Leo Frank Lynching Photos: The Leo Frank Lynch Party August 16 & 17, 1915, Marrieta, Cobb County, Georgia
On August 16, 1915, nearly two months after the June 21, 1915, commutation, Leo M. Frank was abducted from prison by a group of men from the State of Georgia’s highest social, legal, and political strata. They anointed themselves as the Knights of Mary Phagan. After droving Frank 175 miles to Cobb County at the edge of Marietta, they lynched him near an intersection at Sheriff William Frey’s Gin. A mature oak tree helped fulfill the most perfectly executed slow strangulation lynching of Leo M. Frank, just after the crisp dawn dew kissed a glorious rising sun on the horizon, bathing golden sunshine on Tuesday morning, August 17, 1915. This event would lead to the rebirth of the Ku Klux Klan on Thanksgiving Midnight 1915 at Stone Mountain where they burned a cross. The Anti-Defamation League, whose leaders aggressively push their racist anti-Gentile agenda on the individual countries of Western Civilization, was galvanized by their patron martyrs lynching that fateful day.
The noose was the favorite murder apparatus of choice, utilized by vigilante lynch mobs against criminals, for picture-framing their terror, and as a result, the image of the noose hanging by itself became the ultimate warning symbol for not only deterring crime, but eliciting fear in law-abiding citizens to not step out of line.
Grotesque, Uncivilized, and Extrajudicial Justice: The History of Vigilante Lynching
Introduction to a Lynching Unlike Any Other Lynching in U.S. history, Fulfilled on August 17, 1915, 7:17 a.m. at Sheriff William J. Frey’s Gin in Marietta, Cobb County, Georgia
Within the context of more than 4,000 extrajudicial lynchings occurring across the United States throughout its complex history, the average textbook lynch mob was typically formed at a moment’s notice by an agglomeration of local men, often whipped up into a fevered pitch of rage over an incident or behavior requiring widespread swift extinguishment. The vigilante mob usually formed to mete out justice over some kind of a violent crime, like robbery, rape, assault, or murder. If a Negro committed the crime, the punishment would sometimes be escalated to highest levels of savagery. Some of the incidents many Negroes were lynched for were not always violent, like a Negro whistling or flirting with a white girl or wild talking (“jibber jabbering”).
The typical lynch party as described above was unlike the highly irregular lynch party formed to deliver vigilante-style justice to Leo Frank.
One of the Highest Level Lynch Parties in Georgia History
The “High-Level Elite Lynch Party” (HELP) was a rare event in Southern history. HELP was carefully organized over a much longer time periods of weeks and months, instead of the typical lynch party whipped up at a moment’s notice. Participants of the Elite Lynch Party were prominent men with an intelligence factor one to two standard deviations above average, usually successful members and leaders in the greater community, from politicians, lawyers, judges, businessmen, and even an ex-governor, to skilled tradesmen, like expert electricians and mechanics. These skilled and educated men all played critical and specific roles in the commando-style Operation Leo Frank. HELP was highly motivated, unlike the idle lynch party spectators acting as cheerleaders and mob-rage fluffers.
The Knights of Mary Phagan and the Second Incarnation of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) 1915
The High-Level Elite Lynching Party, who abducted Leo M. Frank in one of the most audacious prison breaks in U.S. history, anointed themselves as the Knights of Mary Phagan. The Elite Lynching Party formed because the outgoing Governor John Marshal Slaton broke his oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and the Honor for the State of Georgia, commuting the sentence of his own law client Leo M. Frank from death to life in prison. The commutation was considered a gross conflict of interest by the elite of Georgian citizenry and the public at large because at the time of the Leo Frank clemency hearings, held during the Spring of 1915, Governor John M. Slaton, had prior been made a full senior legal partner and part owner of the law firm that had represented Leo M. Frank at his (July 28 to August 26, 1913) capital murder trial and many of his appeals (1913 to 1915). The firm was called Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips, and according to affidavits in the 1,800 page Georgia Supreme Court Case File on Leo Frank, Governor John M. Slaton had been associated with the bribery and criminal witness tampering against National Pencil Factory employees who had testified against Leo Frank. The Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court Records were finally released to the public on April 26, 2013, at the Internet Archive.
The Law Firm of Luther Zeigler Rosser, Morris Brandon (Jewish), John Marshal Slaton, and Benjamin Phillips (Jewish) was merged and officially born July 13, 1913, becoming Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips.
Many people were of the opinion that because Governor John M. Slaton was a senior law partner and part owner of the law firm representing Leo Frank at his murder trial and appeals, that it disqualified Governor John M. Slaton from being able to render a clemency decision on the sentencing of Leo Frank after the trial. Moreover, what sent the population of Georgia into a fever pitch over the Leo Frank affair was that in the twenty-nine-page commutation order released to the public by John M. Slaton, where he stated he was not disturbing the verdict of the jury, but sustaining the trial judge, jury, and two years of appellate decisions by every level of the United States legal system. It was as if the governor was acknowledging Frank’s guilt and rebuked the false accusations of anti-Semitism, while saving the life of his client for a heinous crime of sexual violence and strangulation.
Most people interpreted Governor Slaton’s clemency decision, reading between the lines, that the governor was affirming Leo Frank’s guilt, as every appellate tribunal had done from 1913 to 1915, and later from 1982 to 1986, when the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles refused to disturb the verdict of the jury.
Meet Judge Lynch
The Lynch Party was known as “Judge Lynch” in early 20th and 19th century Southern parlance. Historically for conservatives, lynching was the unofficial wing within the system of checks and balances in a society that required swift justice for rapists. For progressives, lynching was the unlawful assembly of outraged local men coming into a critical mass for administering unlawful and extrajudicial vigilante justice, often at a moment’s notice and alcohol fueled, thus adding levels to the savagery of it.
The opinion of lynching has changed over the decades and generations of U.S. history. In the 17th through the early 20th century, lynching was considered more acceptable as a swift form of justice, where dissenters against lynching were more likely in the quiet minority.
Many people today in polite civilized society find it cruel and unusual punishment, while others still consider it to be the best form of retribution. Then, there is everyone else in between who takes a different perspective on it depending on the circumstances. However, the real and indisputable problem with lynching is that sometimes the wrong person was lynched.
The progressive visionary and prescient governor Hugh M. Dorsey used his political power and politesse to help put an end to this ancient and savage form of mob injustice, retiring Judge Lynch from his tree house bench. In modern times, except during times of revolution, lynching is very rare.
How would the 1915 lynching have been different had Leo Frank been a Negro instead of a white man?
Had Leo Frank been black instead of white, his bland, generic lynching might have been conducted differently and on a much crueler level.
The Lynching Reserved for Negroes
A very special kind of lynching was always reserved for the most heinous of black rapists vs. white ones. Let’s pretend Leo Frank was African-American. For a hypothetical “Negro” Leo Frank rapist caught by a white lynch mob, first, he would have received a righteous Southern beating until temporary unconsciousness with some of the major bones broken or fractured. Once awakened again into consciousness with a rope around his neck, utilizing rusty farm tools, the “Negro Leo Frank” would have received genital amputation surgery with no anesthesia, instead of being allowed to keep his family jewels as a white man. It was a very messy process.
After the surgery below the belt, the hypothetical “Negro Leo Frank,” made into a eunuch, would be quickly lynched before he could bleed out. Not to be confused with hanging, the lynching means being strangled in midair with a noose hoisted over a tree branch. Before the suspended body of the hypothetical “Negro Leo Frank” could pass out from the blood loss and strangulation from the noose, he would have been riddled with bullets after a makeshift bonfire under him were set aflame. That was how Negro rapists of white women were dealt with one hundred years ago, and the remains of that terror were left behind as a powerful symbolic image for the Negro population to discover and explore mentally. From such a gruesome scene, shock waves reverberated long after the event and acted as the most powerful and effective deterrent for keeping interracial rape to a minimum. In modern times, there are more than 30,000 reported black on white interracial rapes, and with only a fraction of the victims reporting the incidents, the real numbers are in the six figures.
Leo Frank the White Man
Leo Frank being a prominent white man tended to ensure that he kept his genitals and also he did not have his body defiled with gunshots and a campfire. It also meant that after Leo was cleaned up and embalmed at P. J. Bloomfield’s in Atlanta on Tuesday morning, August 17, 1915, he could be appropriately shipped to Brooklyn without stinking up the transport cabins during the hot, sticky two-day train ride for a weeping Lucille Selig traveling from Atlanta up North to Pennsylvania Station, Manhattan. Together Leo and Lucille left terminal station in Atlanta, Georgia on August 17, 1915, to Penn Station in Manhattan, arriving on August 19, at 6:20 a.m., and meeting with the Frank family (New York Times, August, 1915).
View Larger Map
View Larger Map
The Cruel Missing Ingredient to Cruel Historical Lynching
Sodomy in its broad definition was a crime punishable by death back in early 20th century Georgia. Hypothetically only adding modern (20th and 21st century) prison gang rape, as an addition to the historical lynch mob process against the alleged rapists caught, as a stage before the genital amputation surgery, would have been crueler back in 1915.
The bottom line, lynching in all of its forms, for any reason, then or now, is absolutely savage and inhuman to the core of human existence. Today, the “new form of lynching” is the unlawful punishment meted out for convicted criminals in the United States, especially for rapists, which is often sexual assault, rape, and sodomy in prison. Today, however, more than 200,000 nonviolent convict inmates in the United States a year are sexually assaulted in prison (SPR.org, 2011). How are we a less savage society one hundred years after the lynching of Leo Max Frank?
Gang Rape for Rapists in 2013 vs. Lynching for Rapists in 1913
The deterrent against rape in modern times applies nearly exclusively to whites, not blacks or Hispanics. In most U.S. prisons that are overcrowded and overpopulated with gangs of the black and Hispanic variety, the result is that whites are significantly outnumbered and marginalized, even if they have their own gangs. Even white gangs and individual white gang members have less power in prisons than the more numerous black and Hispanic gangs that dwarf them in membership. Today, blacks or Hispanics who rape white women and are later caught and convicted are not necessarily raped in prison. Sometimes, they are taken in as heroes by the black and Hispanic gangs who often see their violent actions as the revolutionary trampling of white society and heritage. Today in modern times, mostly white convicted criminals, of all offenses major or minor, are often repeatedly beaten and gang raped in U.S. prisons. The website www.SPR.org indicates that interracial prison rape is 99% black on white.
Regardless of the crime — even if rape — is subjecting someone to gang rape not just as cruel as subjecting someone to unlawful lynching? How far in terms of becoming a more civilized society have we really come one hundred years after the lynching of Leo Frank in 1915? That we allowed more than 200,000 of our nation’s prisoners a year to be raped, sodomized, or sexually assaulted is an indication our society has descended far below the society we had one hundred years ago.
Inhuman Lynching vs. State-Sponsored Murder by Hanging: Is There a Difference?
People often confuse unlawful lynching with lawful hanging. Lynching involves a slow strangulation execution similar to hanging, but without the neck being broken in the process (as it is in a hanging).
Hanging vs. Lynching
Hanging is the kind of official judicial execution prescribed in a bureaucratic fashion, where the staged principal’s (Noosee) neck is snugly fitted with a specially created adjustable knotted loop made from a 3/4 inch manilla rope. The sliding loop is called a noose, and is typically fashioned at the end of a long slack rope attached to a fixed device at the other end.
When the mounted “Noosee” on a high stage falls through a swinging-hinged trapdoor, the down falling body accelerates based on the physics of body weight and the distance to the ground. The carefully measured slack rope eventually shifts from a loose state to taut, the neck breaks because of cervical vertebrae disconnection against the accelerating and descending body coming to an abrupt jerking stop when the slack rope becomes fully tight.
Lynching vs. Hanging
Lynching was more about strangling someone in midair against their own body weight, which often involved a dance, as the victim kicked, twisted, and jerked, before becoming unconscious from the lack of oxygen to the brain. In a hanging, the neck was broken, and the individual went into shock as the brain could no longer communicate with the rest of the body. Death was usually swift, but in a lynching the individual died in a much slower struggle as a result of oxygen deprivation causing brain damage. Leo Frank died of brain damage.
Lynching was about unlawful acts of extrajudicial murder through a hanging strangulation, by ensuring the rope length was not slack enough to cause vertebrae disconnection, thereby taking longer to kill the principal in rare cases up to thirty minutes. Both lynching and hanging are equally cruel, one slightly more than the other by a matter of minutes. In a truly civilized society, capital punishment would be replaced with life in prison without parole.
Is 1913 Lynching More of a Deterrent than Gang Rape in 2013 for Rapists?
In the years prior to the early 20th century, historically speaking, lynching effectively deterred rape and kept its numbers checked to a minimum, despite being inhumane.
Occurring every year in the United States of America and its territories, in modern times, the number of reported and unreported rapes is estimated to exceed 30,000 and 100,000, respectively. One cannot help but wonder how those rape statistics would change if ongoing convicted rapists, having exhausted all their appeals, were publicly hanged on the 17th day of August every year. Take that referendum to the voters and cash it.
Photograph archived at the Library of Congress. Leo Frank was lynched at 7:17 a.m., August 17, 1915. This photo was taken later that morning after word had gotten out to the public about what happened and numerous people flocked to Frey’s Gin running on foot, peddling on bike, galloping on horse, and rolling in Model-Ts, creating a critical mass of spectators.
The August 17, 1915, Lynching Location of Leo M. Frank: Cobb County, Georgia
Multifunctional, zoomable, and modern aerial map of the approximate location of the Leo Frank lynching on August 17, 1915: http://www.wikimapia.org/#lat=33.9506291&lon=-84.5168781&z=19&l=0&m=b
The August 20, 1915, Final Burial Location of an Embalmed Leo M. Frank: Glendale, Queens, NYC
Multifunctional, zoomable, and modern aerial maps of the approximate location of the Leo M. Frank burial site, interred on August 20, 1915: http://toolserver.org/~geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Leo_Frank¶ms=40.694_N_-73.882_E_
Reflections of One Hundred Years on the Lynching of Leo M. Frank, August 17, 1915: at 7:17 a.m.
