John de Nugent Presents: The 2015 created centennial audiobook of a 1915 magazine article written and published in 1915 by then future U.S. Senator from Georgia (1920-1922), Tom Watson (September 5, 1856 – September 26, 1922), called “The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, a Jew Pervert” originally published in Watson’s Magazine, September 1915, less than 2 weeks after the Leo Frank lynching on August 17, 1915. We are pleased to present this text booklet transformed into a radio program 100 years later for you, with commentary.

Click to play here: 

Download audio file

* * *

National Vanguard Presents:

EDITOR’S NOTE: National Vanguard now makes available this, the fourth audio book from Tom Watson’s series on the Leo Frank case, read by Vanessa Neubauer (without commentary).

* * *

An audiobook version of ‘The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, a Jew Pervert’ (Watson’s Magazine, September 1915) with commentary and analysis by Alex Linder from the VNN Free Learning College (Centennial, 2015) is available for your listening pleasure.

* * *

Omniphi Media Presents:

‘The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, a Jew Pervert’ by Tom Watson Published in Watson’s Magazine, September 1915, transformed in 2015 into audiobook by Oscar Turner of Omniphi Media (without commentary about text).

Introductory Notes from National Vanguard (2015):

Eventually, all of Watson’s long-suppressed essays on the Frank case will be available in audio format, in time for 100th anniversary of Leo Frank’s death in 1915. As the reader for this series, Vanessa Neubauer, states: “It’s important that Watson’s work get out there into the public eye this year, because he’s a major — yet suppressed — author on the Leo Frank case. Leo Frank was a Jewish factory owner who was convicted of the sex murder of a teenage White girl, Mary Phagan, who worked in his sweatshop. His arrest, conviction, and eventual lynching was the impetus for the founding of the Jewish ADL. The Jews will be making a major media push, climaxing this August on the 100th anniversary of Frank’s death, to convince the public that Frank was innocent. We need to counter all that, and tell the truth to give some sort of justice to Mary Phagan and her family. And the facts are on our side.”

* * *

The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, a Jew Pervert by Thomas E. Watson (pictured), Watson’s Magazine, Volume 21 Number 5, September 1915.

IN NEW YORK, there lived a fashionable architect, whose work commanded high prices. He was robust, full of manly vigor, and so erotic that he neglected a handsome and refined young wife to run after little girls.

As reported in the papers of William R. Hearst, Joseph Pulitzer, and Adolph Ochs, the libertine architect had three luxurious suites of rooms fitted up for the use of himself, a congenial company of young rakes, and the young women whom they lured into these elegant dens of vice.

Stanford White’s principal place, however, was in the tower-apartments of Madison Square Garden. In this building, his preparations for sensual and sexual enjoyment were as carefully elaborated and as expensively perfected, as though wine, women and song were the chief end of man’s existence. The excavations at Pompeii have revealed no Rose-door voluptuousness more Oriental than that of Stanford White. Like the Roman sensualist who stimulated his amorous passions by surroundings that promoted desire and prolonged the pleasure, White was artistic in his vices; and it was the nude girl, of perfect symmetry and beautiful face, that he bore into his seraglio, where rich and splendid appointments, soft lights, hidden musical instruments, fragrant flowers, and choice wines intoxicated every sense to the highest pitch of epicurean ecstasy.

Into this golden harem, he took the young, lovely and unmoral Evelyn Nesbit; and, according to her statement, she was brutally used. A shocking fact in the case is, that White seems to have given money to the girl’s mother, and that the mother had, in effect, surrendered the maid to the man—knowing why he wanted her.

Whatever the girl felt as to the manner in which White had accomplished his purpose, she soon afterwards returned to him, and their relations continued for some months. Then Harry Thaw happened to see her, fell in love with her, and desired so ardently to possess her, that he married her.

They went to Europe, and during the tour, the wife told the young husband her terrible story. On their return to New York, the architect had the insane folly to again enter into correspondence with Evelyn—this time knowing that he had an excitable young man to encounter—a husband who might be supposed to have learned his wife’s secret. All the world knows how Thaw was inflamed beyond bounds, by seeing White sitting in the eating-room, at the Garden; and how the young husband immediately shot the satyr who had doped and ruined his wife.

The great legal battle that Thaw’s devoted mother has waged in her boy’s behalf, is a part of the history of the times. For nine long years, that fine old woman has borne her cross, and made her fight, her son behind the bars, all those bitter years.

At last, after nine years of imprisonment, Harry Thaw is a free man—for the court which tried him for murder, pronounced him insane; and the jury which recently tried him for insanity, said that he is sane.

At least one of these verdicts was correct, and both may have been; but the jurors in the last trial have since declared that Thaw ought to have killed White, anyway; and about three-fourths of the red-blooded men and women of the country are of the same opinion.

