's the upload process for Archive.org?


 * Re "The most reliable source of Leo Frank's 5'8" height is the passport application ..., and the second most reliable is the college year book..." — For the 5'8" value, but that may not have been his height. For example, the 5'8" might have originated from Frank himself and he might have fudged the number because he was sensitive about his height. A good source for height may have been the arrest record, jail and/or prisons, if they routinely made height measurements back then.  The 5'6" value in books may have ultimately come from one of those sources, but who knows where it came from.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. In looking at some of the books at archive.org that are related to the case, it looks like the accompanying descriptions were written by the person that has the website leofrank.org . --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Concerning Leo Frank's height are you suggesting he lied about it to overcompensate? Are you suggesting Leo Frank suffered from [Napoleon complex]? It might or might not be true, but that comes off as original research. There are only 2 known primary sources for Leo Frank's height and none other exist that I am aware of, this is including the three local newspapers which are available on Microfilm through the library loan system. Nothing in them mentions Leo Frank's height at 5'6". It is clear that the 5'6" is human error taking the height from row 178 instead of row 177. Bob, I think adding the passport to the footnote in addition to the year book would bring the point home.Carmelmount (talk) 09:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think just the easily accessible Cornell info is sufficient to raise the question of the 5'6" height value's accuracy, which is all it is intended to do. I don't think the passport info "proves" 5'8" since we don't know that the authorities measured Frank's height. Also, the Cornell info is less of a primary source and more of a reliable secondary source since the yearbook staff probably only reported the height and didn't measure the height themselves, but considered whether or not all the height data had reasonable values when they   proof read the yearbook, something like a newspaper would do. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well then I won't call the Cornell University Senior Class Book of 1906 a primary source anymore, instead calling it a reliable secondary source. The 1907 passport application was actually notarized and executed in Germany, not the United States, it deserves more credence than the sloppy contemporary researchers whose books are filled with errors and omissions. So do we list Leo Frank's height correctly at 5'8" using the reliable secondary source of the 1906 yearbook or do we incorrectly list Leo Frank's height at 5'6" referencing sloppy researchers with reliable secondary source footnotes?Carmelmount (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Other than the anti-Semitic website where you found this info in the first place, please show any reliable source that dismisses Oney, Dinnerstein, et al as "sloppy contemporary researchers". You were right, however, n characterizing the yearbook as a primary source. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as 5'6" being the value for the main text, it may be a matter of observing WP:UNDUE. Although there are two sources for 5'6" specifically given in the article, I have the impression from the discussion here that there are others with 5'6". As a matter of WP:NPOV, the 5'8" value from the Cornell yearbook, which I think satisfies the requirements for a reliable secondary source, is best placed in the subordinate position in the footnote. Are there any objections to adding 5'8" to the footnote while keeping it out of the main text? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes -- I still have the same objections to including the reference to 5'8" in a footnote. This certainly is a matter of WP:UNDUE as you suggest. No sources that we are aware of which are writing about Leo Frank after he became a prominent national figure use the taller height.  Why should we give any weight to a list of heights provided by yearbook editors? WP:Reliable sources states, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."  Do college yearbooks in general or Cornell's in particular have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy on a par with the other sources we are using? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

North Shoreman, How confident are you that the 5'6" value is correct? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I am 100% confident that 5'6" is the proper height to use in this article. The only thing that will change my mind is a reliable secondary source that says otherwise. You obviously are fully conversant on the policy at Verifiability.  This clearly states (in boldface), "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."  Questions of whether it is a primary or secondary source aside, what evidence can you present that demonstrates that the Cornell yearbook of 1906 meets wikipedia criteria for a reliable source? What is this yearbook's "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?"Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Re "I am 100% confident that 5'6" is the proper height to use in this article." — Thanks for that but it didn't answer my question. My question was, "How confident are you that the 5'6" value is correct?" --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your question is really not relevant. My beliefs (or yours) on the TRUTH of the matter are beside the point and you know it. I have seen nothing in these discussions that justifies adding an alternative height to the article.  If I were to conduct independent research on the subject, I would certainly reserve my opinion until I had (1) examined all of the secondary sources on the subject and (2) examined all the available primary sources available rather than just the ones identified by an anti-Semitic website. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the question is quite relevant since it reflects your confidence in the sources that give the 5'6" value, which addresses the reliability of those sources. Evaluating the reliability of sources is what we do. Your reluctance to answer the question suggests you have some doubts regarding the reliability of those sources with respect to the 5'6" value. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone reading my comments throughout this discussion page and its archives or reviewing the edits I've made would question that I consider these sources as fully reliable. You have failed to answer my questions so I will repeat them, "Questions of whether it is a primary or secondary source aside, what evidence can you present that demonstrates that the Cornell yearbook of 1906 meets wikipedia criteria for a reliable source? What is this yearbook's "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?"