The Jewish Hollywood Freak Show Version
For the Jews, Leo Frank Revisionists, and Leo Frank Partisans (known collectively as Frankites), who keep churning out lies, dishonest propaganda, and rewriting history in an effort to quench their collective and insatiable Jewish egomania, PRESENTS: The melodramatic, Hollywood, and dramatized version of the Leo Frank lynch party invitation. The invitation should be read out loud by a big fat booger-eating hillbilly farmer in manure-stained overalls, with rotting, blackened, and missing teeth, a pitch fork in one hand, and a torch in the other, saying something like this (please use an exaggerated and very slow Southern accent and drawl while speaking out loud):
Hear Yee, hear Yee. You iz invited to the anti-Jooish Leo Frank lynch party. Come August 16th and 17th, dusk to dawn! Don’t be late or you will be left behind. Pre-party meet up at high noon August 16, secret location point in Marietta to be announced later. Tailgate party leaving for Milledgeville Prison leaves at high noon. Good ole boy round up in Milledgeville. Kickoff at 10:00 p.m. at the gates of the Milledgeville Prison. After the abduction of the de-horned Jew, there will be a moonlight Model-T tailgate party to the final destination near Marietta at the Fork of Frey’s Gin. Final party preparations at sunrise, 7:00 a.m., is the main event, so BE THERE or BE SQUARE. No cussing. No alcohol. This is a dry party after all, though we will be serving moonshine and Coca-Cola at the after party. Proper dress is required. Please bring your clean white sheets and robes. Special after party location at Stone Mountain with bonfire and cross burning to be announced before we leave Frey’s Gin. We still need torches, rope, small table, and peanut butter. Please RSVP to both Tom Watson and Hugh Dorsey.
The Southern Perspective
For Southerners, the August 17, 1915, lynching of Leo Frank was not a Jewish Hollywood freak show, nor was it about what Elaine Marie Alphin claims were Southern opinions about innocent Jewish blood being more worthy than guilty negro blood to pay for a dead girl. Despite more than one hundred years of Jewish propaganda flat out lying to the public by misrepresenting the truth, with books, dramatized works, and treatments like the Jewish fictionalized docudrama, People vs Leo Frank, 2009, the Jewish propaganda miniseries, Murder of Mary Phagan, 1987, and the Jewish Broadway musical, Parade, which all paint the picture of the Leo Frank trial and lynching to be a vast anti-Jewish conspiracy and the ultimate bamboozling of the entire United States Legal System by a semi-literate bumbling Negro janitor named Jim Conley.
For Southerners and the elite men who carried out the judge and jury’s collective thirteen-man unanimous verdict — guilty as charged, with no recommendation of mercy, signed and delivered — properly fulfilled, the lynching was a painfully somber and terribly depressing event that reminded the party of fathers of an unchangeable truth about the unnecessary and tragic loss of a child. It’s irreversible.
The lynching of Leo Max Frank was no Jewsmedia booger-eating hillbilly affair by a mob of drunken revelers and redneck yahoos whipped up — on a moment’s notice — into an alcohol-fueled frenzy of outrage and revenge. It was, instead, an extrajudicial execution done with the slow careful planning and cold calculating bureaucratic manners of the most powerful, educated, and prominent men in the State of Georgia.
At 7:10 a.m. on August 17, 1915, Leo Frank was hoisted onto a small table by four men, two on either side of him to ensure he was steady. One of the lynchers, a former state judge, read aloud a statement for all the lynch party members present to hear.
First, the judge read the verdict of the jury, originally delivered on August 25, 1913, which included no recommendation of mercy, and then he read the death sentence prescribing hanging ordered by the Judge Leonard Strickland Roan (deceased), which was originally delivered August 26, 1913. Finally, he read the short and abridged versions of the decisions from the higher appeals courts (1913 to 1915).
Because many of the lynchers were fathers with young sons and daughters, even with the lynching of Leo Frank fulfilled to serve the verdict and death sentence sustained by the entire United States Legal System, they knew with Leo’s flawless execution, Mary Phagan could never be brought back, a little girl lost in the spring of her life. There was something very unsatisfying about the whole event, despite the perceived illusion of legitimacy.
Leo Frank and Racial Awakening to the Jewish Question
For many people, black and white alike, the Leo Frank case was a powerful racial awakening about the fanatical tribalism historically and genetically innate in Jews, because the lynching wasn’t actually about bigotry, prejudice, media frenzies, or anti-Semitism. Those pejoratives were then and are today false accusations. The slanders come from members of the cultural terrorist religion of Judaism, the historical enemies of Gentile Western Civilization, forever living dysfunctionally and antagonistically within Gentile nations, and doing so in a parasite-host or virus-host paradigm.
For those who identify with being racially awake European-Americans, Christians, or Southerners, the lynching was really about delivering justice to a frustrated and violent sexual predator, a man whose wealthy and powerful tribal and racial kinsmen enabled him to nearly escape the verdict of the judge, jury, and majority decisions of every level of the United States Legal System.
Rosser, Brandon, Slaton, and Phillips
Always conveniently omitted by Leo Frank partisans is the fact Governor John M. Slaton was part owner of the law firm providing Frank a legal defense dream team. Also conveniently omitted, Slaton commuted his own law client’s death sentence to life in prison. The commutation made many people who were never anti-Semitic think differently about Jews when they discovered how much money was raised nationally by Jews in defense of Leo Frank. That Jews would pay a governor to commute the death sentence of a child rapist revealed how much innate hate Jews had for non-Jews. Never in the history of the human race has any group of people invested more time, money, and energy in trying to free a man who pounded in the face of a little thirteen-year-old girl with his fists, before savagely raping and strangling her.
For many other people who considered Jews to be white, it was an awakening that perhaps Jews are different and not really white, even though they look white. It revealed to others that Jews are the most “tribal,” ethnocentric, and racially conscious group of people in the world, even to the extreme of defending a child rapist and convicted murderer who essentially made an incriminating statement at his own trial on August 18, 1913 (see the Leo Frank Murder Incriminating Statement, August 18, 1913).
For anti-Semites, the former Governor John M. Slaton was a man who sold out the people of Georgia and the Constitution of the United States of America for thirty shekels of Jewish silver.
What REALLY Happened on Confederate Memorial Day within the National Pencil Company at 12:02 p.m., Saturday, April 26, 1913?
In the shuttered and virtually empty National Pencil Factory on Confederate Memorial Day, Saturday, April 26, 1913, Mary Phagan tripped into the building lobby on the ground floor at noon and climbed the fourteen-foot stairway that had a platform part of the way up, and upon her arrival on the second floor, she walked toward the inner office of Leo Frank. She called out to collect her pay and asked Leo if the “Metal had arrived yet.” Mary’s question was referring to the brass that came in sheets that were processed into small eraser holders, which were wrapped around and partially hanging off the ends of individual final production pencils, before she inserted erasers into their empty casing using her knurling machine. She had toiled upon this machine for nearly eleven hours a day for the last thirteen months prior to her murder.
Even though Leo Frank knew the answer was, “No, not yet,” to the question Mary Phagan had posed to him, he instead tricked and inveigled her, immediately coaxing her to go with him to the metal room by saying, “I don’t know,” (Harry Scott, BOE, August, 1913), to “see” if Mary would have her job back on Monday morning, April 28, 1913.
In the Metal Room
Using the little thirteen-year-old Irish girl’s job as a species of sexual coercion, there inside the metal room, the two of them completely alone, with the metal room door securely locked behind them, Leo Frank tested Mary as he had more girls than we will ever know. Leo Frank made his aggressive sexual advance unmistakeable, but this time it was unlike his more cautious lascivious pedophile pestering reported by nineteen fellow preteen and teenaged girl NPCo employees at the July 28 to August 26, 1913, murder trial.
Scorned, Frustrated, and Spurned
Now securely entrapped in the metal room at 12:03 p.m. on April 26, 1913, the thirteen-year-old Mary Phagan flat out refused for the final time the sexual propositions of the creepy bug-eyed bespectacled Jewish whoremonger with urine-brown stained teeth, telling him to take his filthy hands off her, but this time there was nowhere to run or hide from the spurned and embittered superintendent in the locked metal room. It was rape with no escape.
The little thirteen-year-old girl who had spurned the sexual advances of her boss for so long was about to get a little lesson from an infatuated, resentful, unsated, and frustrated little man who had grown tired of the little girl’s rejection.
A Heart-Pounding Moment of Terror
The situation took a wrong turn in these heart-pounding moments because the 4’11” and 120 lbs. Mary Phagan (Kean, 1987) was trapped (Brief of Evidence, Bolt Lock, State’s Exhibit A, 1913). Leo Frank, at 5’8″ (Leo Frank passport application, 1908) nearly nine inches taller than her and 150 lbs. of solid lean muscle from years of college tennis and basketball (Cornell Yearbooks, 1902 to 1906), could now have his way with her and turn her out in that tantalizingly violent, ancient, and brutal way millions of young boys and girls of every race, religion, and creed throughout human history, in every corner of the world, have been so disturbingly turned out with such extreme cruelty. This scene was perhaps not necessarily so uncommon in early 20th century Atlanta as one is naturally repulsed to think. Many Jewish and Gentile Southern historians noted the brothels were often filled with former mill and factory girls — not all of them voluntarily. Sometimes it required a little violence.
Detailed historical descriptions of the process of how white slavers converted young white girls into prostitutes had somewhat similar descriptions over the centuries. A girl was typically locked in a room, beaten unmercifully, and gang raped — turned out. The rest was easy after that: lock her in a room while paying clients took their turns one after the other using the girl. After such a rough start for many of these girls, turning tricks became a “normal” way for these girls to make money, though most became STD infected and lived short lives due to the lifestyle of whiskey, drugs, cigarettes, and medical complications. It is nearly impossible for us in a civilized country as the United States to fathom such cruelty that went on in every major city of our nation’s past. However, this kind of sexual violence still goes on unabated to this day in second and third world countries.
Cherished Southern State Holiday
On that old Southern Confederate Memorial Day, April 26, 1913, given the implications of what happened in the metal room, the most extreme measures would be taken to ensure Mary Phagan could tell no one, for obvious reasons. Leo Frank was a high-profile member of the Jewish community, married into a prominent family, B’nai B’rith president since 1912, and general superintendent of the NPCo from 1908 to 1913 with more than one hundred employees. When all things are considered, he really had no choice but to kill her, given the scandal and embarrassment if she lived to tell her parents and police what had happened to her, not to mention the fact that violent rapists were usually castrated with rusty farm tools without using anesthesia before they were lynched, followed by being riddled with bullets before being cut down and burned on a makeshift campfire. There was no mistaking these suppositions in a time when white men were fearless about exacting just punishment for violent pedophile murderers, not like the bitchass feminine coward white men today asexualized by a relentless civilization-murdering Jewsmedia run by the racially conscious members of the cultural terrorist ethno-religion of Judaism.
Saturday, April 26, 1913, 12:03 p.m., Leo Frank Exploded in a Flash of Anger inside the Metal Room
Frustrated by her countless rejections and in a sexually savage and grisly release, like a bucket of rocks falling from the sky, Leo Frank’s fists delivered a most cruelly violent and sadistic face pounding, slamming the back of little Mary Phagan’s head against the handle of the bench lathe, entangling it with a bloody tress of Phagan’s hair, which Robert P. Barret found the following Monday morning on April 28, 1913, and described at the coroner’s inquest (Coroner’s Inquest, May, 1913).
After Frank pounded Phagan’s eye black and blue and slammed her against the lathe handle, she fell unconscious on the floor. Leo Frank yanked up her dress, ripped open her underwear to the seam, delivered an especially degrading and sadistic rape, followed by a fist flexing garoting, as Leo Frank suffocated Mary Phagan. At the same time, Leo Frank reached his own psychosexual religious exultation and epiphany without ejaculating.
It wasn’t enough what Leo Frank had done to her; the soul-disfiguring moment was that after having his personal pet Negro Jim Conley dump her out of the elevator in the basement, Leo Frank ordered the Step-and-Fetch-it (gone with the wind) to drag her from the entry of the basement elevator shaft all the way to the cellar furnace in the rear of the factory with the intimation of cremating her in the oven and destroying the evidence. The Pet Negro Jim Conley refused to stuff her in the oven chamber after he dragged her in front of it. Police later noted it would have been a difficult fit.
Leo Frank’s Orders, Defile the Corpse Beyond Recognition
At the behest of Leo M. Frank, Mary Phagan was dragged by her arms, face down, across the hard dirt floor of the basement from the elevator shaft to the cellar oven staging area 150 feet away. Her face was grated over the hard dirt floor and cinders, yet defense and prosecution doctors noted NO BLOOD came from the cuts, gashes, and slashes on her face from the dragging, proving she likely did not die in the basement. After dumping Phagan on a sawdust mound, Jim Conley reverently crossed her hands over her breast. It was another behavior clue that modern criminologists would describe as indicating Jim Conley likely did not kill the girl.
Forensic Evidence Reviewed One Hundred Years Later
Dragging Mary Phagan’s 4’11” and 120 lbs. body by the arms face down caused her once pretty face to grate over the hard dirt floor. It thus led her dead face to be “pocked,” cut, and scratched from the hard cinders, and because the scratches on her face didn’t bleed, the physicians who gave Mary Phagan an autopsy believed she had been killed earlier and likely on a different floor. The fact her face did not bleed at all from the dragging scratches became part of the indisputable evidence she was likely not killed in the basement. This forensic evidence went hand in hand with the evidence the police discovered when they first went down to the basement April 27, 1913, and noticed drag marks starting from the entry of the basement elevator doorway. Without Jim Conley knowing about the evidence of the drag marks, his final affidavit corroborated what the police already knew.