But the Jew-owned papers, and the Jew-hired papers, and the Hearst papers take a different view. They are outraged. Their feelings are deeply hurt. They lament the failure of the Law to hang this hot-tempered boy who shot the man that had virtually bought Evelyn from her monstrous mother, and had then drugged and forced her. In their wrathful eyes, nine years’ imprisonment is no punishment at all. They rail at the influence of Money, and deplore the disgrace which has fallen upon New York—the righteous town where Jacob Schiff, the banker, could give a forty-year sentence to an humble Jew, for entering clandestinely the dwelling of a Jewish millionaire; the righteous town wherein the Roman priests could have the Mayor assassinated without provoking hostile comment from the Hearst papers, the Jew-owned papers, or the Jew-hired papers; the righteous town where the priest, Hans Schmidt, can cut his concubine’s throat, dismember her body, fling the pieces in the river, and still escape punishment!

Let us regale our minds by reading what the Hearst papers say about the case of Harry Thaw:

It is quite true that but for the lavish outpouring of the family fortune, Thaw might have been electrocuted, or would still be confined in a madhouse. It is equally true that but for the contributions of other rich young men, whose money cursed them, his fight for liberty would not have been so prolonged or so costly.

Many will moralize over the power of money as manifested in the escape of Thaw from paying the extreme penalty for the murder of Stanford White.

Fewer will stop to think of the malign power of money that pressed this rich young man along the primrose path that ended in the murder on the roof garden, his prolonged imprisonment, and the ineradicable disgrace which rests upon his name.

As it is, about the most the public can say of him is to express the hope that the public mind shall not longer be assailed by the fulminations of spectacular lawyers, the imaginings of alienists, and the bathos of hired pamphleteers. The world is weary of Thaw.

The world is not weary of Hearst, fortunately; and if he can explain his prolonged hostility to Thaw, and reconcile it with his determined championship of Frank, the world will peruse his statement with interest.

Let us now read what another New York paper—Jew-owned or Jew-hired—published about the two cases, Frank’s and Thaw’s. Concerning Thaw, the New Republic says:

In the case of Harry K. Thaw, it looks as if the State of New York had thoroughly well got its leg pulled. The State deserved it richly, for it asked a judge and a jury to decide a question which they are simply incapable of deciding. Those laymen could no more pass on Thaw’s sanity than upon the condition of his liver. Thus a man may be highly educated, courteous, genial in every relation of life, and still bear within him a murderous disposition, which breaks out only on special occasions. The voluble juryman who has been so much interviewed came pretty close to the truth when he said that Thaw would never kill except when a woman was involved.

What freed Thaw was in reality a combination of prejudices. He behaved well in court. The State’s alienists behaved badly in court. Thaw fought a long fight, and men admire persistence. He had murdered Stanford White, a man who happened to be a genius, but whose genius was forgotten in the deep moral prejudice against him. The brutal fact is that an American jury is very ready to flirt with the idea that there are unwritten laws to justify the killing of men who seduce young girls.

Concerning the Frank case, the same New York paper says:

It is often too foolish to indict a whole people. But in this instance the guilt of the people is clear. They wrecked the only trial Frank has had, they believed every lie about him, they terrorized their public officials. They have made democracy hideous—they, the men and women of the State. There was a minority that knew better, a minority that did not wish to make the courts of the State a vile spectacle to the whole nation. But of that minority many were too cowardly to speak out. They allowed the mob to stamp its own imprint upon the public character of the State. The Governor who acted, and the opinion which supported him, were not enough to save Georgia from its degradation.

A people which cannot preserve its legal fabric from violence is unfit for self-government. It belongs in the category of communities like Haiti, communities which have to be supervised and protected by more civilized powers. Georgia is in that humiliating position today. If the Frank case is evidence of Georgia’s political development, then Georgia deserves to be known as the black sheep of the American Union.

It is a disagreeable discovery of the New Republic, that American juries harbor a perverse sympathy for fathers and brothers who kill the seducers of young girls, and thus rid the earth of the most dangerous vipers that crawl. The New Republic says that it is not only a fact that juries do sympathize with the men who give shot-gun protection to womanhood, but that this fact is brutal.

When the human race ceases to be capable of brutality of that sort, civilization will be the soup-kettle of molly-coddles; and literature will degenerate into a milk-sop effeminacy that won’t be worth hell’s room.

Coming to the Frank case, the New Republic condemns, not only the jury and the judges, but the whole State in which the horrible crime was committed. “It is often foolish to indict a whole people,” says this magazine. Edmund Burke said it was always foolish to do so.