 * What evidence do you rely on (i.e. reviews) in your suggestion that Oney et al are not reliable sources? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Re "Questions of whether it is a primary or secondary source aside, what evidence can you present that demonstrates that the Cornell yearbook of 1906 meets wikipedia criteria for a reliable source? What is this yearbook's "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?" — If I understand your question correctly, there may not be the kind of evidence you are asking for the Cornell yearbook reputation of accuracy. Many, if not most, of the sources in Wikipedia don't have specific evidence that they have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," for example, another reliable source saying that the source in question has such a reputation.  Here's an excerpt from WP:IRS.
 * "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication."

As editors, it is up to us to judge whether a source is reliable for a specific purpose, in this case the height of Leo Frank. I expect that the Cornell senior class yearbook was written by a staff of Cornell seniors and perhaps under the supervision of one or more faculty members. The height of Leo Frank is contained in a systematic table of info for 572 Cornell seniors, where Frank is student #177 with height 5'8". This seems like a reliable source for Frank's height.

Furthermore, we can check whether this 5'8" value of Frank's height is consistent with a group picture  of Frank in the Cornell Debate Club. (Left click your mouse over the image to enlarge.) The students in the front row are Lasher 5'8", Peck 5'5½, Frank 5'8", Shaw 5'9", and Perry 5'10". In the picture, Frank is about the same height as Lasher 5'8". Frank is taller than Peck 5'5½". And Frank is shorter than Shaw 5'9" and Perry 5'10". The height of 5'8" for Frank in the Cornell yearbook student info tables is consistent with this picture.

The Oney and Lindemann sources give 5'6" for Frank's height. We don't know where they got this value and the value is not consistent with the picture of Frank in the Cornell Debate Club.  This 5'6" value is the height given in the info box of the Wikipedia article with the Oney and Lindemann references in a footnote. This I suggest we keep because Oney and Lindemann can be considered reliable sources in general. However, I think it is appropriate to add to just the footnote, the value 5'8" along with the Cornell senior class yearbook as a reference. (Proposed addition to footnote.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You say, "I expect that the Cornell senior class yearbook was written by a staff of Cornell seniors and perhaps under the supervision of one or more faculty members." I also believe that is the likely scenario. This makes clear that the yearbook has nobody outside the Cornell community evaluating it.  Clearly the yearbook must be considered a self-published source and as such it is not a reliable source.  As the linked section says, "Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so."


 * You say, "Many, if not most, of the sources in Wikipedia don't have specific evidence that they have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," for example, another reliable source saying that the source in question has such a reputation." While this may be true for some areas on Wikipedia, it certainly is not true in historical and biographical articles. Oney, Lindemann, et al can be verified as reliable sources by the reviews of their books, the author's credentials, and the degree to which they are cited by other authors.  You are attempting to cast doubt on their research by appealing to an unreliable self-published yearbook.


 * You say, "We don't know where they got this value", but this is only half true. While they don't footnote the specific fact, it is very possible to determine the extent of the sources they consulted.  Oney's bibliography is full of primary and secondary sources, published and unpublished. Lindemann's bibliography and footnotes covers a wide array of secondary sources. I don't think any reasonable person could contest either of their efforts to consult the most appropriate sources for their works.


 * Your analysis of the photographs is OR and irrelevant. You are using one part of an unreliable source to verify another part of that same source -- an unnecessary act since we already have unquestioned reliable sources saying something else.  My own OR tells me that Oney's description of Frank as 5'6" and 120 pounds is totally consistent with the Dinnerstein description that I referenced earlier. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * From your message, we still don't know where the 5'6" value of Oney, Lindemann, and possibly other authors comes from. It could ultimately be based on an error that creeped into the literature sometime since the time when Leo Frank lived a century ago and his height of 5'8" appeared in the systematic info tables of the Cornell senior class yearbook. Even so,  I suggested that the 5'6" remain in the main text basically for the reason that you give that it appears in more than one source that are overall reliable, to which I would add  not perfect.


 * However, I think that mention of the 5'8" value from the yearbook should be added to the footnote, which is a subordinate role, because there is some reasonable doubt about the 5'6" value, and this is in keeping with WP:NPOV. While the Debate club picture analysis can't be used in the article because of NOR, it is certainly appropriate on a talk page where  sources are evaluated for credibility.


 * The crux of the matter concerns the yearbook's status in Wikipedia. It is probably self-published by the Cornell senior class of 1906, as you pointed out, but  it should still be used as a reliable source per  WP:ABOUTSELF. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree. WP:ABOUTSELF contains the qualifier "usually in articles about themselves or their activities." This article is not about the Cornell University Class of 1906. While it leaves room for exceptions, it seems like bad practice to use it to present an alternative to reliable sources.