The Ultimate Plot Within Plot Thickens
Once Leo Max Frank and his roustabout Jim Conley were back up in Leo Frank’s second-floor office lighting sulfur matches, smoking fags, and ruminating, Leo Frank formulated one of the most outrageously botched intrigues in history, with Jim Conley attempting to scapegoat the bludgeoning, rape, and strangulation of Mary Phagan on an innocent and honest dark old Negro, the night watchman (night witch) named Newt Lee. An old night watchman security guard who had yet to arrive at the factory, but was due there at 4:00 p.m., instead of his usual 5:00 p.m.
One allegation by the factory sweeper Jim Conley is during their late noon conversation after the body of Mary Phagan was dumped in the basement and before Leo Frank left the factory at 1:20 p.m. for dinner (lunch), Leo Frank looked up at the ceiling and said to Jim Conley, “Why should I hang? I know wealthy people in Brooklyn.”
The Scapegoat: Newt Lee
Thus Leo Frank plotted to get the hard-working night security guard, the innocent Negro Newt Lee indicted, convicted, and lynched, after Frank himself had bludgeoned, raped, and strangled the little girl to brain-damaged death. It was a most shocking fabrication of evidence formulated by Leo Frank to draw suspicion on Lee. It would require murder notes written in someone’s handwriting other than himself. Leo knew Jim Conley could write, and Leo would ask him to affirm what he already knew, “You can write, Jim.”
For anti-Semites, “the Plot” was another case of a Jew committing a crime and trying to blame it on the Goyim. The pattern reminds Christians of the Jews plotting to blame their instigated crucifixion of the Jewish rebel named Jesus Christ on the Romans.
How Low Can You Go? Death Row
Only the best Hollywood writers high on crack, LSD, meth, schrooms, and the finest eugenically bred California Kush could dream up a murder case as twisted, bizarre, perverted, far out, wacky, freaky, creepy, and unusual as this one, especially given the principle, a clean cut Ivy League educated Jew from Brooklyn serving as B’nai B’rith president and superintendent of a very successful manufacturing plant, the National Pencil Factory. Many people simply cannot believe Leo Frank would murder because he was clean cut and well educated.
Some people believe, if Leo Frank was not a Jew, the case would never have been Judaized in the sickening way it has been by a ethno-religious group of ultra-tribalist, race-conscious, and petulant parasites over the last one hundred years.
For Leo Frank Detractors, The Truth Is…
Leo Frank was a wife cheating, whoremongering, drug abusing, chain smoking, black coffee guzzling, violent, murdering, pedophile-rapist, child molesting, sexual predator who receives endless idealization by Jews, rehabilitation of his image by Jews, and romanticizing, mostly from Jews and Leo Frank partisans in books, magazine articles, music, musicals, and films.
12:03 to 12:04 p.m., the Face Pounding Unravels, Another Variation of What Happened
Leo Frank cornered and grabbed Mary Phagan just inside the metal room. She resisted and then he sledgehammered his fist into her beautiful face and slammed the back of her head against the lathe machine, which was bolted to a bench table. She ran terrified in the only direction she could travel away from him, toward the bathroom. There Leo Frank continued his violent assault, jackhammering his fists against her face and slamming her against the floor until she became unconscious on the metal room bathroom floor and she started bleeding out. Leo Frank then ripped up a strip from the crotch area of her petty coat and put the torn fabric under the back of her head to catch the pool of blood from her slumped body. He then tore and bisected up her bloomers, ripping it up the right leg across the crotch to the seam, revealing her virgin thirteen-year-old vagina. He unbuckled his pants and undid his fly, pulled down his pants and underwear, revealing an STD infected erect Jewish penis, and then like a filthy dog he ravaged Mary Phagan, savagely drilling and pumping his “without-a-condom-prostitute-seasoned” diseased little Jewish schmeckle into her dry virgin vagina, bloodying it, leaving medically observed inflammation, breaking her hymen and leaving the remains of her still-attached-but-torn-underwear drenched with her blood (Mary Phagan Autopsy, Undertaker Notes, P.J. Bloomfields Mortuary, 4:30 a.m., April 27, 1913).
This Was a Crime of Passion and Revenge against the Little Girl who Spurned and Rejected Her Infatuated Boss Leaving Him Raging with Frustration
While in the midst of pumping her vagina with his STD-infected little Jewish penis, Mary began to wake up from her unconsciousness, and as she continued crying, covering up as best she could, her pounded-up beaten-up face with a black and blue eye, before Leo Frank could orgasm, he raged in psychotic anger.
Snatch the Cord Hanging on a Nail in the Wall
At this point, Leo Frank wanted a different kind of orgasm, not a physical orgasm, but the sexual orgasm of murder. He also felt he had only one immediate choice given the implications and magnitude of it all should she get away and tell.
With malice aforethought, Leo Frank snatched a nearby looped seven-foot cord hanging on the wall — such cords were all over the metal room. He placed it around her neck, creating the equivalent of a thin hangman’s noose, and then yanked it up as tight as he physically could, flexing his fists and every muscle in his body until the cord sunk deep and tight into the tender flesh of her neck.
Leo Frank continued flexing upward until his hands were white knuckled and sore (that’s why he was always seen rubbing his hands afterward and any time the name Mary Phagan was brought up). Soon thereafter, Mary Phagan never woke up again; she died of brain damage within less than four or five minutes during the strangulation process. A rape and murder of this kind was achieved in less than ten to fifteen minutes, from 12:02 p.m. to 12:17 p.m.
Monteen Stover arrived in Leo Frank’s inner office looking for him so she could collect her pay at 12:05 p.m. and waited until 12:10 p.m. It was never disputed by the Leo Frank Defense Dream Team that Monteen Stover was there to collect her pay at the designated time. It was an indisputable fact. Not knowing Monteen Stover was waiting, Leo Frank told the police he never left his office from noon to 12:45 p.m., when he went upstairs to kick Mrs. White out of the factory and tell the two workers on the fourth floor he was locking up the building.
Send the Janitor to Clean up the Metal Room Bathroom
Leo Frank left a grotesque scene in the metal room bathroom. He sent Jim Conley there, and Conley discovered Mary Phagan spread eagle with her arms above her head on the floor, her legs parted with her bloody vagina open. Just moments before, Leo Frank allegedly confessed in a roundabout way to Conley what had happened between 12:02 and 12:17 (Leo Frank Alleged (Hearsay) Murder Confession One, April 26, 1913). After the first alleged confession, Leo asked Conley to wrap up that package with the intimation it was to be moved. Jim Conley followed his master’s directions. The body was moved to the basement, by either the elevator or stairs.
There would also be a half-assed clean-up job in the metal room commenced afterward and never really talked about with any depth in all the works written on Leo M. Frank by Jews. Where did the bloody hair tangled on the handle of Robert P. Barret’s lathe come from? What caused the five-inch wide starburst pattern blood stain on the floor in front of the girls’ dressing room in the metal room? It wasn’t varnish. The police poured alcohol on it and noted it behaved like blood.
Put the Dead Girl in the Oven
Leo Frank told Jim Conley to burn Mary Phagan in the cellar furnace. The docudrama People vs. Leo Frank by Ben Loeterman suggested that “if Leo Frank had answered his phone in the earliest morning of April 27, 1913, the outcome of the case might have come out a whole lot different.” In reality, had Leo Frank’s pet lackey and roustabout Jim Conley listened to his superintendent and cremated Mary Phagan, the outcome of the whole case might have been different. Whether Leo Frank had answered the phone or not in the middle of the night, it would not have changed the outcome of the case, especially in light of Leo Frank’s incriminating statement at his trial.
The Death March
The death march of Mary Phagan began at around 12:02 when she arrived in Leo’s second-floor office. They almost immediately walked to the metal room by 12:03, when Jim Conley heard the most harrowing scream traveling through the nearly empty building, and by no later than 12:17 p.m., Mary Phagan was no longer moving, with a rope left taut around her neck after being garroted several minutes before.
Star Witness: The Girl Who Broke Leo Frank’s Alibi
While Leo Frank was in the process of choking out Mary Phagan, a young fourteen-year-old girl named Monteen Stover, unbeknownst to Frank, arrived in his second-floor inner office seeking her pay.
At first, Monteen Stover looked at the huge wall clock and saw it was 12:05 p.m. Once she arrived inside Leo Frank’s office, she called out her boss’s name, with no response from him. She looked for Leo Frank in both his outer and inner office and then waited inside his office until 12:10 p.m. based on the wall clock. Perplexed there was no one around at payoff time, Monteen Stover even looked down the hall, and she remembered seeing the metal room door shut. She described the factory as being deserted. Where was Leo Frank? Leo Frank would answer this question on August 18, 1913.
Leo Frank told the jury he was on the other side of that metal room door “unconsciously” going to the bathroom according to his August 18, 1913, trial statement to the court (Leo Frank Incriminating Statement Number 3, August, 18, 1913).
When Monteen Stover left Leo Franks office at 12:10 p.m., Saturday, April 26, 1913, walking downstairs from the second floor to the lobby, feeling disappointed, she knew then she would have to wait for the next payday, which would not be until next Saturday at noon. May 3, 1913, would be the day Monteen Stover was discovered and interviewed by police. It was an earth-shattering revelation.
Recap of the Most Important Testimony at the Trial
Monteen Stover clearly specified she looked in both Leo’s inner and outer office, because she was there waiting to collect her pay envelope (this was never disputed by the defense). She was there as one would expect any employee to be there who came for their weekly pay. Monteen did what any normal person would do after waiting in what she thought was a deserted building; she finally gave up and left.
It was that next Saturday, when she was discovered, that the police would consider the Mary Phagan murder mystery essentially solved.
Monteen Stover was discovered the following payday when she was looking to collect her pay, and then police determined that she had found Leo Frank’s office empty on April 26, 1913, one week before. It was then that John R. Black and Pinkerton Detective Harry Scott went to the cell of Leo Frank and asked him if he had been in his office every minute from noon to 12:35, and Leo Frank’s response was an affirmative “yes” (Trial Testimony of Harry Scott, BOE, 1913).
Then and there, it was believed that the murder of Mary Phagan had been solved. After all, if Leo Frank was not in his office, where else could he have been? Leo Frank would answer this supposition at the trial.
The police theory was Leo Frank had murdered Mary Phagan in the metal room, based on Leo Frank’s lawyer witnessed statement — State’s Exhibit B — concerning when Mary Phagan had arrived. The affidavit and testimony of Monteen Stover cracked Leo Frank’s alibi wide open. However, Leo Frank wouldn’t respond to Monteen Stover until August 18, 1913, making an incriminating statement by telling the jury he might have “unconsciously” gone to the bathroom in the metal room during the lapse of time that Stover claimed she was waiting in his empty office from 12:05 to 12:10 p.m. on Saturday, April 26, 1913.
An Important Detail
Remember that in 1913 Atlanta, Georgia, even the best wall clocks were three minutes off in accuracy on any given day, so when you see 1913 time concerning the Leo Frank case, add and subtract one, two, or three minutes.
Monteen Stover did not bump into Mary Phagan coming into the building as Monteen Stover exited at 12:11 p.m., nor did she see her approaching the building when Monteen Stover arrived at the factory at 12:05 p.m., because Mary Phagan had come a couple to a few minutes (12:02 p.m.) before Monteen arrived (12:05 p.m.) at the National Pencil Company.
State’s Exhibit B: Monday, April 28, 1913
Leo Frank in State’s Exhibit B said Mary Phagan arrived at 12:05 to 12:10, maybe 12:07. When Monteen Stover arrived at 12:05 and left at 12:10, she did not bump into Mary Phagan on her way in or out, because Mary Phagan was already in the metal room being killed during this time between 12:05 p.m. or 12:10 p.m., maybe 12:07, if we are to take Leo Frank on his word (State’s Exhibit B, Monday, April 28, 1913) about when Mary first arrived according to State’s Exhibit B (3D Map of the Second Floor, State’s Exhibit A, 1913).
Humiliation and Three Leo Frank Alleged (Hearsay) Murder Confessions
The ultimate humiliation for Southerners was the fact that Leo Frank made a statement to the jury to counter the sworn testimony of Monteen Stover that amounted to an incriminating statement.
Leo Frank said he might have unconsciously gone to the bathroom in the metal room or left the safe door open in his office as the reason Monteen Stover could not see him [Leo Frank] in his office and why he [Leo Frank] could not see Monteen Stover. He had just made his whereabouts at 12:05 to 12:10 the crux of the whole case, as he never mentioned seeing Monteen Stover.
The trial statement by Leo Frank to rebut Monteen Stover with two options of explanation about his disappearance, one being about the safe door being open tended to insult the intelligence and common sense of all those listening who had been paying close attention and understood there was only one bathroom on the second floor in the metal room. The prosecution made sure to show this point with diagrams and floor plans of the building.
How Many Times in U.S. History Has Someone Made Such an Incriminating Statement at His Own Capital Murder Trial?
The greatest blunder in U.S. legal trial history is this: if Leo Frank went to the bathroom in the metal room between 12:05 and 12:10, he certainly would not have left his safe door wide open when there were always people coming in and out of the factory all day, even on a holiday. This is even with the fact no one was working that day except two carpenters on the fourth floor, Leo Frank, and Jim Conley waiting on the first floor. The building was unlocked according to Leo Frank, so he naturally would not leave his safe open. So the whole case came down to the word of the real main star witness Monteen Stover vs. Leo Frank, not the word of the lower-ranking star witness Jim Conley vs. Leo Frank.
Frankites give too much credence to Jim Conley. Monteen Stover’s testimony and Leo Frank’s response to it resulted in his incriminating admission, not Leo Frank’s response to Jim Conley. So why do Frankites persist in claiming Jim Conley was the star witness?
How do you reason with Jews, a racially neurotic, egomaniac people fanatically obsessed with their own sensitive ego image and victim persecution complex?