The State of Georgia, as a whole, is pronounced guilty. It has had no evidence against Frank; it has been possessed of a Devil of blind hatred; it has relentlessly persecuted; it has tried to lynch an innocent man, under legal forms. Its mobs terrified the witnesses; terrified the jurors; terrified the trial judge; terrified the Supreme Court of Georgia in both of its decisions, the last of which was unanimous. Finally, the Georgia mobs terrified the Supreme Court of the United States, which, under duress, decided that Frank’s lawyers—after having had all the time, money and opportunity needed—had utterly failed to show that Georgia had not given to Leo Frank every right to which he was entitled. Continue Reading →

Staff from the Leo Frank Research Library was present all day long at the Mount Carmel Cemetery in Glendale Queens, New York City, NY, for the Monday, August 17, 2015 centennial commemoration of Leo Frank’s lynching, and we also celebrated later that evening with a pre-party for the official five-year anniversary of our own official archive launch date (August 18, 2010 – August 18, 2015). Mazel Tov, Happy Anniversary!

See our photos taken at the Mount Carmel Cemetery in Glendale, Queens, NYC on August 17, 2015 at the Jewish ADL’s Centennial commemoration of Leo Frank’s lynching: http://postimg.org/gallery/360yqen38/. The event was given official gravitas by involving the city council (see: event advertisement, programme and proclamation photos).

On our fifth anniversary (2010-2015), we ask each and every one of our dear readers this salient question:

Is the official Leo Frank trial testimony, evidence, and exhibits “murky” as some “Frankites” like Steve Oney and Bill Kinney have been suggesting through various media outreach efforts during August of 2015?  Before you answer this question, please read our analysis of something Leo Frank had said to his trial jury, while he was seated on the witness stand, delivering his four-hour statement during open court on Monday afternoon, August 18, 1913. 

What does Frank’s statement suggest given its context?

Now, gentlemen, to the best of my recollection from the time the whistle blew for twelve o’clock until after a quarter to one when I went up stairs and spoke to Arthur White and Harry Denham, to the best of my recollection, I did not stir out of my office; but it is possible that in order to answer a call of nature or to urinate I may have gone to the toilet. Those are things that a man does unconsciously and can not tell how many times nor when he does it…

Did Leo Frank confess?
http://www.leofrank.org/solution/confession/

Our Five-Year Celebration

The domain name www.LeoFrank.org was purchased for $9 in January 2010 and remained dormant for six months. Half a decade ago — as of this writing — in June of 2010, the Leo Frank Case and Trial Research Library had begun its nascent evolution in the form of a newly installed WordPress script called “Thesis.” After two months of feverishly slapping together some rough draft introductory articles and putting together a basic image gallery, we decided to go public. Our official launch date was August 18, 2010. We considered this grand opening date significant because it was the same day Leo Frank gave orally his hand written trial statement to the jury almost one hundred years prior (97 years to be exact).

At the time of our early beginnings, we never foresaw that our future affiliated website and article network would eventually receive hundreds of thousands of unique visitors, but five years later, we achieved one of many progressive traffic milestones, finally breaking seven figures, or to be more precise: 1,053,547 page views. Astounding!

Our efforts ironically succeeded thanks in part to Jewish censorship efforts against our website, which forced us to rapidly adapt by thinking in new ways we never would have considered otherwise (Neo-Nazis Use Leo Frank Case for Anti-Semitic Propaganda Push by Paul Berger, August 20, 2013, Jewish Daily Forward; 100 Years Later, Anti-Semitism Around Leo Frank Case Abounds by ADL leader Abraham Foxman, August 23, 2013, Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith; and NEO-NAZIS BEHIND LEO FRANK PROPAGANDA SITES by Mark Potok and heidi beirich, November 20, 2013, Southern Poverty Law Center).

Articles attempting to conflate opposing conclusions from the central Judeo-revisionist narrative with neo-nazism and anti-Semitism by hyperethnocentric Antigentile Jewish activist organizations is generally perceived by the intelligent part of the public as desperately absurd. In an attempt to stifle freedom of speech, academic debate and unbiased inquiry into the Leo Frank case, Jewish supremacist groups like the ADL, SPLC and Jewish Daily Forward have been at the forefront of asserting disingenuous and contradictory statements about the evolutionary development of Leo Frank case historical research aggregates that have arisen on the Internet post 2010.

The Jews are beginning to lose domination over the narrative of the Leo Frank case, because their Antigentile canards, racial epithets, agitprop bias and tropes are beginning to have an opposite effect than their intended usage and purpose.