 * There is also a further qualifier of when the self-published source should be used -- only when "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity". There obviously is reasonable doubt about the authenticity of the yearbooks height measurements since other sources report it differently. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This Wikipedia article is about a part of the Cornell senior class of 1906, viz. Leo Frank. Regarding "authenticity", that refers to whether the Cornell senior class yearbook is authentic and not a fake. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are correct about the latter point, but it is an impossible stretch to conclude that this article is actually about the Cornell Class of 1906. You have still provided no information as to why the yearbook is a reliable source.  I would suggest we either take this to the reliable sources notice board or start an RFC here. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The digital Cornell Senior Year Book 1906 PDF scanned by Microsoft and put online at archive.org is accurate when I compared it to an original copy. I would take the issue of the Year Book and the passport to the reliable sources notice board so that once and for all we can settle the issue for all of Wikipedia, not just the Leo Frank wiki entry. It's absolutely clear that the authors who claim Leo Frank is 5'6" are unable to provide any reliable sources for this specific height and it was likely as Bob pointed out an error confusing line 178 with 177 on page 345 of the Cornell Senior Year Book, 1906. Garbage-in Garbage-out, most of the authors that take the side of Leo Frank tend to quote and re-quote each other without appropriately checking the primary sources, so it's sloppy research being repeated over and over again until it becomes mainstream Wikipedia. If you are going to put Leo Frank's wrong height at 5'6" at least put the footnote about the Cornell Senior Year Book, 1906, p. 344 and 345 where it correctly lists Leo Frank's height at 5'8". I also think that we all know the passport application is an accurate source of one's height, but for political reasons here there seems to be resistance, some people here do not want the passport to be recognized as a reliable source of information for someones height, because it's more proof of the sloppy research conducted by contemporary authors on the Leo Frank case. Carmelmount (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Carmelmount, Thanks for agreeing to the footnote.
 * North Shoreman, It looks like your only remaining objection to using the self-published Cornell senior class of 1906 yearbook, is your position that it can not be used as a reliable source in an article on an individual member of the class, viz. Leo Frank. I'll try one more time to get your agreement that the yearbook can be used, and if unsuccessful, it looks like we would need more opinions from other editors. First off, please note that the yearbook  is already being used as a reliable source elsewhere in the article.


 * I think the situation regarding the self-published source Cornell Senior Class Yearbook of 1906 is analogous to that of various other self-published sources about organizations or groups, e.g. the self-published source WWW.NFL.com. The latter is a self-published source about the National Football League (NFL) and is used extensively in Wikipedia as a reliable source for Wikipedia articles on individual players of the NFL, e.g. Eli Manning, etc. That's essentially all we are trying to do  with the Cornell senior class of 1906 yearbook, which is using it as a reliable source in a Wikipedia article on an individual member of that class, viz. Leo Frank. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The difference with WWW.NFL.COM is that it is quite easy to make the argument that it is a reliable source. It information is verifiable and is accepted by others sources (i.e. newspapers, television broadcasters) as a legitimate source of information. The same cannot be said for the Cornell Yearbook.  In fact, it hasn't been shown that any other reliable source has used the yearbook for information and we have at least two, probably more, that directly contradict it. We know at NFL.COM that the heights and weights of players are regularly monitored and reported by objective sources -- we have no such indications with the info. reported by the yearbook.


 * I don't know how you reached the conclusion that I have only one remaining objection. I have stated my objections throughout the discussion. You are attempting to cast doubt on reliable secondary sources by a selective use of a primary source. I don't think that because something "might be true" (your edit ) is sufficient justification for using an unreliable primary source.  I'm also not sure exactly when or why you changed your mind about the yearbook being a primary rather than a secondary source (see your earlier opinion ).


 * Why are you supporting an effort to move backwards on this article? This inappropriate use of primary sources was a major problem with this article and was reversed over a year ago.  The same unsubstantiated attacks on the actual reliable sources were made then as now.  There is a very definite POV being argued by Carmelmount and leofrank.org that runs counter to wikipedia policy.  Do you really think that your efforts to unintentionally support that POV here are improving the article or wikipedia?Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Re "I don't know how you reached the conclusion that I have only one remaining objection." — From the way the discussion was proceeding. Thanks for clarifying your position. I'll end my participation in this discussion here. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Bob, Since we are on the subject what do you say about adding the notarized and government approved Leo Frank Passport to the foot notes as well. That's two independent sources that say Leo Frank is 5'8" and not Steve Oney's silly 5'6" and 120lbs.Carmelmount (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's two votes for the inclusion of the footnote to a more reliable source and one vote against it.Carmelmount (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not about voting but Consensus. We had a long standing consensus to eliminate the excessive reliance on primary sources and most (including the height sourcing you champion) were eliminated. You tried to put it back in without any effort to discuss it.  If you want to take this further, I suggest you initiate the appropriate forum from Dispute resolution. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yearbook is considered a reliable source, not just a primary source. Concerning Leo Frank's height, guess what's more reliable, Steve Oney in 2003 mistaking line 178 for 177 in the Cornell Senior year book (1906) on page 345 or the actual line 177 on page 345 in the Cornell Senior Year Book (1906). Concerning Leo Frank's height, guess what's more reliable and accurate, Leo Frank's 1907 passport (Ancestry.com) or Steve Oney (2003) mistaking line 178 for 177 in the Cornell Senior Year Book (1906) on page 345? Steve Oney in 2003 claims Leo Frank was 5'6" and 120lbs., but Leo's yearbook (1906) says 5'8" and 145lbs. Guess which is more likely the truth? Carmelmount (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I put in a dispute request:

There is a dispute on the Leo Frank article between 3 editors concerning Leo Frank's height. Steve Oney (2003) and Lindemann (1991) - both secondary sources - wrote in their books Leo Frank (LF) was 5'6" tall, but do provide any references for this information. There are two reliable sources that put 5'8" as Leo Frank's height, his 1906 Cornell University senior class year book (p344, p345), and his 1907 official U.S. passport (Ancestry.com). I am requesting that a foot note be inserted in the ref, about his height concerning two reliable sources, but Tom Northshoreman seems to be against the footnoting. Is a Cornell University college senior yearbook and U.S. passport considered a reliable source of information about a person's height? What do we do in a situation where a secondary source author makes errors that can be verified as errors with primary sources? I'm requesting a footnote be put in place on the Leo Frank article and need help with this dispute. Carmelmount (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Seriously? You are spending time that you could have spent improving the encyclopedia arguing about this? How about simply not including information about his height? Or in the dubious case that it might be relevant for some reason you could include a statement to the effect that there are contradictory statements in the sources. Either of these should be acceptable even to the most pedantic editor. The reasonable editor would simply say "irrelevant let's move on to something that matters". ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is to be a high quality and accurate encyclopedia. It is the principle of the matter that we use high quality and reliable sources. Secondary source authors are sometimes known to make errors, both Oney and Lindemann incorrectly reported Leo Frank's height. I am requesting we allow a footnote to the more reliable sources of Leo Frank's height from 1906 and 1907. If there are no objections, I would like to add the correct information. Carmelmount (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * But there are objections. As has been discussed above, the actual source of your information is the anti-Semitic website leofrank.org. There have been several editors/sock puppets that have been blocked while trying to rewrite the article according to that website.  The reason why leofrank.org promotes these sources is because it makes the argument that there was a Jewish conspiracy to make Leo Frank smaller than he actually was in order to make him appear to be too frail to have committed the murder.  You are carrying on that "tradition".  It is time for you to drop this issue. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The accurate sources of Leo Frank's height at 5'8" are not from the web site http://www.leofrank.org, but Leo Frank's 1906 Cornell Senior Yearbook pages 344 and 345 available on Archive.org and Leo Frank's official passport available on Ancestry.com. Carmelmount (talk) 03:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No secondary source, other than leofrank.org, has used these sources. You were asked by another editor to provide one and failed to do so. I notice you don't deny that you are pursuing the agenda of that website. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You seem to be confused or mixed-up. The Cornell Senior Year Book (1906) was scanned and put online by the University of Toronto, not leofrank.org as you claim to be the source. You can verify this by going to The Internet Archive or simply going directly to http://www.archive.org/details/seniorclassbook00cornuoft. Leo Frank's 1907/1908 passport records available at Ancestry were scanned from the United States National Archives, not leofrank.org as you claim to be the source. This can easily be verified by going to Ancestry.com, which offers people free trial access to their massive database of records. The question I would like to pose to administrators and arbiters is whether or not official United States Passports and College Senior Yearbooks can be used as reliable article sources on Wikipedia. There is a conflict with official U.S. records and Leo Frank's yearbook, with secondary source authors who provide NO REFERENCES / SOURCES to their claim of Leo Frank's height at 5'6". Is not verifiability an important part of wikipedia? The Cornell Yearbook looks more like a secondary source than a primary source. See WP:PSTS. The yearbook synthesizes information about class members' heights to form a table, just like a secondary source would do.  Also, the yearbook wasn't written by Frank. Carmelmount (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (I was informed of a renewal of this discussion by Carmelmount on my talk page.)
 * Even if one considers the yearbook and passport to be primary sources, Wikipedia policy does not support suppressing the 5'8" height information in those sources. See the Primary sources part of the section Primary, secondary and tertiary sources of the Wikipedia policy No original research. When info of unknown origin in a secondary source, i.e. the 5'6" height, disagrees with  other sources which are at least as reliable for a 5'8" height, it seems reasonable to include both info, i.e. both the 5'6" height and the 5'8" height. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Bob, I have looked underneath the surface into Tom Northshoreman's suppression of these two verifiable records of demographic facts about Leo Frank. It's apparent the underlying reason why, has nothing to do with verifiability concerns, but because the factual demographic information tends to corroborate a controversial research web site, which has begun to create a catalog of factual errors Steve Oney and Albert Lindemann made in their books. The Leo Frank Research Library believes "self-admitted pro-Frank partisans like Steve Oney, are intentionally prejudicing the reader about Leo Frank's height and weight, in-order to make him seem physically smaller than he really was in real life 1913, thus giving readers the mental image and appearance he was not strong enough to overpower 4'11" little Mary Phagan", but this is an irrational reason to suppress these verifiable sources. We shouldn't concern ourselves with taking social positions with or against the defense or prosecution. The purpose of wikipedia is be a verifiable source of knowledge, written without original research and there is no reason to censor official records which are available from the United States National Archives made available on Ancestry.com or College Year Books scanned by the University of Toronto. It appears Tom's reasoning is irrational and not for the best interest of Wikipedia, but his own position on the Leo Frank Case. A footnote should be added to the references of Leo Frank's height, one person disagreeing with this does not count as a veto to the consensus in favor of including it. Carmelmount (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Carmelmount, I suggest avoiding speculation about other editors' motives or aspects of the topic of this article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps Tom can shed light on why he is suppressing factual information about Leo Frank from his passport, when the source of the information is the United States Government, because a web blogger downloading an official document from a reliable genealogy website and putting it on their controversial web blog is not a good enough reason to suppress the factual demographic information. Ancestry.com is not a fringe website (Leo Frank passport), nor is the University of Toronto, that digitally scanned the Cornell yearbook (1906) and put it on The Internet Archive. If there are no further irrational objections, we should add the foot note and reference the verifiable information. Bob this chart information you gathered and created appears to be most useful.