As you can see, this case was not about railroading an innocent man or anti-Jewish bigotry and racism. These false anti-Semitic claims have become the longest running Jewish hoax in U.S. history and why it is accurately called: the century long JEWISH HOAX. The whole Leo Frank case was distilled down to this single point. When Monteen Stover came to collect her pay envelope, she called out for Mr. Frank and looked for him in both his inner and outer office, but there was no Leo Frank to be found. And the safe door was certainly not left open, so that meant Leo Frank was “unconsciously” going to the bathroom in the metal room between 12:05 to 12:10, as he revealed on August 18, 1913, at his trial.
Leo Frank at the Coroner’s Inquest Jury Where the Vote Was 7 to 0 to Bind Leo Frank over for Murder before a Grand Jury of Twenty-Three Men
Leo was specific that he did not use the second-floor bathroom all day when he spoke at the inquest — not that he didn’t remember, but that he did not use it. It certainly seems as if he was distancing himself (verbally and mentally) from that area in the metal room. The prodigious savant Coroner Donehoo was incredulous as might be expected. Who doesn’t go to the bathroom all day? Does that seem likely for any normal person? How about for a Leo Frank who guzzled black coffee by the pot? Does that seem likely that he wouldn’t use the toilet all day when he was in the factory from 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.? Leo Frank would change that statement that he never used the bathroom later at his trial with his deadly revelation made on August 18, 1913 to the jury.
Leo Frank had just admitted to going into the metal room, something he had denied for months, the very place the prosecution spent twenty-nine days from July 28, 1913, to August 25, 1913, trying to prove Leo Frank garroted Mary Phagan sometime between 12:05 to 12:10, maybe 12:07 in the metal room. What makes matters infinitely worse, James “Jim” Conley, in his last sworn affidavit, after his first two fell apart, finally admitted that Leo Frank told him to take the body of Mary Phagan from the bathroom in the metal room to the basement.
On August 18, 1913, Leo Frank had just corroborated Jim Conley’s admission to being an accomplice after the fact. It was the most shocking thing that the Leo Frank defense team spent twenty-nine days trying to suggest that maybe Jim Conley committed the murder on the first-floor lobby, and Leo Frank admitted to being in the metal room bathroom during the time of Mary Phagan’s murder. People were literally scratching their heads in disbelief.
Three Lawyers Articulate the Leo Frank Incriminating Statement, Two at the Trial, and One Later On
Prosecution Team Leader Hugh M. Dorsey articulated the August 18, 1913, Leo Frank incriminating statement in his nine-hour closing arguments delivered at the end of the trial, and so did State’s Prosecution Team Member Frank Arthur Hooper. They can both be read in American State Trials Volume X 1918, but the best articulation of the August 18, 1913, Leo Frank incriminating statement did not come from the two State’s Prosecution lawyers. It came from Tom Watson, the seasoned attorney and senator from Georgia, who published his interpretation of the Leo Frank incriminating statement through his Jeffersonian Publishing company in his magazine titled: Watson’s Magazine, 1915, issues: January, March, August, September, and October and also in some of his Jeffersonian Newspapers in 1914, 1915, 1916, & 1917. These three lawyers Dorsey, Hooper, and Watson each articulated the Leo Frank incriminating statement differently, and you should be familiar with all three of them. And that was the solution to the murder of Mary Phagan. Leo Frank admitted it on the afternoon of August 18, 1913, in his trial statement to the judge and jury, and before the August 18, 1913, incriminating statement, Leo Frank made his second alleged (hearsay) murder confession to his wife Lucille Selig Frank on the evening of April 26, 1913 (Minola McKnight, State’s Exhibit J, June 3, 1913).
Was Minola’s Affidavit Telling the Truth in State’s Exhibit J?
Lucille Selig Frank’s 1954 will specifying cremation instead of her requesting burial next to her husband tends to corroborate State’s Exhibit J as being the approximate truth. The empty grave plot #1 reserved for Lucille immediately adjacent to Leo Frank still speaks volumes today. The Lucille S. Frank cremation request was mandated in her 1954 will (Last Will and Testament of Lucille S. Frank, 1954) and stands as an invincible truth that actions speak louder than a lifetime of words. There is a parallel to the cremation: the Leo M. Frank legal defense team said Judge Leonard S. Roan doubted the verdict of guilt given by the jury, but would any doubting judge sentence someone to be executed on his birthday? Leonard S. Roan finally sentencing Leo M. Frank to hang on August 17, 1914, Frank’s thirtieth birthday, is another case of actions speaking louder than words (Leo M. Frank resentencing hearing, Judge Leonard S. Roan, 1914).
Leo Frank’s Alleged (Hearsay) Murder Confessions (Numbers 1 and 2) and Incriminating Statement
The first Leo Frank alleged confession was made to Jim Conley at the factory sometime between approximately 12:15 and 1:00 p.m. The testimony of James Conley in the 1913 Brief of Evidence elaborates the specific details of the events leading up to Frank’s first alleged murder confession, before Conley was instructed to go to the body in the metal room. Leo Frank’s second alleged (hearsay) murder confession is detailed in State’s Exhibit J by Minola McKnight witnessed by her lawyer, and his incriminating statement was given on August 18, 1913, at the trial and is captured in the Trial Statement of Leo Frank in the Brief of Evidence 1913.
Before you study the alleged Leo Frank confessions, review State’s Exhibit A and B, which ties it all together and closes all the loose ends when compared against the trial testimony.
Every party has its cliques, right? This lynch party was two months in the making, June 21, 1915, to August 16/17, 1915.
This topic is a written attempt to show all perspectives and vantage points on the lynching of Leo Frank, including some lenses that are controversial — viewer discretion advised.
One Lynching, Many Perspectives
An effort to present all sides and views of the lynching is attempted, so students of the Leo Frank case can understand the lynching from a 360-degree panorama. From the Leo Frank legal defense team, Frankite, and Jewish community perspectives on one side, to Tom Watson, the Leo Frank opposition, the States Prosecution Team, the Elite Lynch Party, and the non-Jewish perspective on the lynching from the other side — this case is a conflict that won’t sleep. The Leo Frank Library Archive strives to present all views, perspectives, and vantage points of the Leo Frank case as convincingly as possible, so let’s start with the defense, Jewish community, and Frankite position.
The Cult of Leo Frank, Meet the Frankites: The Jewish Community and Leo Frank Partisans
The defense side of the Leo Frank case over the last one hundred years appears to be formed by the merger of two groupings. One is major and one is minor, but together they create the Frankites.
Meet the Frankites
First and foremost, Jews of all political spectra, left, center, or right, genericized and called the “Jewish community” hereafter at times, and second, to a lesser degree, mostly non-Jewish liberals on the left (the weenie, runt of the litter, and egalitarian type, androgynous, sexless types, the kind of people we are so grateful they finally have a low to non-existent fertility rate), they can be called “Leo Frank partisans” hereafter, or together for short, we can call the Jewish community and Leo Frank partisans the Frankites, as Watson originally coined, branded, and summed them up with one word back in 1914 to 1917 when he wrote on the Leo M. Frank case in The Jeffersonian newspaper and Watson’s Magazine.
Coined Circa 1914/1915
Considering this unusual Frankite political alliance still exists today in absolute full force, the term Frankite(s) is fitting and relevant, much easier and simpler to use, than always referring to the “Leo Frank Defense Side of the Equation” as the group with the long-winded name, “the Jewish community and Leo Frank partisans.” Also because most Frankites are predominantly Jews, the terms Frankites and Jewish Frankites are essentially interchangeable as an accurate description of this cult-like group, even though there are non-Jews welcomed and part of this Jewish Leo Frank cult movement.
So let us begin.
The Leo Frank Defense League Position: The Frankites, 100+ Years Strong
In 1913, a group calling itself the Leo Frank Defense League formed (sounds similar to the terrorist Jewish Defense League). Though the group name has become in disuse after August 17, 1915, Frankites are not defunct. The mantle of the Leo M. Frank cult of personality movement is strong today as the Jewish Frankite Cult, and it is stronger than ever in the 21st century, with new productions through countless media efforts and the Jewish Lobby, and on a global level, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith continues to perpetuate lies about the Leo M. Frank case.
The voice, video, and print produced by members of the “Frankites” for nearly a century is virtually unanimous, concerning their position on the August 1913 Leo Frank conviction and his August 1915 lynching. They summarize the whole affair as a bigoted, prejudiced, and racist European-American reign of terror, an anti-Semitic scapegoating, which resulted in the conviction and assassination of an “innocent” Jewish man, while a guilty murdering Negro named Jim Conley went free.
The melodrama surrounding Jewish egomania is colorfully expressed by the Jews making vicious smears and unleashing racist hatred toward Gentiles that are often directed against the general Gentile population, not just Southerners. The Jewish smears today against the detectives in the case, the media, Hugh M. Dorsey, and Tom Watson (the man who explained how the police solved the murder of Mary Phagan without using the testimony of Jim Conley). The Cult of Leo Frank and the one hundred year long Leo Frank Jewish Hoax about a Gentile conspiracy was actually invalidated in 1915 by Tom Watson, but the Frankites are still running strong 100+ years later, and there is no sign they are slowing down. The amount of books published and republished on the Leo M. Frank case by Jews in the first decade of the 21st century has exceeded in number all the books published in the 20th century on the trial and aftermath.
The Frankite Position on the Leo Frank Trial: Solicitor General Dorsey, An Unscrupulous and Ambition Climber
In terms of the all-encompassing false allegations about a mob terror jury, the anti-Semitic and wrongful conviction of Leo Frank, Prosecutor Hugh M. Dorsey is one of the leading figures accused of being at the center of the Gentile conspiracy. He is labeled by the Jews as the unscrupulous and ambitious Solicitor General who used the “innocent” Brooklyn Jewboy as a sacrificial lamb to gain political power, prominence, a hero’s countenance, and prestige. Moreover, the Frankites assert the Leo Frank trial was a legal travesty used as a bloody stepping stone by Hugh Dorsey to ascend to the highest executive position in the State of Georgia, enabling him to capture the Governorship of Georgia through the popular vote captured by his popularity created from the case. Anyone who has studied the life of Hugh M. Dorsey knows he was not racist or anti-Semitic. In fact, he was quite the opposite; he was anti-racist and philo-Semitic and considered a progressive decades ahead of his time.
For the Frankites: Who Is Nemesis Number One?
For the Frankites, the most hated figure in the Leo Frank case is not Hugh Dorsey, the man credited with making the “anti-Jewish” conviction with a death sentence of Leo Frank possible. It would instead be an unlikely third party who did not participate in the 1913 trial at all, but who ferociously struck back publicly against the Leo Frank cause celebre movement that went national, sparked by Rabbi David Marx and financed via Jews Media moguls from NYC and Chicago. For the Jewish Frankites, the alleged ring leader of the latter half of this “extrajudicial diabolical travesty” that lead to the lynching of Leo Frank is almost always named as one infamous man.
Please Allow Me to Introduce You to the Fire Storm Maker: Tom Watson
For the Frankites, the Hangman, lynch party agitator, or simply put the man who could be described as instigating the extrajudicial assassination of Leo Frank is populist politician, publisher, and lawyer Tom E. Watson.
In terms of the sum total of the Leo Frank case, the Frankites label Tom Watson as enemy number one. Even Hugh Dorsey, who is accused of unscrupulously dragging an “innocent” Leo Frank through a kangaroo trial to ambitiously climb the political ladder, does not get the same level of fang-bared foaming at the mouth wrath, hissing venom, and vicious hatred from the Jews as Tom Watson does.
What made Watson hated so much by the Jewish community and Leo Frank partisans is many fold.
Watson Infinitely Simplified a Complicated Murder Trial
One, Tom Watson simplified the Leo Frank trial by deconstructing it through his energetic writings (Watson’s Magazine, January, March, August, September, and October of 1915) in a way the average lay person could easily understand what really happened in totality during the one month long trial (July 28 to August 26) in less than an hour of reading. The alternative to trying to understand the Leo Frank trial without Watson’s Magazine was unthinkable. For instance, imagine the average person attempting to read the Leo Frank trial transcript, which was more than 3,500 pages, and then trying make sense of it. Something like this is not realistic or reasonably possible for the average person in 1913 or 2013. Even if the average person reads the 318 page 1913 murder trial brief of evidence, the average mind untrained in legal matters might get lost in some of the testimony, not being able to distill it to its important essentials and see with clarity the deeper emergence of the incriminating statement made by Leo Frank during his trial.
Because Watson made a complicated trial infinitely simple, it was for that reason — amongst others, which we will discuss — why his writings on the Leo Frank trial are forever banned and censored by Jews and the Left. The editors of Wikipedia will not allow Watson’s works about the Frank case to be listed in the references section on the Leo Frank article — even for historical purposes. That alone should make the average curious person want to read them. In fact, the most downloaded items on the LeoFrank.org website are Tom Watson’s works, because the Frankites have made his writings a forbidden fruit. And those fruits are delicious, because they make you see things with clarity.
Number Two, Ad Hominem Attacks
Two, most Gentiles just stand there and take it or cower when Jews reach into their fat cottage cheese asses to squeeze out shit to throw at Gentiles. Watson hit back, and at times, Watson hit back hard and unleashed an ugly, childish no holds barred attack against the Jewish community in response to their Jewsmedia vile smears campaign and attacks on the Honor of Georgians. Watson clowned the Jewish community by attacking the physical features of Leo Freak using harsh and extreme language to describe him.
Watson’s attacks on Leo Franks simian features could be easily taken or interpreted as anti-Semitism because they were attacks against some stereotypical Jewish features and physical patterns that are not necessarily uncommon in Jews. These typical Jewish features are reflections known as phenotypes caused by and from common tribal Jewish genotype patterns.