Jewish Censorship Efforts Resulted in the Proliferation of Formerly Suppressed Evidence

We owe our greatest gratitude largely to dozens of scholars who wrote articles about the Frank-Phagan affair based on the primary sources we uncovered and published online. The citing of our website (back-links) within their numerous articles and bibliographies boosted our search engine rank in Google, Yahoo, and Bing to the first page results for many relevant keywords associated with the case. Once our website began hovering on the first and second page of Google for keyword variations of “Leo Frank,” we started receiving hundreds of unique visitors a day on average. On major dates like the anniversaries and especially the pivotal centennials we received thousands of unique visitors per day. Our affiliated websites have received hundreds of thousands of page views on the Frank case articles they produced and published.

Now that Jewish censorship efforts have taught us many Internet marketing secrets, we must ask ourselves: Do we coast on our success or climb to ever higher Gideon plateaus?

Anti-Gentilism and Jewish Censorship: How It Unfolded

After anti-Gentile Jewish activists tried and failed to pressure our domain registration company and ISP to shut us down, we realized we had no choice but to diverge in our media reach and publish our research on high-traffic websites from 2012 to 2015. Had the ADL and SPLC not tried to get our domain registration company and ISP to close down our website, it would have never occurred to us that we should recruit dozens of people to completely rewrite our research analysis by polishing the treatments for distribution on a broad range of high traffic websites. The irony of treacherous Jewish efforts to suppress and censor ‘The Leo Frank Research Library’ is that our response of republishing our scholarly analysis on half a dozen other sites, resulted in those articles having received more than 100,000 views and the negative comments on them were clearly from irritated and frustrated Zionists who were upset that a full century of Jewish lies were slowing falling apart like a teetering house of cards. Nothing seems to cause Jewish people more exasperation and begrudging self-deception than facing the reality that their entire self-written history is built on pathological lies.

Special Thanks to Abe Foxman, Mark Potok, Heidi Bierich and Morris Dees for their censorship efforts to suppress research that fact checks the false narrative of organized Jewry

Thank you ADL, SPLC, and other racist Jewish supremacist activists for your un-American and anti-Gentile machinations inadvertently causing us to discover the best marketing secret in the universe: professionally rewrite content and publish it on some of the highest traffic Internet websites for maximum reach! We never would have known this if it weren’t for both your overt mendacious behavior, and underhanded scheming.

We are grateful to your Antigentile Jewish organizations for teaching us that when we upload politically incorrect videos to YouTube, followed by Jewish activist individuals and groups responding by successfully pressuring Google to have the items deleted, that we should upload those same censored videos to the top one hundred video-sharing websites. You see before, it was on one video-sharing website (YouTube), and Zionists then had it deleted through pressure, and from there thinking they (Jews) had won the day. Then, out of the blue (surprise!), the censored videos blossomed on one hundred more sites. The result? The video received more traffic than it ever could have hoped for on YouTube alone. From here on out we will use web sites like www.clipconverter.com to download videos and share them as a bulwark against the Jewish war against the U.S. constitution and first amendment.

Thank you Jewish supremacists for teaching us the greatest secrets of guerilla marketing. You’d better hope that other politically incorrect fellow travelers who have experienced this kind of Jewish pressure don’t figure out the amazing solutions described above.

The Next Five Years

If we are going to continue this momentum, then we must proactively recruit more writers and editorial teams who can produce high-quality treatments of every type (books, booklets, audiobooks, radio programs, magazines, journals, periodicals, pamphlets, business cards and newspaper articles) and then make these new, developing, and professional works available on the top one hundred most visited self-publishing media, blog, vlog and article sharing websites.

More than ten thousand articles have been written in the past century about the Leo Frank case propounding the Frankite partisans’ fraud based positions of grotesquely exaggerated Jewish persecution allegations, anti-Gentilism, lying by omission, anti-Gentile blood-libels, misrepresentation, and fabrication. We seek to provide a counterbalance to this anti-Gentile Jewish supremacist culture war by acquainting people of all races, religions, and creeds with the uncensored truth of this amazing and tragic story.

Narrative Warfare

If we are going to change the artificially manufactured historical consensus based upon Jewish pathological lies that have been forced relentlessly into academia and popular culture for many generations, we must recruit no less than one hundred professors, scholars, authors, journalists, film producers, and concerned citizens to push back hard by producing new professionally written articles, books, audio programs, and videos for the mainstream popular culture consumption and academic peer-reviewed journals. These works should both debunk the enduring falsifications and propound all the facts in their context that have been suppressed for more than a century.

We Need Your Help!

We ask you, dear reader, to assist our efforts. Purchase each and every book about the murder of little Mary Phagan and the Leo Frank case to fact-check the narratives contained within them: from each sentence, paragraph, page, and chapter all the way to the bibliography. Gather all of the sources, citations, references, and so forth mentioned in these works, and study those items to see if they can be fully verified for reliability– we intend to publish the results and hope a great body of research will survive for future generations to continue this struggle to take back our history with truth from the Jewish Supremacists.