Heights of students in the front row of the Debate Club photograph on p. 281 of Cornell 1906 yearbook. The heights were obtained from the 1906 Cornell yearbook on the respective pages indicated in the table. Comparison of the students' relative heights in the photograph suggests Frank's height is more consistent with 5'8" than 5'6". Here's a copy of p.281 that is easier to view after left clicking your mouse over the image of that page.

-- Carmelmount (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * When you write your book and get it published, then we discuss your original research. Bottom line:


 * 1. No reliable secondary source, as far as we know, reports the height you want to include in the article.


 * 2. There is no dispute about this issue, as far as we know, anywhere in the world other than this discussion page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I opened a section at the reliable sources noticeboard. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Tom, your political statements are irrelevant here. And even if I hypothetically wrote a book about Leo Frank and got it published, I think it would be a violation of the rules for me to promote it on Wikipedia. Since I have no intention of ever writing a book about Leo Frank, the point is moot. Please stay focused on the relevant discussion about verifiability and foot note additions. I'd like to remind you on closer examination of the books written by Steve Oney and Albert Lindemann, they provide no source for their 5'6" and 130lbs claims. However, the University of Toronto (via The Internet Archive) and United States National Archives (via ancestry.com), provides us with accurate demographic documents about Leo Frank's weight and height respectively. The discussion is about whether or not we should add a footnote to this issue, and so far you have come up with no legitimate reason to suppress this information. Carmelmount (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would be best just to remove the height since there is a conflict between sources? This was a suggestion of an editor at WP:RS/N. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Works for me. BTW, in Googling something else I ran across this source, a 1947 work already in the article under Further Reading.  It describes Frank as "29 years old, frail, about 5 feet 6 inches in height, weighing less than 120 pounds, bespectacled, serious-minded and reserved." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I went ahead and deleted it since Carmelmount didn't like the 5'6" anyhow and probably wouldn't object. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Tom, Leo was a multi-sport (tennis, basketball) participating athlete at college according to the Cornell alumni dossier file on him (I emailed them recently to verify), a person who plays basketball and tennis for their class team over a four year period is likely not frail. Look at the sources of the people who always want to make Leo Frank seem smaller than he was in real life, they are invariably pro-Frank supporters. I wonder why they try to do this? Let's leave it to speculation. I support the deleting of his height at 5'6", because it is not accurate, I would rather inaccurate information removed. Thanks Bob, for moving forward in these regards.Carmelmount (talk) 03:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Manson48
Note that Manson48 is now blocked. He's been editing since using IPs, both to talk pages and to make anti-Semitic attacks on editors. Dougweller (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