DSL, Dick Sucking Lips, 2013
In the modern unpublished Jewish frat boy dictionary, “dick sucking lips” is the phrase that, in a crude way, is used in Jewish frat boy parlance for describing the mouth of a girl with gorgeous lips, but Leo Frank was not a woman. Leo Frank had a very interesting physical feature; it was his succulent satyr lips, the kind you might find on a human-animal chimeric hybrid created with futuristic human genetic engineering, the cross between a camel’s lips and the lips of a seasoned Russian prostitute with extremely well painted-on lip liner to exaggerate and accentuate the lips. Leo Frank had lips that almost looked goat-like, and they were crisply defined in the outer perimeter with what looked like genetically encoded and expressed intense lip liner, as in you don’t have to add a single drop of makeup to achieve that look. He had the natural appearance of such, which naturally made women envious of Leo Frank’s dick sucking lips for a lack of a more accurate description.
Even worse, Watson attacked Jewish physical features in a way that was deeply entertaining and probably garnered tens of thousands of giggly snickers, deep belly laughs, and knee-slapping ruckus from his readers. Therefore, in essence, Watson’s humorous expressions of morphological anti-Semitism were used to degrade and denigrate Jewish people and make the public laugh at them as a physically ugly inbred tribe of monkey trolls that would defend to the death one of their own Jewish pedophile rapist murderers, upholding him as a martyr of a two year long anti-Jewish conspiracy.
Watson’s writings were surging with poisonous rage and energy that easily attracted a cult following.
The Leo Frank Incriminating Statement, August 18, 1913
Three, in 1915, Watson brought attention to the incriminating statement Leo Frank made on the witness stand at his own trial when Frank gave his blunderbuss statement on August 18, 1913. An admission Frankites never ever, ever, ever dare bring up in any of the secondary source works they produce. You will not find Leo Frank’s alleged murder confessions mentioned in any books, booklets, videos, texts, documents, round tables, get-togethers, and so forth, at least the ones organized by Frankites. They totally and intentionally ignore it (let’s just tuck that eight hundred pound break dancing pink gorilla back in the closet). Even though the alleged Leo Frank confessions were inescapable and that is what makes the rage against the Jews and Frankites so extreme, that even with the most prominent August 18, 1913, incriminating statement, the Jews still reach deep into their own fat gelatinous asses to extract ammunition and smear glatt kosher human feces on anyone who might even dare to suggest Leo Frank was not only absolutely guilty, but why?
The flash of anger as Leo’s fist pounded her face. Leo’s face surging with blood as he pulled the rope tightly around her neck so it buried deep in the flesh.
From the Southerner perspective, only the most dangerous race in the universe would attempt to transmogrify a devil into Jesus, and that was what the bribed and corrupt governor did on behalf of the Jews.
Why do Frankites always leave out the Leo Frank incriminating statement?
Answer: It would wipe out one hundred years of Jewish and Frankite propaganda!
Watson and the Blood Libel Lynching
In what amounts to nothing less than a single unified bloc vote by the Jewish community and Frank partisans, or the “Frankites” as they are more accurately described, they universally point the finger of accusation with single-minded unity toward Tom E. Watson as the alleged person to have essentially:
1. been central to inspiring the lynching of Leo Frank by whetting the murderous passion of the people, impelling them to orchestrated violence, all via the catalyst of Watson’s ferocious and venomous publications all unleashed through his Jeffersonian Publishing Company,
2. protected the perpetrators of the Leo Frank lynching from prosecution by shaping public opinion before and after the lynching in 1915, thus making it virtually impossible to form any jury capable of convicting any single individual lyncher or the lynch party as a whole, because as it goes without saying, only one sympathetic lone person is needed to hold out in any jury of twelve, no matter how compelling the evidence. It is also said that the lynchers were known by some of the public, and no one would dare speak their names openly in a way that would endanger them. And it is rumored that the lynchers’ names are now on the streets, landmarks, buildings, etc… in the greater vicinity.
Overtly or covertly, these are two main suppositions of the Frankites concerning the preparty planning June to August, lynch party August 16 and 17, 1915, the afterparty, and grand opening party for relaunch of the KKK at Stone Mountain, Thanksgiving, 1915.
(The KKK taken into its real context was an ineffective immunological response of the host attempting to counteract the JewisHIV+ virus that has infected Western Civilization and is working to undermine it).
The Frankites (Jewish community and Frank partisans) suggest these two main accusations listed above against Tom E. Watson in virtually every secondary source written on the Leo Frank case and for good reasons too, which have strong merit, at least if measured at superficial cosmetic face value. When one carefully reads and studies the five booklets on Leo M. Frank that Tom Watson published in his Watson’s Magazine issues January, March, August, September, and October of 1915, in total, they collectively make a powerful, convincing, easy to follow, and compelling case to show the conviction of Leo Frank was the correct decision and rightfully supports his execution by hanging as the jury made no recommendation for mercy from hanging on August 25, 1913.
Against Capital Punishment?
The Leo Frank conviction was perceived as correct by a public that is at least amongst the largest majority of open-minded people, who are incapable of self-deception and haven’t taken sides. This is, of course, presuming the individuals are not morally against capital punishment when it is just in the eyes of the law.
Dorsey made sure to weed out potential jurors who might be against capital punishment for this reason, because even if Dorsey made a good case, there was a risk of someone against capital punishment not convicting out of fear of the outcome. Protecting against this risk, Roan gave the jury the option of life in prison or the death penalty by hanging. Frankites say Leonard S. Roan doubted the conviction, but what doubting judge sentences a man to die on his birthday when he can set any date out of the year?
Could You Convict a Lyncher?
In terms of justice for the lynchers, the “public jury,” if their only frame of reference on the case came from the local newspapers at the time, which were blandly undetailed and unanalytical, and Tom E. Watson as their source of analysis, even local Jews would find it a double-think to hold two contradictory concepts in their mind, Leo Frank is innocent and Leo Frank is guilty. It only takes one juror hold out to prevent a conviction, one out of twelve — that’s 8.5%.
Watson’s 1915 writings on the Leo Frank case are dangerous because they invalidate every Frankite book written in the last one hundred years, and that is why his writings are banned today by Jews and Jewish occupied Wikipedia. Anyone who criticizes Jewish behavior is automatically put through the Jewish smear machine, banned, ostracized, and marginalized.
There were no serious contenders producing booklets and books at the time to balance out Tom Watson’s writings in 1915. He had a virtual monopoly on the issue of Leo Frank in 1915. So the question is, could Tom Watson have been the match that sparked the boiling gasoline flood in 1915? It’s debatable. Was Watson the straw that broke the camel’s back? No, Leo Frank would probably have been lynched with or without Watson. The newspaper articles about the trial and the elusive closing speeches captured in the newspapers and booklets would have surely captivated the educated and elite in terms of the depth and truth of it. They never would have let Leo Frank get away with what he did, especially after Frank made an incriminating statement during his own testimony given at the trial on 8-18-1913.
Watson Inflamed the People Against Frank?
The lynching accusations against Watson are partly overstated because the mood of the people before Watson stepped into the Leo Frank media circus in most of 1915 was already strongly against Frank and Watson may have only served to catalyze the permanent crystallization of those feelings, which were already strong and nearly absolute against Frank after his conviction.
Can We Really Say Frank Got a Fair Trial, If the Mood of the People Was Strongly against Him Pretrial?
The police, detectives, and investigators had honed in within a matter of hours and days on Leo Frank (it took the police fifty-six hours to figure it out and arrest him after the discovery of Mary Phagan), and the newspapers had reflected the strength of the evidence against Frank early on well after his arrest. But the newspapers did not make any attempt to railroad Leo Frank or make him the prime suspect because he was Jewish, as some Frankites like Elaine Marie Alphin have suggested.
Once Leo Frank was unanimously recommended by the coroner’s inquest jury of seven men (Coroner Donehoo plus six members) to be bound over for murder and reviewed by a grand jury, and a grand jury of twenty-one men, including four Jewish members, together unanimously indicted Leo Frank for the strangulation murder of Mary Phagan, it might have tended to create a situation in the minds of the general public that Leo Frank was more likely to be guilty than innocent, even though our justice system requires that one is always considered innocent until proven guilty. And in a perfect society everyone is innocent until proven guilty, despite the unanimous decisions of both the coroner’s inquest jury and the grand jury in terms of their belief that Leo Frank was guilty. It was not prejudice or anti-Semitism at the time that led to their belief in Leo Frank’s guilt. It was the facts, testimony, and evidence.
The newspapers at the time had some influence on public opinion, as the media has forever had the ability to shape opinion.
There was no TV, Internet, texting, or cell phones. Mainly, the only news was delivered through the newspapers. Perception is reality; this is why media control is sometimes more powerful than governments and armies in its day-to-day influence. Though it can’t be stated enough, there is no evidence that the media was responsible for making Leo Frank the prime suspect. They were simply reporting the facts as they came in.
The real reason Leo Frank became the prime suspect was that he lied and told the police that the Negro Newt Lee had missed three punches on his time card, opening up three one-hour segments of time unaccounted for the night watchman.
Once the trial jury of twelve men unanimously convicted Leo Frank and two years of appellate courts failed to disturb or overturn the verdict of the jury, in most Southern people’s minds, it was with absolute mathematical certainty, the factual guilt of Leo Frank. However, for the Jewish community, Leo Frank had been swept into a vast and neurotic anti-Semitic conspiracy. And the conspiracy theories would never stop even to this day, including wild hoax claims that Jim Conley made a murder confession to his lawyer William Smith (poppycock).
Hey, Frankites, what about the Leo Frank incriminating statement on August 18, 1913, that was real and is in the official record?
Therefore, given that Leo Frank went through a coroner’s jury, a grand jury, a trial jury, and two years of failed appeals, all suggesting the strong likelihood of his guilt, to accuse Tom Watson of causing the unjust lynching of an innocent Jew Leo Frank is only telling a selective part of the story and showing only a portion of the whole picture. Watson is certainly important in the tail end of this dramatic Greek tragedy that is the strangulation of Mary Phagan and lynching of Leo Frank, but his role is overstated in terms of the lynch party. The truth is, it was Slaton and not Watson who caused the lynching.
Watson’s Death Blow
Tom Watson made sure to emphasize to his readership of 100,000, with his uniquely colorful vernacular and Southern linguistic dialect, something the masses might not have been fully cognizant of because no newspapers talked about it at the time, and that is the incriminating statement made on August 18, 1913, by Leo Frank when he mounted the stand at his own murder trial to tell his side of the story.
For most people, they did not know the details of the trial, except for the sometimes blandly detailed and generic reports coming from the newspapers. For the masses, they just assumed that the unanimous coroner’s inquest jury, grand jury, judge, petite jury, and appellate courts had rendered their verdict from 1913 to 1915. The average person did not read the trial testimony 3,500 pages or brief of evidence 318 pages, but they certainly will today, if they are curious enough, now thanks to the Internet and this website. The lost trial testimony questions and answers coming online in 2015.
Dinner Time Talk
Watson did something unheard of at the time. He made the official record available to the public, published relevant and material portions of it, and discussed it in a way the Joe Six-packs and Sally Soccer-moms of the time could understand, and it would have surely been the exciting dinner time talk of the town in both the Jewish and Gentile homes.
Watson made it lucidly known and clear about the rarely mentioned incriminating statement made by Frank at the murder trial and expounded to his readers about the final speeches delivered by the State’s prosecution team leaders at the most crucial and critical moment in the trial of Leo Frank.
During their final closing arguments in late August 1913, Hugh M. Dorsey and Frank Arthur Hooper vividly reminded observers and the court that during the August 18, 1913, testimony provided to the jury by Leo Frank, for the first time, Frank made an inescapable admission that he might have “unconsciously” gone to the bathroom in the metal room during the time period of the murder — the time the prosecution spent four weeks successfully proving Leo Frank murdered Mary Phagan there. It became an easy victory after Leo Frank made his public incriminating statement.
You Can’t Hide the Incriminating Statement, Frankites
Not one single secondary source ever covers this glaring fact, and most people are wondering why Frank partisans won’t talk about Leo Frank’s incriminating statement at his trial now that the centennial anniversary of the trial becomes a new reality?
Leo Frank Four Hours on the Stand, August 18, 1913
The way that Frank made this virtual admission might not have been obvious to the average person, except for those who had been paying close attention to what Leo Frank was saying at the time and was captured in the official record as what he had said. Moreover, to understand the importance of the “unconscious” bathroom visit, one must understood the layout of the second floor of the factory, which contains the metal room and bathroom.
During Leo Frank’s four-hour testimony to the court and jury, he spent more than three hours of it talking about the boring specifics of numeric accounting computations he had done that day and, to top it off, showed his accounting books and diagrams, describing the math, even going down to the minutiae explaining the actual numbers he was adding, subtracting, and multiplying during his long day at the factory. It was boring, immaterial, and obtuse. The jury wanted an explanation of why his office was empty, and Frank gave it to them! However, the slippery Leo Frank snuck his incriminating statement within the mind-numbing four hours of his testimony to counter Monteen Stover.
Mob Terror Convicted Leo Frank, Setting the Stage to Later Lynch Him
Another charge made by the Jewish community and Leo Frank partisans is concerning the mob terror pattern and mob terror chain of events leading to the lynching of Leo Frank. It starts with the jury was mob terrorized, accusations that people were chanting, “Hang the Jew, hang the Jew,” would later be put out into circulation, yet not a single newspaper at the time had published anything about a mob terrorists outside the court chanting, “Hang the Jew, hang the Jew.” If this really happened, it would have not only been in the newspapers at the time, but would have been mentioned during the appeals process, and there is not a single line in the 1,800 pages of the Georgia State Archive on Leo Frank to substantiate this claim. Therefore, it is likely this is pure fabricated propaganda, rumor, and dishonesty by the Jewish community. The mob terror claim is overstated according to two years of appellate courts reviews saying this charge is absolutely not true.