We implore you to help us conduct a 100+ year deep audit and analysis of everything ever written about this affair since 1913. We request that you take the time to explore our website thoroughly and acquire the extant books we discuss from eBay.com or amazon.com for these long-term research endeavors. All the verifiable errors must be meticulously uncovered in these books and released for public awareness, and as already stated, new materials must be written, providing all the formerly censored facts and evidence in a cogent manner. We must take back the narrative. Please help us to create study lessons to help people discover and uncover the false hoods in the Frankite version of the case.

International Reach

In the next five years, we would like our materials to be downloaded, translated, and published everywhere in non-English speaking countries to inform millions of people around the world using rich media in the form of discussion threads, scholarly articles, college level books, e-radio programs, and interactive videos about this famous case that is in fact relatively unknown outside of the United States of America, except in Israel. The Leo Frank musical parade has been featured all over the world, so more people than ever before are more aware of this case and if curious will likely do research on the Internet about it. We must provide them with educational resources in their respective languages.

Impermanence

And no matter what ultimately befalls this library — because nothing lasts forever — we aspire to at least create an impact that will send enduring ripples across the oceans of time and space for future generations. We have no misconceptions that our library will survive forever given the relentless attacks by anti-Gentile Jews and the climate of anti-Gentilism they have created against alternative viewpoints, politically incorrect worldviews, jewish wise opinions and awakened paradigms, but we can, in our limited lifetime, be the foundation for others to produce annotated books that will survive the test of time. We hope that the definitive book on the Leo Frank case will arise from this website before it is gone forever in the years to come. We hope that someday on Amazon and Ebay, there will be books and magazines with alternative viewpoints than the anti-Gentile monolithic Jewish narrative.

Rich Media Presentations

If we are going to achieve the power to reach the minds of generations to come, then professional audio-visual productions should be published in the mainstream media. Only then can we expose the echoing pathological lies of the affair and the Jews’ use of this fictionalization to create consensus in the war for narrative dominance by quoting and citing each other’s academic dishonesty. So think of this website as a means for planting seeds of truth across the Earth. Let this website destroy itself in the same way an acorn annihilates itself to become a mighty oak. Let that mature tree produce 10,000 seeds. We plan to incubate those acorns of truth in every city, state, province, and nation in the world. Please help in our efforts and also promote us on social media.

Social Media and World Languages

We are battling the overwhelming Jewish narrative warfare on a shoestring budget, and this is but one line of defense against their offensive onslaught, which is multifront. You can aid us by educating people regarding the facts that have been suppressed, fabricated, or manipulated by Leo Frank’s defenders since 1913 through social media, especially: Facebook and Twitter (look for other popular social media as well). We intend to encourage people to write articles about this case in other languages and translate existing ones from English to all the languages spoken around the globe, so other peoples from different cultures and ethnic backgrounds can learn about the ethnocentric Jewish occupation of Gentile history in Western Civilization. This will also give people the opportunity to learn how the Jewish strategy works of getting paradigms into the mainstream as social-political orthodoxy.

Text Search Engine Dominance

If you searched on the Internet five years ago (2010) or prior for information about Mary Phagan and Leo Frank, 99% of the results, no matter how many pages deep you perused, would be sympathetic Jewish sources presenting the case with exaggerated claims about the unfairness of Frank’s trial, his supposed wrongful conviction and his “innocence”. Times have changed, beginning in 2013 and especially now in 2015, we are increasingly seeing competing ideas. For relevant keywords about the case (“leo frank,” “mary phagan,” and other variants about principals of the case), our website and others born from our research, regularly hover on the first or second page of search engine results pages (SERPS) on the three dominant search engines: Google, Yahoo, and Bing, which together as an oligopoly or cartel, account for 99% of market share for all text-based searches in the Western world. Ordinary people are coming to their own definite conclusions about Leo Frank’s guilt or innocence after reading the Jewish approach of obfuscation and creating doubt which is based on Antigentilism verses the Gentile position which is based on reasoned analysis of the facts, evidence and testimony.

Image Search Engine Dominance

If you enter any high-relevance keywords about Mary Phagan or Leo Frank in these search engines and click on the images tab, a large percentage of the results link back to our library or affiliated sites. Many of the dozens of new articles written about the Leo Frank case are exposing anti-Gentile frauds by anonymous academics and journalists who have been emboldened to debunk the century of Jewish lies, by utilizing the vast research of this website. We may have only scratched the surface of awakening the masses at least from the perspective of our hereditary enemies, but we are still turning the tide.