because Jim Conley admitted in 1913, moving the dead body of Mary Phagan to the basement
I'm probably being a bit slow, but this doesn't seem to be sourced - where does it say that this admission wasn't enough to settle the issue? "The effort was led by Charles Wittenstein, southern counsel for the Anti-Defamation League, and Dale Schwartz, an Atlanta lawyer, though Mann's testimony was not sufficient to settle the issue,". Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The edit doesn't make sense and doesn't follow the sources cited. I've removed it again and it should stay out until Carmelmount produces reliable sources on this discussion page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I asked the editor (on their talk page) to reply here, so hopefully they will. Dougweller (talk) 12:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * At the Leo Frank trial (July 28, to August 21), Jim Conley testified on August 4, 1913, to moving the body of Mary Phagan to the basement. Neither the Leo Frank defense, or the State's prosecution, ever disputed Jim Conley moved the body of Mary Phagan to the basement. The dispute was the method utilized. The prosecution's position was the movement of Phagan was conducted using the elevator. The defense's position was down the 2ft x 2ft scuttle hole several feet east of the elevator. The defense changed this position to down the elevator shaft in their closing arguments (August 21, 22) after the trial ended on August 21, because they had to account for the fact the police testified to seeing drag marks in the basement beginning from the elevator shaft to Mary's final dumping point 140 feet east. Alonzo Mann claimed to see Jim moving Mary Phagan in the lobby of the National Pencil Company in 1982, he never said if he saw him use the elevator or scuttle hole, because he ran away when Conley allegedly threatened him into "secrecy". At the Leo Frank Trial in the summer of 1913, Alonzo Mann - sworn under oath - testified he had left the factory for the day at 11:30AM on April 26, 1913, but in 1982, claimed he left at noon, and came back at 12:05 PM and saw Jim Conley carrying Mary Phagan. I guess there's a reason why no court of Law in the United States of America would consider 70 year old memories reliable, and that goes with the Georgia Board of Pardon's and Paroles, that did not exonerate Leo Frank. Carmelmount (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC) banned sock


 * Two editors have said you need a source for this, yet you don't provide one? We need a reliable source giving that as the reason, not your analysis. Dougweller (talk) 05:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * From here on out I will only add to the article's content with sources. Carmelmount (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC) banned sock

Please stop deleting talk entries that are posted in good faith
The section, 100 Reasons Leo Frank Is Guilty is a serious proposal to improve this article. Please refrain from deleting it again so the proposed material may be discussed. Thank you.64.134.99.241 (talk) 00:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a copyright violation for a start, and that anti-semitic website isn't a reliable source by our criteria at WP:RS. If you repost it again I'll block you for copyright violation. If you have sources that clearly meet our criteria, post the sources, not the whole content. And if you want good faith, don't accuse others of vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 05:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Please control your emotions and try to stop being so nasty. This article on Frank is in need of serious work. The man was clearly guilty of murdering Mary Phagan. The trial court said so, the jury said so, the state and federal appeals courts said so, and most importantly, the evidence said so. This wikipedia article is merely a whitewash, and any reasonable human being with half a brain should know that. The only people this article would fool are those who do not meet said description.

Now, as to this claim of copyrighted material, a good 99.9 percent af all of the "reliable sources" on wikipedia is copyrighted material. Also, NO copyrighted material was posted to the article. If any copyrighted material was posted to the talk page, that was done for the purpose of discussion and or comment as to what part of such material could be used in the article to balance the overwhelmingly biased and pov content already there in furtherance of academic study of the subject at hand. Thus, the inclusion of any such copyrighted material on this talk page clearly fits the standard of "fair use", and is therefore no violation of copyright. You are obviously mistaken as to the definition of copyright law, and your threatening behavior is only indicative of your seemingly strong desire to obfuscate any rational review of the core bias in this article, which on the whole, clearly reeks of Anti-Gentileism.

Therefore, your removal of said material was indeed an act of vandalism.64.134.99.241 (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I did a bit of digging, concerning that American Mercury article (100 Reasons Leo Frank is Guilty), printed in 2013. No question that the Mercury, for quite some years, was/is an unreliable source. However... the article in question is a REPRINT of an earlier published work, authored by William Bradford Huie and published during a time when the Mercury was a reliable source. Martin Luther King wrote the introduction to one of Huie's books, so I think it would be a fair say that Huie was not guilty of the prejudice (correctly) attributed to the modern day Mercury. If the orginal article can be found (and that shouldn't be too hard), I believe that it SHOULD be included as a source for quotations and citations in the Leo Frank article.Gulbenk (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Let us know if you find it, I couldn't. As for 'fair use', that's not part of our policy which is much stricter. As a rule of thumb, we allow about 220 words. The 2013 article does say " Bradford L. Huie" and is by Bradford L. Huie, not William Bradford Huie and a search on his name turns up some links I really don't want to post here. Dougweller (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, different Huie, or perhaps just a nom de plume Huie (none of the several obituaries that I read for William Bradford Huie state that he had children). So the article is certainly not the work of the famous author. My thanks to Dougweller for setting me straight on that point.Gulbenk (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