Mob Terror or Leo Frank Testimony? Imagine You Are on the Jury
Imagine if someone had spent the majority of their time on the witness stand going over math and accounting problems during his own murder trial as an attempt to show he was too busy to have murdered someone that day, would he come off as a total nut ball? He would if his own defense witnesses said the work he did only took two to three hours. Leo Frank stayed at the factory until approximately 6:00 p.m. If he arrived at approximately 8:30 in the morning, it meant he had more than enough time, even with errands, to get two to three hours of work done. But to make matters worse, it was a holiday, and he wasn’t expected to put in a ten- or eleven-hour day, and the work he had to do that day did not take two to three hours. It took a lot less. The jury, judge, and courtroom could see through it all, and no impartial conscientious person was buying the nonsense and blather Leo Frank was shoveling about pencil manufacturing.
The specific numbers and calculations coming from Leo Frank were so mind-numbing that people might have become totally dizzy, dazed, yawning, and tuned out when Frank made his incriminating statement on August 18, 1913, which he slipped into his testimony, because no newspapers pointed it out. It was only brought up in the closing arguments of State’s prosecution team members Hugh Manson Dorsey and Frank Arthur Hooper in later August 1913 and then later by Tom E. Watson in 1915, and now www.LeoFrank.org 2013 to 2015.
So when will the next secondary source come out that goes over this compelling fact, since 1915 was the last time the Leo Frank incriminating statement was really discussed in any physically published work?
The Leo Frank incriminating statement of August 18, 1913, was indisputable, and so were Frank’s two alleged (hearsay) murder confessions made on April 26, 1913, one to James Conley and the other to his wife Lucille Selig Frank. This was part of what caused so much rage when the Leo Frank defense law firm partner and corrupt Governor of Georgia John M. Slaton commuted Leo Frank’s death sentence. Leo Frank was not lynched because he was a Jew, but because he beat, raped, and strangled Mary Phagan.
Why won’t anybody talk about Leo Frank’s virtual admission of murder, instead of accusing mob terror, anti-Hebrew race cards, and prejudices as the major reasons for Leo Frank’s conviction and lynching?
But what about the lynching? Mob terror? Or cold calculating commando killing? The execution of Leo Frank was not by some whipped up into a frenzy, alcohol-fueled, spontaneously violent crowd, coming together by the forces of rage and nature, creating a crazy mob of booger-eating hillbillies and farmers with manure-stained overalls, blackened teeth, fire torches, and pitch forks.
It was no MOB at all
The lynch party was formed by the cognitive and genetic elite of the State of Georgia, who executed a military operation of exquisite precision. It was the single most audacious prison break in U.S. history, one that had been planned for nearly two months and fulfilled to perfection.
Back to the Leo Frank Incriminating Statement as the Source of His Lynching
It is important to mention this verifiable truth in the record of the closing arguments of State’s prosecution council and in the self-incriminating testimony provided by Leo Frank, because not a single contemporary writer ever mentions this glaring incriminating statement by Leo M. Frank, not Oney, Dinnerstein, or Elaine Marie Alphin, whose book is filled from beginning to end with fabrications. Though there are plenty of sources accusing some variation of semantics in place of “mob terror” or “prejudices” from the trial to the lynching, and concerning the lynching, Watson’s name is cited the most as the individual who inspired the “mob like terror lynching of Leo Frank.”
Watson: The Devil’s in the Details
Watson was unequivocally in support for the lynching, and he certainly made that clear, but so was everyone else. After Leo Frank’s appeals failed, he should have died at the end of a rope as prescribed by the law, and he did. Tom Watson also provided the details of the Leo Frank case in easy to understand series of works, though how much influence he had in inspiring the lynching tends to be grossly overstated. Many outside observers of the case and the general people who were interested in the trial at the time might not have been aware of this virtual admission of guilt by Leo Frank, but Watson made sure to ensure it was unmistakably clear in 1915, so that the commutation by Slaton would and could only be seen for what it really and truly “was” in the eyes of Watson, the people, and elites who understood why they were against Frank: Slaton’s order of clemency for Leo Frank was the most brazen and audacious betrayal of power against the law and people.
The Jewish Perspective
For the Jewish community and Leo Frank partisans, the clemency was a token of relief for an innocent man who was convicted by a mob-terrorized jury. Little did they know it would become the catalyst for his lynching.
Part of Jewish self-deception and denial requires that they trick themselves into believing Tom Watson caused the lynching. They always need a devil figure to direct their hate.
For the Southern public, it was the commutation that was the real source of inspiration for the lynching, though Watson making Leo Frank’s guilt clear cannot be given as a reliable reason as to why Frank was lynched, nor can his advocacy of it become part of the Jewish blame game. It is more likely that Watson was articulating the feelings of the public, rather than he was telling them what to think. After all, the Leo Frank trial and appeals were among the most watched events in 20th century Southern history.
When the Leo Frank Defense Fund Turned People Out, They Invariably Moved to New York
The betrayal perceived in the eyes of the elites and general masses of Georgia was inspired by the criminal acts by the Leo Frank defense team culminating with the clemency at the end, which was such an extreme insult to one’s intelligence, it dealt a death kiss for Slaton, but Slaton was no slouch and saw the writing on the wall. He could see what lurked around the corner for him. His prescience saved his own life, and he moved to New York City in the nick of time (like many people who supported the Frank side), that is, until eventually, the inferno of rage died down. Then he came back to Georgia to live a quiet life. This was a pattern observed throughout the entire Leo Frank ordeal from 1913 to 1915. Whenever the Leo Frank trust fund bribed someone, they ended up in NYC, like the lawyer of James Conley named William Smith. William Smith was turned out like fifty-dollar hooker working the corners of 42nd street in New York, but he was not alone. The affidavits in the appeals reveal so many other people whom the Leo Frank defense tried to turn out and ones it did turn out. It shows you some people can be bought and others cannot. None of the books written by Jews and Frankites reveal the dirty little secrets of all the criminal activity and bribery coming from the Leo Frank defense.
Nowhere to Run and Nowhere to Hide
Leo Frank, however, had no chance to run away to New York City, like all the people his defense fund bribed. Leo Frank had nowhere to run and nowhere to hide, as his whereabouts where fully known, and within two months, his doomed fate would be sealed at the end of a 3/4th inch manila rope at Frey’s Mill. The prison doubled the guards on duty as well because they may have suspected what was coming.
Watson Sold Out!
Watson’s Magazine, despite having a circulation that tripled and surged to a record circulation of 100,000, still sold out instantly during the tail end of the Leo Frank saga in 1915. They couldn’t print the issues containing booklets about Leo Frank fast enough. The magazines were ravenously read, reread, shared, and talked about endlessly, because they intensely covered the subjects the people of Georgia and the entire nation were enthralled with, for Leo Frank, the devil’s in the details.
Watson’s Magazine, January, March, August, September, and October 1915
There was certainly an aroma of blood lust and vengeance in the air at a time in history when the men of the community would sometimes come together in an extrajudicial critical mass to be the judge and jury with a hangman’s noose. It was a time when criminals and rapists were dealt with effectively at the end of a rope, not locked up in jail to work out, become stronger, and join powerful prison gangs. Lynchings were community affairs. It was the ultimate form of democracy celebrated, and it kept rapists shaking in their boots. If every convicted rapist or murder were publicly hanged today, crime rates would drop.
Another Perspective: Watson Is the Anti-Semite Superstar
Watson talked about the Leo Frank case at the time and in a way that no one else dared — with delicious venom, energy, wit, and sarcasm. However, from the perspective of the Jewish community and Frank partisans, Watson committed the ultimate thought crimes and hate crime. Simply put, Watson articulated the guilt of Leo Frank like a virtuoso with some of the most vile anti-Semitic gutter language and openly incited Frank’s assassination. However, when Tom Watson wrote about these things in 1915, two years after the trial, he was releasing his own anger in his own way.
It is one thing to articulate the guilt of Leo Frank with the depth and linguistic mastery of a seasoned lawyer, but it is another to outright call for his extrajudicial extermination. Watson, anyway you spin it, called for bloody murder, but was he only reflecting the rage of the people? How pissed off would you be if someone raped and strangled a thirteen-year-old girl in your family and the Jewish community tried to turn the perpetrator into a hero?
August 1915 Issue of Watson’s Magazine
Even the August 1915 issue of Watson’s Magazine published just weeks before Leo M. Frank was lynched on August 17, 1915, and nearly five weeks after the Frank commutation on June 21, 1915, makes a compelling case for a conviction well beyond a reasonable doubt and presumably advocates delivering extrajudicial justice to Leo Frank in a roundabout way, especially because incensed and indignant Southerners would want the highest penalty paid for such a heinous crime against one of their own.
After the Conviction
Leo Frank, in the eyes of the general public, became the symbol of depraved, wealthy, and corrupt power trying to use outside influence and big Jewish money to escape justice, and that no matter what, Frank would have to pay the fair price, handing over his own life for raping and strangling Mary Phagan. Twenty-five to thirty-five men were willing to risk their livelihood to ensure Frank did not escape justice.
For the Jewish community, Frank became a martyr of anti-Semitic injustice. Jews suffer from some kind of tribal neurosis and mental pathologies, presuming that because Leo Frank was a Jew, he couldn’t have committed this crime.
Tom Watson as Robin Hood
For Southerners, some kind of a Robin Hood factor was in play with Tom Watson — that being, the rich Jews would have to pay dearly for their crimes against the poor working class. Moreover, no matter how much money they threw at the Leo Frank appeals, no matter how many letter writing campaigns they launched, and no matter how much national media control muscle they flexed on Frank’s behalf, they would not be able to weasel their way out of this one, at least not at this time. In response to this reality, the Jews have become more determined to romanticize the image of Leo Frank.
Tom Watson as a Rabble-rouser
For the Jewish community, many saw the rage against Leo Frank from a neurotic victim and persecution lens, which seems to be a genetically innate behavioral expression of Jews. The prosecution and persecution, as Elaine Marie Alphin might put it, of Leo Frank was perceived as a kind of Southern blind ignorance and jungle prejudice that knew no bounds of decency, with Dorsey at the helm. Though Elaine Marie Alphin cannot be considered as an overall reliable source, alas, she is mentioned because she does articulate the pro-Frank side of the Leo Frank case well, even if she does so dishonestly and by completely fabricating a series of fantastic lies in her book.
The Final Word on the Matter
The final verdict would be reaffirmed directly or indirectly by every level of the United States legal system, providing the “ultimate truth” of the matter and the bottom line in the Leo Frank case from 1913 to 1986. The verdict of the jury has not been disturbed, not even in 1986, no matter how much spin is applied by the Jews. The final verdict is unchangeable now more than on hundred years after the original guilty verdict was delivered 1913. The guilt of Leo Frank is now eternally permanent as of 1986 onward. Not even the pardon of 1986 would exonerate Leo Frank or disturb the verdict of the jury; this should make it clear that the kosher feces being flung by the Jewish Supremacists shows that Jews are incompatible with Gentile nations and Jews represent a terminal cancer for Western Civilization.
Another View: Articulation for Those Who May Have Once Only Believed Emotionally in Frank’s Guilt, Having Faith in Our Legal System
As a seasoned lawyer, Watson provided power, clear and inescapable articulation of Leo Frank’s guilt for many Southerners, because some of them may have only believed in Frank’s guilt on an emotional level because the system said he was guilty after careful consideration and for a want of righteous vengeance for the strangulation of Mary Phagan (not because of blind anti-Jewish prejudice), rather than because they had actually read the official record of the Leo M. Frank murder trial and reasoned it out for themselves. Most people had faith in our legal system of trial by jury.
As it does today, the media had a powerful influence on the opinion of the masses, because perception is reality, and Watson was able to use this eternal herd-like tendency within the people to amplify their rage to a fevered pitch, with logical, well-reasoned, and compelling arguments as to Frank’s guilt and the necessity to lynch him. But by the time Watson wrote about the Leo Frank case, the justice system had already made up its mind and was just going through the motions.
September 1915 Issue of Watson’s Magazine, Shielded the Lynchers of Leo Frank
See the booklet that made the strongest case for convicting Leo Frank. It could be described as making it impossible to convict any lyncher of Leo Frank in any local court, simply because it made the case for extrajudicial justice so strong and compelling. Moreover, even without the September 1915 issue, the mood of the people reached its height against Frank after Slaton’s late June 1915 commutation. See: The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, Jew Pervert, September 1915 by Tom Watson, Watson dubbed Frank a “Jew pervert.”
From Watson’s View, He Perceived an Ongoing Slander and Defamation Campaign by the Jewish Controlled Media in the October 1915 Issue of Watson’s Magazine
Be sure to also read the October 1915 issue of Watson’s Magazine. In that issue, Watson both accused and made a compelling argument that the Jewish community led a national campaign of hate, slander, and defamation against the State of Georgia. Oney in his subtle and careful maneuvering argued that the nationwide campaign against the State of Georgia may have backfired and hinted that it also may have been in some part influential in Frank’s lynching. Indeed, even Governor John Marshal Slaton in his commutation letter spoke of outsiders trying to influence the local and internal affairs of the State of Georgia, and that most of these outsiders had never actually read the official record and that they would have no influence on his commutation. Observers were wondering what really influenced Slaton to give his commutation. Was it really because he doubted the guilty verdict? Or did something more sinister inspire the clemency given to Frank?
After two years of appellate reviews failing to overturn the verdict of the jury, the people of Georgia were enraged to murderous heights by Slaton’s commutation. It seemed to many that the entire legal system of the United States was turned upside down on June 21, 1915 by a corrupt governor bribed by Jewish money. For the Jewish community, the masses of Georgians were part of a vast anti-Semitic conspiracy.