The Future of the Internet is Video

We must dominate the video sphere if we want to win the narrative war and take back our history. That will take a Herculean effort. Transforming this great body of knowledge into a video series will take a lot of hard work and time to get it done right. It will take many years and thousands of man hours, but we must do it as more people turn to audiobooks and video for their education. Many people have less patience for reading than in generations past, so we must harness new forms of rich media.

Library Growth

A very special thank you to everyone who promoted this website on social media and to the curious students of history and law who took the time to learn about this fascinating true-crime murder case. On our fifth anniversary (August 18, 2015), we are proud to announce that we have made more than 10,000 pages available of primary source materials about the case from the two year period between 1913 and 1915, including recently discovered documents, photos, facts, evidence, exhibits, affidavits, and testimony never before uncovered by scholars and journalists.

The 1,800-page Leo Frank Georgia Supreme court records we released on the Internet are uncharted territory for students of the Mary Phagan murder mystery, and we are pleased to be the first to bring these elusive documents to the Interweb for your research efforts. We are looking forward to transforming it from high resolution photos into text and then audiobook format in the next five years.

Mary Phagan Scholarship Funds

Our mission has always been to build the world’s foremost educational library about this famous criminal case for students of history and law, this has been successfully achieved during the double centennials of Mary Phagan’s murder and Leo Frank’s hanging (2013 and 2015, respectively), but our work is still far from complete. We intend to continue our development of this superb place of higher learning and establish scholarship funds for college students, university professors, historians, journalists, and educators to conduct research, write scholarly papers, and publish them in academic peer-reviewed journals. These scholarship funds will be focused for research and publication exposing all the exaggerations, falsehoods, plagiarism, and academic misconduct perpetuated for more than one hundred years about this case by Frank’s defenders.

Anti-Gentile and Anti-Gentilism Established by Repetition: 

We are up for the task: It might take one hundred years and thousands of researchers to fact-check everything that has ever been produced about the case by Jews and their sychophantic Gentile allies. We believe that if these findings are publicized, exposing pseudo-scholars who actively fabricate history and plagiarize each other’s *perjurous* retelling of legal history, it will provide a great service to humanity.

How Jews Control History

The Jewish theme of creating census is now more obvious than ever in the 21st century thanks to OCR scanning and computer analysis. Jews cite each other in favor of exalting Jews as noble persecuted victims and defame Gentiles as part of vast anti-Semitic conspiracy. This history of anti-Gentilism is going to be fought against ferociously by new coalitions of awakened Gentiles.

Help us to bring the words Antigentile and Antigentilism into the mainstream, use them whenever they accurately apply to Jewish individual or group machinations that are deleterious to Western Civilization.

Kevin MacDonald was Right

For one hundred years, the strategy of the Jewish community has been to utilize all manner of fallacious manipulation, no matter how obviously unfounded, in their efforts to perpetuate the myth that Leo Frank was “Falsely Accused, Wrongfully Convicted and Wantonly Murdered” (according to Rabbi Steven Lebow of Marietta, Ga). Jewish activists over the decades continue to use the web-of-lies strategy by quoting, citing, and then regurgitating each other’s academic dishonesty to create historical consensus within academia, popular culture and for mainstream media consumption. We are seeking students of the Leo Frank case to uncover this entire web of lies from 1913 to 2015 and begin publishing the detailed analysis of this Jewish criminal conspiracy everywhere on the Internet and for new generations to continue to do so for the centuries to come. We want to give people the tools to uncover this kind of behavior.

He Who Controls the Present Controls the Past. He Who Controls the Past Controls the Future.

We must take back our Gentile history, so we are calling for a one-hundred-year audit of everything released about this famous murder affair, and in a wider sense, everything written by Jews in the 20th century about anti-Semitism. It must be meticulously fact-checked to ascertain and discredit all the embellishments, biases, slanting, misrepresentations, fabrications, lying by omission, academic dishonesty, falsifications, plagiarism, rumor creating, defamation, slander, bigotry, prejudice, and academic misconduct. We will chart a new course in history by debunking all their collective pseudo-scholarship about Jewish-Gentile history.

Brainstorming for the Next Five Years

1. Release more of the legal records of the case and transcribe them so they can be easily searched with text based engine software, including the 1,800-page Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court legal records, which are currently only available as high resolution image slides as of 2015. We also plan make these once elusive documents into an audiobook. This will take enormous efforts to achieve.

2. Publish more primary sources of the case from the years 1913 to 1915, including national newspapers, journals, magazines, and periodicals that are no longer in copyright, as the years go onward. We would like to acquire more of the original primary sources from libraries around the country. So far, we have acquired a museum-quality collection of original newspapers, magazines, and books. We will make this collection available at some point in the future to anyone who wishes to do a traveling exhibit about the case.