A contemporary view of the fairness of the Leo Frank trial
A popular and Atlanta newspaper furnishes the most remarkable evidence as to what was thought, at the time, of the fairness of Leo Frank's trial:

On Sunday, August 24, 1913. The "Sunday American", a Hearst publication, published a story of the four weeks' trial, "By an old Police Reporter," which concludes as follows:

"Regardless of all things else, the public is unstinting in its praise and approval of the brilliant young Solicitor General of the Atlanta Circuit, Hugh Dorsey, for the superb manner in which he has handled the State's side of the case. It all along has been freely admitted that those two veterans of criminal practice, Luther Rosser and Reuben Arnold, would take ample care of the defendant.

Two more experienced, able and aggressive attorneys it would be impossible to secure in any cause. When it was first learned that Rosser and Arnold were to defend Frank, the public realized that the defendant had determined to take no chances. He selected from among the cream of the Georgia bar.

That the state's interests, quite as sacred as the defendant's, would be looked after so jealously, so adroitly, and so shrewdly in the hands of the youthful Dorsey, however— that was a matter not so immediately settled!

...

It soon became evident that Dorsey was not to be safely underrated. He could not be sneered down, laughed down, ridiculed down, or smashed down. He took a lot of lofty gibing, and was called 'bud' and 'son' right along — but every time they pushed him down, he arose again, and generally stronger than ever!

...

The case had not progressed very far before the defense discovered unmistakably that it had in Dorsey a foeman worthy of its most trustworthy and best-tempered steel!

...

In places he literally tore to pieces the efforts of the defense. He overlooked no detail— at times he was crushing in his reply to the arguments of Kosser and Arnold, and never was he commonplace!

Whatever the verdict, when Hugh Dorsey sat down, the Solicitor General had fixed his fame and reputation as an able and altogether capable prosecuting attorney and never again will that reputation be challenged lightly, perhaps!

...

A noteworthy fact in connection with the Frank trial is that it generally is accepted as having been as fair and square as human forethought and effort could make it. It may be true that a good deal of the irrelevant and not particularly pertinent crept into it, but one side has been to blame for that quite as much as the other side. The judge's rulings have cut impartially both ways— sometimes favorable to the State, but quite as frequently in favor of the defense.

...

Unlimited time was given both the state and the defense to make out their cases; expense was not considered. The trial has lasted longer than any other in the criminal history of Georgia. Nothing was done or left undone that could give either side the right to complain of unfairness after the conclusion of the hearing.

It is difficult to conceive how human minds and human efforts could provide more for fair play than was provided in the Frank case."

This was published after the evidence was all in, and while Hugh Dorsey was closing his argument for the State.

Nobody knew what the verdict would he. But the Atlanta paper told the world, that it was difficult to conceive how human minds and human efforts could provide more, FOR FAIR PLAY, than was provided in the Frank case.

The trial had been generally regarded "as fair and square, as human forethought and human effort could make it." So said the "Sunday American" on the Sunday before the verdict had been rendered.

It was, however, only after the verdict of "Guilty", came in that the same papers which had heaped so much praise upon the fairness of the trial, were now the ones who bitterly denounced the jury, and the courts.

64.134.99.241 (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Two weeks before, the same publication and author had this to say on the subject of both public reaction to, and the fairness of the trial:

Hearst's Sunday American - August 10, 1913 - Page 2-A - End Excerpt:

Sub-Headline: "DEFENSE HAS TO CLEAR NAME OF TWO CHARGES"

"Continued from Page 1

. ..

Rarely before, if ever, has there been as intense interest in a murder trial as there unquestionably is in the Frank case.

The crowds attending the trial have been enormous, the officers finding it necessary every day to turn away hundreds of anxious would-be spectators.

Public sentiment has swung back and forth - to-day inclined to believe Frank may be innocent, to-morrow sternly the reverse.

The jury, sitting there in the courthouse, day after day, has been the subjective study of hundreds of real, and near analytical minds - and the answer?

Every fellow answers for himself. The jury imperturbable, unreadable, almost seemingly indifferent at times, indeed - but always keenly keyed to intense interest, nevertheless!

One might as well undertake to read the riddle of the Spynx as to read the riddle of the Frank case in the minds of the jury trying it. It looks as if it is a jury well above the average - and that is about the beginning and the end of an intelligent guess as to what it will do.

Judge Roan is as baffling as the rest of the case, too, when it comes to speculating upon what he may or may not think of it all.

He is rated one of the very best Superior Court judges in the State, unusually able, certainly fearless, and agreed to be utterly fair and impartial.

At times, his rulings have seemed to favor the defense, and at other times they have seemed to favor the State; but, withal, the public seems agreed that he is handling the case with an open and judicially just mind.