Anti-Semitic Reasons from the Perception of the People
However, there is compelling evidence that many factors and variables influencing the lynching of Leo Frank included more than Slaton’s controversial commutation. They include the following:
1. The big money influence of the Jewish community
2. The Jewish nationwide letter writing campaign launched outside of Georgia in every state
3. Jewish national media control waging a campaign of defamation, slander, and blood libel against Georgia
4. Outside meddling by wealthy Jews Adolph Oct and Lasker
5. Watson’s anti-Semitism
6. Subtle and overt class and political influences that were maneuvering both behind the scenes and openly
7. The strong desire of the people to see justice fulfilled against all odds
May 5, 2004
Steve Oney’s List of the Leo Frank Lynchers
In 2000, Stephen J. Goldfarb’s website, www.leofranklynchers.com, identified 12 of the Leo Frank lynchers. As a result of Steve Oney’s book, which identifies 17 more lynchers, the number of known lynchers of Leo Frank has more than doubled, from 12 to 29. There is no reason to doubt the reliability of the lynching lists complied by Goldfarb and Oney. As a matter of historical fact, the total number of lynchers may have reached 40, and both Goldfarb and Oney acknowledge that their lists are incomplete.
Oney furnishes the names of 26 of Leo Frank’s lynchers, nine of whom had previously been identified as lynchers by Goldfarb. According to Oney, the 26 lynchers, who all were from or associated with Cobb County, fell into three categories. First, there were the leaders and the planners, who conceived, plotted, and organized the lynching. Second, there were the field commanders, who were part of and traveled with the lynch party, and were in charge of the footsoldiers who comprised the rest of the lynch party. Third, there were the footsoldiers, who either were part of the lynch party that abducted Frank or materially supported or made helpful arrangements for the lynch party. Oney gives the names of six planners, three field commanders, and 17 footsoldiers (11 of whom were on the lynch party), for a total of 26 lynchers.
Both Goldfarb and Oney agree on the identity of nine lynchers. Goldfarb lists three lynchers (John Augustus (Gus) Benson, Ralph Molden Manning, and Moultrie McKinney Sessions) who are not on Oney’s list, and Oney names 16 lynchers not named by Goldfarb.
The Leaders and Planners
Joseph M. Brown (1851-1932) Governor of Georgia, 1909-1911 and 1912-1913, and a political ally of Tom Watson. On Dec. 27, 1914 he published in The Augusta Chronicle an article hostile to Leo Frank in which he asked rhetorically: “Are we to understand that anybody except a Jew can be punished for a crime?” On Aug. 8, 1915, only days before Leo Frank’s lynching, he published a position paper in The Macon Telegraph in which with regard to the Frank case he asserted that the time had come for “the people to form mobs.” As Governor of Georgia, Joseph M. Brown was the immediate predecessor of Gov. John M. Slaton.
Newton Augustus Morris (1869-1941) An 1893 graduate of the UGA law school, he held numerous public offices during his career, and was a superior court judge of the Blue Ridge Circuit (which included Cobb County) in 1909-1912 and 1917-1919. He was also a property developer and contractor. Oney calls him “a sharp operator” and “a devious and brassy character.” A person who knew Newton Augustus Morris said of him, “He was a fourteen-karat son of a bitch with spare parts.” In 1891 Morris had been charged with attempted murder and cattle rustling in California.
Eugene Herbert Clay (1881-1923) The son of a U. S. Senator, Clay was Mayor of Marietta in 1910-1911, district attorney of the Blue Ridge Circuit in 1913-1918, and a Georgia state senator in 1921-1923. Oney tells us that Clay’s personal life “was a thoroughgoing scandal and had been since boyhood.” In 1901, while a UGA student, he wandered the streets of Athens one night, firing pistol shots into the air, and as a result was expelled from the university. He was found dead at the age of 41 in an Atlanta hotel room on June 22, 1923. There are several different a accounts of how he died. According to a longtime Cobb County Superior Court judge, Luther Hames, “Clay was killed when a whore hit him over the head with a liquor bottle.”
John Tucker Dorsey (1876-1957) One of Marietta’s premier trial lawyers, John Tucker Dorsey was a member of the lower house of the Georgia General Assembly in 1915-1917 and 1941-1945, and served as district attorney of the Blue Ridge Circuit in 1918-1920. Years before the lynching he had been twice convicted of manslaughter and had served an imprisonment sentence on the chain gang. John Tucker Dorsey was a distant cousin of prosecutor Hugh M. Dorsey.
Fred Morris (1876-?) A prominent lawyer, Fred Morris was serving his first term in the Georgia General Assembly at the time of lynching. “[W]hen the Boy Scout movement began,” Oney says, “he organized the Marietta troop.”
Bolan Glover Brumby (1876-1948) Brumby owned a furniture manufacturing company, the Marietta Chair Company. In 1910 The Atlanta Constitution described him as “one of North Georgia’s most successful businessmen.” Oney says that Brumby “was the very image of arrogant Southern aristocracy” and that “nothing angered him more than Northerners.”
The Field Commanders
George Exie Daniell (1882-1970) The proprietor of a jewelry shop on Marietta Square for 40 years, he was a member of the Rotary Club and (like fellow lynchers Newton Augustus Morris and Eugene Herbert Clay) a charter member of the Marietta Country Club.
Gordon Baxter Gann (1877-1949) An attorney and protege of Newton Augustus Morris, Gann was Mayor of Marietta in 1922-1925 and 1927-1929, and a member of the lower house of the Georgia General Assembly in 1919-1922. At the time of the lynching Gann was the judge of the probate court in Cobb County.
Newton Mayes Morris (“Black Newt”) (1878-?) A first cousin of Newton Augustus Morris, he ran the Cobb County chain gang and was so proficient in using his bullwhip on prisoners that he was sometimes known as “Whipping Newt.” In 1891 he had been arrested in California for attempting to murder someone by shooting him with two blasts from a shotgun.
The footsoldiers who assisted the lynch party in a supporting role included:
William J. Frey (1867-1925) The Sheriff of Cobb County in 1903-1909, he prepared the noose used to hang Frank, and may have actually looped it around Frank’s neck. Frey’s Gin, the location of the lynching, was his property.
E. P. Dobbs The Mayor of Marietta when the lynching occurred, he lent his car to the lynch party.
L. B. Robeson A railroad freight agent, he lent his car to the lynch party.
Jim Brumby Bolan Glover Brumby’s brother, he owned a garage and serviced the automobiles used in the lynching.
Robert A. Hill A banker, he helped fund the lynching.
The footsoldiers on the lynch party included:
George Swanson, who was serving as Sheriff of Cobb County in 1915, and two of his deputies, William McKinney and George Hicks.
Cicero Holton Dobbs (1880-1954), a taxi driver. (According to Stephen J. Goldfarb, Cicero Dobbs “operated a grocery store in Marietta for 25 years, and later the Dobbs Barber Shop.”)
D. R. Benton, a farmer, and an uncle of Mary Phagan.
Horace Hamby, a farmer.
“Coon” Shaw, a mule trader.
Emmet and Luther Burton, two brothers, who are believed to have sat on either side of Leo Frank in the automobile that took him from prison to death. Emmet is said to have been a police officer, and Luther a coal yard operator.
“Yellow Jacket” Brown, an electrician, who rode his motorcycle to Milledgeville ahead of the lynch party and cut the city’s telephone lines just before the lynch party entered the prison.
Lawrence Haney, a farmer.
January 1st 2000
Leo Frank Lynchers
Copyright January 1, 2000 by Stephen Goldfarb, Ph.D.
Since the infamous lynching of Leo Frank on August 17, 1915, in Cobb County, Georgia, the identity of those involved has remained a closely-guarded secret. The list reproduced below and the ensuing discussion documents for the first time the identity of some of those who both planned and carried out this murder. This document is an incomplete list of the men who planned and carried out the kidnapping and lynching of Leo Frank in August of 1915.
The document (used with permission) is part of the Leo Frank collection and is housed in the Special Collections Department, Robert W. Woodruff Library of Emory University. Although the document is unsigned, the identity of the author is known to me; however, because of the nature of this list, I have decided not to disclose its author at this time. *(*SEE ADDENDUM TO THIS PAGE FOR RECENT ADDITIONS TO THIS INFORMATION)
Leo Max Frank (1884-1915) was the manager of the National Pencil Factory in Atlanta, Georgia, from the time of its establishment sometime in 1909. On April 26, 1913, one of his employees, a young girl named Mary Phagan, was brutally murdered in the factory. Frank was convicted of this crime in the summer of 1913 and sentenced to be hanged. For most of the next two years, Frank’s lawyers appealed the death sentence, twice to the United States Supreme Court, but to no avail. In June 1915, shortly before he was to leave office, Governor John M. Slaton commuted Frank’s death sentence to life in prison. About two months later, Frank was kidnapped from the state prison farm at Milledgeville, transported about 175 miles to Cobb County, original home of Mary Phagan, and lynched near a place called Frey’s Mill on the morning of August 17, 1915. None of the lynchers of Frank was ever tried for the murder of Frank, much less convicted; in fact the identity of the lynchers has remained a closely-guarded secret. 
The list itself contains twenty-six names, two less than contemporary accounts claimed as having taken part in the lynching. Some of these names are of people who will very likely never be identified, unless someone with special knowledge of the lynching comes forward. In some cases only surnames are given, and in others the names are so common, that there are likely to have been several persons among the thousands of males living in Cobb County at that time with that name. Nevertheless, nine of the lynch mob members, including all but one of those listed as being either a “leader” or a “planner” can be identified with confidence. The two “leaders” were identified as Judge Newton Morris and George Daniels.
Newton Augustus Morris (1869-1941) was, according to his obituary in the Marietta Daily Journal, a “leader in the Democratic party in Georgia.” He served in the Georgia House of Representatives from 1898 to 1904, during which time he was speaker pro tem (1900-1901) and then speaker (1902-1904), after which he served two terms as judge on the Blue Ridge Circuit (1909-1912, 1917-1919), the Georgia court circuit that included Cobb County.  Morris was credited with preventing the mutilation of Frank’s body after the lynching. According to newspaper accounts, Morris rushed to the scene of the lynching as soon as he heard about it, and once there, he “interceded and pleaded with everyone to permit Frank’s remains to be sent home to his parents for a decent burial.” While Frank’s body was being removed, one member of the crowd, who had earlier wanted to burn Frank’s body, began stomping on the corpse; Morris was able to stop this, which enabled the undertakers to remove Frank’s body to a funeral home in Atlanta.  The other man listed as being a leader is George Daniels. Research in contemporary documents has failed to turn up a man by that name, though two persons with the name George Daniel (or Daniell) have been identified, whose age was similar to those of the other lynchers. George Daniels is the only one on the list that is identified as being a member of the Ku Klux Klan. 
The following three men are listed as being “planners”: Herbert Clay, M. M. Sessions, and John Dorsey. Of the three, the best known was Eugene Herbert Clay (1881-1923). Son of United States Senator Alexander Stephens Clay, and older brother of four-star General Lucius D. Clay, who served as Allied High Commissioner of Germany from 1945-1949, Herbert Clay was mayor of Marietta (1910-1911) and solicitor general (i.e. district attorney) of the Blue Ridge judicial circuit (1913-18). In this capacity Clay should have prosecuted the lynchers of Frank, a bitter irony, as he himself was a planner of the lynching and may well have taken part in the lynching. He was subsequently elected to the Georgia State Senate and served as its president in the years 1921-1922; he was elected to the Georgia House of Representatives the following year but died in an Atlanta hotel, a few days before the opening of the 1923 session.  Clay is the only lyncher whose identity as such has appeared in print.
Born in neighboring Cherokee County, Moultrie McKinney Sessions (1863-1927) moved to Marietta as a child and lived there for the rest of his life. Son of a prominent judge, Sessions received his legal training in a law office and became a lawyer while still a minor. A successful lawyer and financier, he founded Sessions Loan and Trust Co. in 1887. Although active in civic organizations, Sessions does not appear to have held any elected political office.
Also a lawyer, John Tucker Dorsey (1876-1957) moved to Marietta in 1908, after graduation from the University of Georgia and practicing law in Gainesville, Georgia. According to his obituary in the Marietta Daily Journal, Dorsey was active in many civic activities and served in the Georgia House of Representatives (1915-1917, 1941-1945), as solicitor general of the Blue Ridge Circuit (1918-1920), and as ordinary of Cobb County from 1948 until his death. Dorsey represented the state of Georgia at the Coroner’s Jury that met to investigate the lynching of Frank. 
Of the remaining twenty or so lynchers, five more have been identified with confidence, these being the following: Gordon Baxter Gann (1877-1949), attorney, mayor of Marietta (1922-25, 1927-29) and member of the Georgia House of Representatives (1919-1922). Gann served as “special attorney” for coroner John A. Booth at the Coroner’s Jury, investigating the Frank lynching.  John Augustus (Gus) Benson (1873-1960) operated the Benson Brothers Mercantile Co., which was located on the square in Marietta from 1908 to 1933. Benson testified at the Coroner’s Jury that though he saw several automobiles near Frey’s gin on the morning of Frank’s lynching, he did not recognize anyone in any of the automobiles.
William J. Frey (about 45 years old in 1915) sheriff of Cobb County (1903-1909). Frey’s mill (or gin), the location of the lynching of Frank, was owned by Frey. After his name on the list is the notation: “doubled as hangman.” Like Benson, Frey testified at the Coroner’s Jury that, though he saw several cars near his gin on the morning of the lynching, he could not identify any occupants of these automobiles. Frey also testified that after seeing the cars, he ate breakfast then drove into Marietta, and oddly enough went “to the cemetery where Mary Phagan is buried” and then drove back to the gin where he found “the body of Frank hanging [and he stated that] I looked at him but didn’t put my hands on him.” 
Circero Holton Dobbs (1880-1954) operated a grocery store in Marietta for 25 years and later the Dobbs Barber Shop. (He did not serve as mayor of Marietta, as the list would indicate; it was rather Evan Protho Dobbs, presumably a relative, who did so for two terms and was mayor at the time of the lynching of Frank). Ralph Molden Manning (1877-1940) worked as a “contractor and road builder” much of his life and was, at the time of his death, “supervisor of street work for the city of Canton” in neighboring Cherokee County.