3. Create scholarship funds for students and professors to fact-check every book and article about the Leo Frank case ever produced from 1913 to 2015 and then publish the results widely of the fraudulent claims they discover. We are looking to recruit one hundred researchers for this fact-checking effort.

4. Transcribe the Georgia newspaper articles from April to August of 1913 published about the case contained in the Atlanta Constitution, Atlanta Journal, and Atlanta Georgian, so they can be easily keyword searched. After transcribing these Atlanta newspaper articles from the spring and summer of 1913, they will be turned into an audiobook.

5. Transcribe the Leo Frank trial brief of evidence so it can be easily keyword searched and transform it into an audiobook.

6. Convert the Case of Pinkerton Detective Agency versus National Pencil Company brief of evidence (1916) into text and an audiobook, currently we only have photographs of the pages and rough OCR scanned text that needs editing.

7. Produce professional high production value documentaries, films, and videos about the Leo Frank case, unmasking the one hundred years of Jewish lies and all the facts of the case they suppressed. For every professional video, film, documentary, miniseries, and Broadway musical, we need to produce at least one of these same items to uncover and expose Frankite lies. We want to create a South Park parody of the case and a Monty Python-style comedy, complete with British actors with varying regional English accents to poke fun at the Jews.

8. Start a national campaign to contact all the African-American professors in the United States and recruit them to research, write, and publish articles about the case, especially on the optics of Jewish racism, bigotry, and prejudice that is rarely acknowledged by them. For instance, a great deal of proof is available regarding the fact that Jews falsely accuse James “Jim” Conley of the crime with fallacious evidence, and the rarely discussed subject that Leo Frank tried to frame two of his black employees for the murder he was convicted of (one of them being the African-American Newt Lee). There is a lot of Jewish racism to be found in the Leo Frank case, and we would like to see hundreds of articles written about the anti-Gentilism of this affair by Black scholars. We intend to take back control of our Gentile destiny from the Jewish occupiers and expose them as an inborn race of paranoiac egomaniac pathological liars.

9. Help to elect people to the Georgia Legislature who can make official statements overturning the illegal Leo Frank posthumous pardon and stop new efforts to exonerate him. The 1986 posthumous pardon of Leo Frank must be fully revoked, nullified, and permanently overturned. The Governor chooses the members of the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles, we want members elected who will overturn Leo Frank pardon which is a travesty of injustice given that he was a convicted sex killer. And we want an official apology from leaders in the Jewish-American community for the century of racist lies being propounded by Jewish activist professors, academics, and journalists spreading their bigoted anti-Gentilism blood libel about the case.

10. Create a Mary Phagan park somewhere in the greater Metro Atlanta region, with a placard saying something along the lines of

“Mary Phagan (1899-1913) was a child laborer in Georgia, who was bludgeoned, raped, strangled, and mutilated by her sadistic killer the 1913 Atlanta B’nai B’rith president Leo Max Frank the Toilet Strangler, a Jewish serial rapist-pedophile who had sexually abused many of the pre-teen and teenage girls who worked for him at his industrial sweatshop. When Leo Frank was arrested, he attempted a racist anti-Black plot to frame his African-American employee, the nightwatchman Newt Lee, but when that failed, his attorneys turned on Frank’s accomplice-after-the-fact James “Jim” Conley who partially helped the police solve the murder. For more than one hundred years, racist activist Jews and their organizations have been perpetuating anti-Gentile pathological lies and promulgating anti-Gentilism as a smoke screen for the epidemic of pedophilia in the Jewish community and the occupation of our government, legal system, media and educational system by Jews.”

11. Find a legal way to repudiate the racist claims on the monument at the Mount Carmel Cemetery that the ADL put there that falsely accuses Gentiles of anti-Semitism. Each anti-Gentile sentence on that monument needs to be fully repudiated. Find a legal remedy to have the sign near Leo Frank’s lynching repudiated for its falsely accusing Leo Frank’s trial and hanging as being fueled by anti-Semitism. We want the historical monument at the grave of Mary Phagan to mention that Leo Frank was not officially absolved of the murder and mention the Jewish supremacists behind these efforts.

12. The historical markers for the principals of the Leo Frank case, located in Georgia, all revised that falsely accuse anti-Semitism as the reason for Frank’s conviction.

The Leo Frank Case in a Wider Context: Jewish Evolutionary Strategy.