Speculation as to Outcome

Speculation as to the outcome of the trial is varied. There are those who can see nothing ahead but conviction, just as there are others who can see nothing but acquittal.

If a ballot could be taken, however, those holding to the idea of a mistrial would likely would be found in the majority, for that is the way the fight seems, to many observing minds, to be drifting.

That section of the public generally credited with being calm, poised, and desirous of seeing the right prevail, no matter which way it cuts, apparently has suspended judgement. Extremists pro and con still are talking themselves hoarse about town, however.

The progressing inclination among the people seems to be to let the jury settle it, and then to call that as near right as abstract justice and human ingenuity can make it.

In the event of an acquittal, the case ends. The State has no appeal. It must win on the first round, or it loses for all time.

The defense, on the other hand, if it loses, may move for a new trial, upon proper assignment of error in the first trial. The judge of original jurisdiction passes upon this motion - he may grant it or not, as his discretion directs.

The general policy of judges is to refuse motions for new trials, but it is not an unbroken policy, by any means.

If the new trial motion is denied, the case goes to a court of review - either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals. If one error or several be found in the original rulings of the court below, the case will be remanded back for a new trial, the judgement thus having been reversed and set aside.

Then the case begins all over again, practically as if it never had been tried.

In the event of maters taking that course, Frank hardly could be tried again before next year, 1914, and perhaps not before spring.

Conley Indictment Likely

If Frank is acquitted, there is hardly a doubt that Jim Conley will be promptly indicted for the murder of Mary Phagan, and brought to trial later.

In the event of Frank's final conviction, Conley will be indicted as an accessory after the fact. This would mean a sentence of not more than three years in the State penitentiary for him.

If Frank is convicted, he can be convicted only of murder - the jury will not be permitted, under the form of the indictment, to find him guilty of a lesser crime.

The judge will have no discretion in sentencing him.

If found guilty, without a recommendation to mercy, he must hang, unless the Governor should subsequently interfere and order executive clemency.

If he is convicted, and the jury 'recommend him to the mercy of the court,' the court then will be obliged to send him to prison for life.

The general opinion is that the present trial will run all of this week - that the best to be expected is that the jury may be given the case by Saturday night.

After the evidence is all in, the case still will have to be argued to the jury. It is thought that Judge Roan will take the bridle off in respect of this, and both sides will be permitted to go the limit.

Mr. Rosser and Mr. Arnold will consume at least one entire day in argument, and Mr. Dorsey and Mr. Hooper willnot take less time.

It is expected that Hooper will open for the State and Dorsey close, and that Rosser will open for the defense and Arnold close. The State has the opening and the concluding argument before the jury."

64.134.45.86 (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Final Ruling on Frank by the Supreme Court of the United States
The final word in the conclusion of the Supreme Court of the United States in its decision on the matter of whether Leo Frank was given a fair trial, including whether any evidence as to supporting the claim of the influence of mob law, mob violence, or mob domination upon the trial of Leo Frank as being either credible, or sufficient to warrant any re-examination or nullification of the guilty verdict against him was as follows:

"Taking appellant's petition as a whole, and not regarding any particular portion of it to the exclusion of the rest,-dealing with its true and substantial meaning, and not merely with its superficial import,-it shows that Frank, having been formally accused of a grave crime, was placed on trial before a court of competent jurisdiction, with a jury lawfully constituted; he had a public trial, deliberately conducted, with the benefit of counsel for his defense; he was found guilty and sentenced pursuant to the laws of the state; twice he has moved the trial court to grant a new trial, and once to set aside the verdict as a nullity; three times he has been heard upon appeal before the court of last resort of that state, and in every instance the adverse action of the trial court has been affirmed; his allegations of hostile public sentiment and disorder in and about the court room, improperly influencing the trial court and the jury against him, have been rejected because found untrue in point of fact upon evidence presumably justifying that finding, and which he has not produced in the present proceeding; his contention that his lawful rights were infringed because he was not permitted to be present when the jury rendered its verdict has been set aside because it was waived by his failure to raise the objection in due season when fully cognizant of the facts. In all of these proceedings the state, through its courts, has retained jurisdiction over him, has accorded to him the fullest right and opportunity to be heard according to the established modes of procedure, and now holds him in custody to pay the penalth of the crime of which he has been adjudged guilty. In our opinion, he is not shown to have been deprived of any right guaranteed to him by the 14th Amendment or any other provision of the Constitution or laws of the United States; on the contrary, he has been convicted, and is now held in custody, under ‘due process of law’ within the meaning of the Constitution.

The final order of the District Court, refusing the application for a writ of habeas corpus, is affirmed."

Source: 237 U.S. 309; 35 S.Ct. 582; 59 L.Ed. 969

64.134.45.86 (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)