The identification of a third of the lynch mob certainly bears out the claim that at least some of its members were prominent citizens of Cobb County, and a few were known state-wide. Included are a former speaker of the Georgia House of Representatives and president of the Georgia State Senate, and other members of the Georgia House of Representatives and Senate, mayors of Marietta, as well as judges, prosecutors, and other members of the local judiciary. Furthermore, this research offers an explanation for the failure of the criminal justice system to prosecute Frank’s murderers, for a member of the lynch mob was also the solicitor general for the Blue Ridge Circuit, the person responsible for the prosecution of the lynchers.
MDJ=Marietta Daily Journal
NYT=New York Times
 There is a large literature on the Phagan murder.The standard scholarly account is Leonard Dinnerstein, The Leo Frank Case (Athens, GA, 1987), to which should be added the same author’s “The Fate of Leo Frank,” American Heritage 47 (October 1996), pp.98-109.
 The name D. B. (Bunce) Napier does not appear on the list, though a claim that he was one of the lynchers was made some years later; see Dinnerstein, Leo Frank Case, p.141, footnote.
 August 23, 1915, p. 5. Other sources reported the 25 men were involved; see AC, August 18, 1915, p.1.
 A case in point is “Joe Brown.” This person is likely to be Joseph Mackey Brown (1851-1932), who served as governor of Georgia two separate times between 1909 and 1913. (He should not be confused with his father Joseph Emerson Brown [1821-1894], who was also governor of Georgia, as well as a United States senator.) “Little Joe” was a vociferous critic of Governor Slaton for his commutation of Frank; see Dinnerstein, Leo Frank Case, pp. 116-17; NYT, Sept. 27, 1915, p. 6. At the time of the lynching of Frank, Brown was a resident of Cobb County.
 MDJ, Sept. 23, 1941, p.1 ;AC, Sept. 23, 1941, pp.1-3 ; AJ, Sept. 23, 1941, p.9.
 Dinnerstein, Leo Frank Case, pp. 143-44; AJ, August 17, 1915, pp. 1,3; NYT, August 19, 1915, p.3.
 A possible candidate is George Exie Daniell (c.1882-1970), who owned a jewelry store on the square in Marietta for over forty years. MDJ, July 27, 1970, p. 1:8. Daniell was acquainted with several of those on the list including Herbert Clay, Newton Morris, and M. M. Sessions, as all four were charter members of the Marietta Country Club, which was founded in 1915 the year of the Frank lynching. MDJ, Sept. 15, 1995, p. A-6.
 AC, June 23, 1923, pp. 1, 14, 16; AJ, June 22, 1923, p.1.
 Steve Oney, “The Lynching of Leo Frank,” Esquire, 104 (Sept. 1985), p. 101.See also “Clays Crucial for Cobb,” MDJ, Feb. 13, 1994, p. D-2.
 AC, June 23, 1927, pp. 1, 3; Lucian Lamar Knight, A Standard History of Georgia 6 vols. (New York and Chicago: Lewis Publishing, 1917), 4:2102-4.
 MDJ, Feb. 22, 1957, pp. 1, 4; AC, Feb. 22, 1957, p. 48; NYT, Aug. 25, 1915, p. 6.
 MDJ, May 2, 1949, p.1; Walter Gerald Cooper, The Story of Georgia 4 vols. (New York: American Historical Society, 1938) 4:228-29; NYT, August 25, 1915, p.6.
 MDJ, Sept. 4, 1960, p. 1.
 NYT, August 25, 1915, p. 6.
 MDJ, June 2, 1954, p. 1.
 MDJ, July 17, 1940, p. 1.
 And an ex-Governor of Georgia; see footnote 4.
Many of the lynch mob members remain unidentified. I invite those who have knowledge that could add to the list of the identified to contact me so that the bright light of history can be cast on this dark and evil corner of the past.
Stephen Goldfarb, Ph.D.
(Copyright July 5, 2000, by Stephen Goldfarb, Ph.D.)
Now that she has been identified in both the national, as well as the Atlanta press, I can disclose that the list of lynchers posted on this website is in the hand of Mary Phagan Kean [Phagan-kean list], great-grand niece and namesake of the young girl who was murdered in the National Pencil Factory in Atlanta, Georgia, on April 26, 1913. Mrs. Kean wrote a book about the murder some years ago and in which she described those who committed the lynching in the following way:
Each was a husband and father, a wage-earner, and a church-goer. They all bore well-known Cobb County names.
Mrs. Kean then added that
There is an individual alive today who knows all the vigilante group members names and has told them to me.
In at least one press account Mrs. Kean claimed a different source for her list of lynchers. According to Mrs. Kean, starting at the age of 15, people would voluntarily confide in her that a family member was involved in the lynching of Leo Frank. She wrote these names down and over the years her list grew and a “version” of this list found its way into the Leo Frank Collection, Special Collections Department, Robert W. Woodruff Library of Emory University, where I found it in late 1994. In either case it would seem likely that Mrs. Kean would have the confidence of the person (or persons) who could identify the lynchers and for this reason the authenticity and substantial accuracy of this list of lynchers can reasonably be assured.
Press reports, email messages, telephone calls and face-to-face conversations allow me to confirm that two persons whom I had (in footnotes) provisionally identified as being involved in the lynching of Frank can now be identified as lynchers with certainty. The “George Daniels” on Mrs. Kean’s list is George Exie Daniell (1881-1970). A native of Bremen, Georgia, Daniell owned and operated a jewelry store on the square in Marietta for 40 years. Like several of the other lynchers, Daniell was a charter member of the Marietta Country Club (see footnote 7 above) and has the dubious distinction of being the only one on the list as being identified as a member of the Ku Klux Klan.
The second provisional identification, which now can be asserted with certainty, is that of “Joe Brown.” Joseph Mackey Brown (1851-1932), son of the 19th-century Georgia governor and United States senator Joseph Emerson Brown, was the oldest of the lynchers that have been identified and the only lyncher who would have had a direct memory of the Civil War. College educated (B.A., Oglethorpe University, 1872), the younger Brown (a.k.a. Little Joe) was admitted to the Georgia bar in 1873 and subsequently became a successful railroad executive. He served as governor of Georgia on two separate occasions between 1909 and 1913 and was defeated for the United States senate in 1914 by his political rival Hoke Smith.  Brown pleaded with Governor Slaton both in person and in the press, not to commute Frank’s death sentence and continued to attack Slaton for the commutation even after Slaton had left office and Frank had been lynched. 
In addition to providing confirmation for two provisional identifications, recent press coverage has led to the identification of yet another lyncher. Two recent articles on the posting of Mrs. Kean’s list, confirm that Bolan Glover Brumby (1876-1948) was one of the lynchers.  From a pioneer Cobb County family, Brumby was involved in the family’s furniture manufacturing business (the Washington Post called him “owner of a local chair company”); about five years before his death, he moved to Murphy, North Carolina, where he was associated with a son in a hosiery manufacturing business.
At this writing (July 5, 2000), 12 of the lynchers of Leo Frank have been identified; this is almost half of those on Mrs. Kean’s list and about third of those who were involved, as the total number may have been as many as 40.  Response to this web page and the resulting press coverage has put me in contact with several persons who have additional information that should lead to the identification of even more lynchers.
 Front-page stories appeared in the following newspapers: Wall Street Journal (June 9, 2000); Atlanta Journal-Constitution (June 11, 2000); Washington Post (June 20, 2000).
 Mary Phagan [Kean], The Murder of Little Mary Phagan (Far Hills, NJ: New Horizon Press, 1987), pp.221-22.
 Ibid. p. 222.
 Washington Post, June 20, 2000, p. A-12.
 Marietta Daily Journal, July 27, 1970, p. 1:8.
 Dictionary of Georgia Biography Kenneth Coleman and Charles Stephen Gurr, eds., 2 vols. (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1983), 1:121-22 and James F. Cook, The Governors of Georgia, 1745-1995 revised ed. (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1995),196-98.
 Leonard Dinnerstein, The Leo Frank Case (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1987), pp. 116-7 and New York Times, Sept. 27, 1915, p. 6.
 Atlanta Journal-Constitution, June 11, 2000, p. A-11; Washington Post, June 20, 2000, p. A-12. The name on Mrs. Kean’s list reads “R. G. Brumby.” It is likely that the “R” should be a “B”; perhaps a slip of the pen was responsible. The other possibility is that two Brumby’s were involved in the lynching.
 Marietta Daily Journal, Dec. 28, 1948, p.1.
 Washington Post, June 20, 2000, p. A-12.
Conclusion of Southerners on the Leo Frank Lynching
The Executive Committee of the American Bar Association, at a meeting at which William Howard Taft was present, adopted a resolution condemning Frank’s “willful and deliberate murder . . . in a spirit of savage and remorseless cruelty, unworthy of our age and time,” as “an act of wanton savagery. . . well calculated to promote lawlessness and anarchy.”
At the time, Taft was a law professor at Yale. He had served as President of the American Bar Association in 1913-1914.
Minutes of Meeting of the Executive Committee, American Bar Association (Aug. 18, 1915), William Howard Taft Papers, Library of Congress (Reel 18).
The majority of Southern people had a united perspective, which was they wanted honest justice, and the lynchers also showed the influential Jewish media moguls and extremely tribal Jewish community that their evil power and big money could not overthrow the United States Constitution and every level of the United States Legal Appellate System. Nor could the perfidious Jewish moneybags, working in concert with their united ethnoreligious tribe prevent truth, prevent justice and righteousness from prevailing.
The greatest dishonor to Southerners today is the one hundred year long Leo Frank hoax perpetuated by the Jewish community that Leo Frank was convicted and lynched because of anti-Semitism and prejudice.
One theory suggests Leo Frank was not convicted because of anti-Semitism and Leo Frank was not lynched because he was a Jew, but partly because a corrupt Governor wheeling and dealing behind the scenes with Jews, who so happened to be the part owner of the law firm representing Leo Frank, was not qualified to commute his death sentence. And when he did, it was the ultimate dishonor, to openly disregard the evidence and testimony and to save the neck of a perverted pedophile-rapist, child beating strangler.
When Georgia Governor John M. Slaton, the senior law partner of the Leo M. Frank legal defense team chose to commute his own client Leo Frank’s death sentence to life in prison on June 21, 1915, it was one of the most brazen acts of treason in Georgia history. See: Leo M. Frank Clemency Decision by John M. Slaton June 21st 1915.
Southerners Have Solidified in the Notion Leo M. Frank Made Two Alleged Murder Confessions and an Incriminating Statement
The official record shows Frank allegedly confessed to murdering Mary Phagan twice and made an incriminating statement at the trial, though Leo Frank revisionists would deny or omit all three of them.
Leo Frank Incriminating Statement: August 18, 1913
Leo Frank’s incriminating statement occurred three weeks into the trial on August 18, 1913. Leo Frank mounted the witness stand at 2:00 p.m. at the trial to give a four-hour statement. He told the courtroom, judge, and jury — in response to Monteen Stover’s testimony that his office was empty on April 26, 1913, from 12:05 to 12:10 p.m. — that he might have “unconsciously” gone to the bathroom in the metal room. Leo Frank had stated to the police during routine questioning that on Monday, April 28, 1913, Mary Phagan arrived in his office on April 26, 1913, between 12:05 and 12:10 p.m.
The August 18, 1913, Leo Frank incriminating statement was a grand slam home run for the State’s prosecution, because Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey and his legal team had spent twenty-nine days trying to prove to the jury that Leo Frank murdered Mary Phagan in the second floor metal room on April 26, 1913, between 12:05 and 12:10 p.m.
Leo Frank Alleged (Hearsay) Murder Confession Number One: April 26, 1913
Leo Frank first alleged murder confession was made to Jim Conley when Leo Frank told Conley he had tried to have sex with Mary Phagan, but she refused him. Leo Frank then said he picked up Mary Phagan and slammed her (presumably against the lathe handle). Mary Phagan’s bloody hair was discovered on Monday, April 28, 1913, on the handle of a lathe in the metal room, and blood stained the floor in front of the girls’ dressing room.
Leo Frank Alleged (Hearsay) Murder Confession Number Two: April 26, 1913
Leo Frank allegedly confessed murdering Mary Phagan to his wife Lucille Selig Frank on the evening of April 26, 1913, at 10:30 p.m. Leo Frank said he didn’t know why he would murder and asked his wife for his pistol so he could shoot himself. Lucille told her family and cook Minola McKnight about what happened. See State’s Exhibit J.
Those are the two Leo Frank alleged murder confessions and incriminating statement in the official record. The last Leo Frank incriminating statement was published in the Atlanta Constitution, March 9, 1914, issue.
Sources and References:
Atlanta Constitution, March 9, 1914.
Burial Map of Leo Frank: http://toolserver.org/~geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Leo_Frank¶ms=40.694_N_-73.882_E_
The Jeffersonian newspaper on Leo M. Frank 1914, 1915, 1916, and 1917: http://leofrank.org/images/jeffersonian/ also available on the University of North Carolina Tom E. Watson Digital Papers Collection, search on the key word, “leo frank” with or without quotes.
Required reading: Watson’s Magazine, 1915, January, March, August, September, and October (see download library). The August and September 1915 issues of Watson’s Magazine articulate the Leo Frank opponent position the best.
Testimony of Jim Conley: http://www.leofrank.org/jim-conley-august-4-5-6/
New York Times, August, 1915: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=FB0F17F63E5D16738DDDA90A94D0405B858DF1D3
The Frankite version of the Leo Frank Lynching. Man’s Magazine, November, 1963.
Leo Frank Lynching Post Card Sells for $3,125 at Sothebys http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2012/photographs-n08885/lot.63.lotnum.html
Last Updated: October 20, 2012