The Flower of Womanhood

In the years surrounding the turn of the 21st century, leading up to the double centennial of this sensational double murder (2013, 2015), an inflammatory rebirth of the Leo Frank case has inspired Jews to use it for dividing, guilting and shaming Gentiles even further over their past of seeking to protect the woman of their race and preserve the continued survival of their heritage, traditions, genealogy, and recessive gene pool. Jewish activists should be seen for what they are: JewisHIV+ Viral extremists who are waging a DNA war, on a genetic algorithm level, by attacking natural instincts of White and European-American solidarity as evil and irrational. For one hundred years Jews have been associating White ethnoconsciousness with the Frank case for their deracinating propaganda efforts to misrepresent the case’s legal records and distort history of the American past with new “social justice warrior” SJW paradigms. Jews must be seen as being genetically coded to behave like HIV the virus that destroys the immune system. Jews are using the Leo Frank case to destroy our White immune system so we can not fight back with an immunal response. We are doing just that with this website, fighting JewisHIV+.

1913: The Birth of the Jewish Culture War against European-Americans

The year 1913 marked the start of quiet, slow terminal decline for the United States of America, resulting from the birth of the Federal Reserve, Income Tax, and the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith. In 2013, we have reached the point of no return, where we can do nothing to avert the death of the West. Unless of course we organize, fight back and take back control our history, government, media, education system and country from our parasitic occupiers.

Since 1913, Jewish lobbies and activist groups have steadily expanded in number and power. In 2013, the Federal Reserve quietly bankrupts the United States with fiat currency that lost 99% of its original value from one hundred years ago. The Jews have so much power in congress they can get enough U.S. Senators to block an audit of the Federal Reserve. With convoluted income tax laws having escalated to infinitely higher levels of complexity than they were one hundred years ago, and endless wars for Israel in the Middle East squandering the U.S. treasury, as well as American blood – we need a great awakening amongst the people. The power of Jewish lobbies has grown to transnational superpower proportions, enabling them to control U.S. Congress and manipulate both domestic and foreign policy, which means they ultimately influence at some significant level many if not all international politics in the United Nations.

Step Back in Time

Concerning 20th century U.S. legal history, the Leo Frank trial, beginning on July 28, 1913, is considered one of the essential criminal proceedings defining Southern history, it sparked a Jewish-Gentile social, political, and cultural hostility that evolved into something immeasurable a century after the execution of Leo Frank on August 17, 1915. August 17, 2015 the mainstream media has been deluged with articles perpetuating Antigentile narratives that go unchallenged, but that is all about to change. For every book written that is pro-Frank, we intend to counter it with a book exposing the Jewish lies and letting people know what really happened – the same applies for every video and newspaper article the Jewish supremacists create. We must ensure that all alternative media sources provide a counter balance of truth to Jewish perpetuated fallacies.

The Leo Frank case became an aggressive political and social front, allowing a dissenting minority of Jews to subvert the majority population of Gentiles. Their concerted and insidious virulent war of entropy against Western Civilization that saw a historical peak in 1913, has achieved its ultimate success in 2013: European-Americans are now at the point of no return, where they can no longer vote themselves out of a multicultural society that will reduce them to minority status in 25 years and genetically displace them in less than one hundred years. And because the U.S. government is too powerful and pervasive, with some of the most advanced military technology in the world, no armed conflict by revolutionary insurgents could ever hope to overthrow the U.S. Jewish occupied government known as ZOG (Zionist Occupied Government). That leaves only the political process left, and because only a tiny fraction of Whites feel a sense of tribal racial conscientiousness, organizing them is a promethean task. Building a broader coalition of Universal nationalism seems to be working, and therefore working with other peoples united against Jewish supremacy we can win the day.

In Mary Phagan’s Honor we Call for a White Baby Boom Every Generation

A White baby boom to reach 10 billion is going to take not less than 100 years and potentially up to 200 years. This option must be incorporated as a long term plan because is too slow in the short term, so the only option left is to awaken the whole world, to unite the whole world against the Jews and this option is viable because tribalism is hard wired in all people. Let White Nationalism Die the death that it needs, and for Universal Nationalism to be born, and lets create a world where Jewish Internationalism is impossible and is vanquished from the face of the Earth forever.

If Western Civilization is going to survive into the 22nd century, it must become genetically conscious and seize the reigns of its own evolutionary destiny, or a slow burning revolution culminating in World War III, the death of the West in its final conflict with multiculturalism, and a second Holocaust of Jews in the eight digits will arrive well before the 21st century ends. We have a duty to avert this disaster and taking back our history must become an imperative.

For more media inquiries and interviews use our contact form.

References:

Photos at the Anti-Defamation League’s Leo Frank lynching centennial at Mount Carmel Cemetery on August 17, 2015: http://postimg.org/gallery/360yqen38/

August 2015, John de Nugent audiobook series segment 3 of Tom Watson’s five part, monthly updates of Leo Frank Case analysis from Watson’s Magazine, August 1915.

Click to play here: 

Download audio file

____________________________________________

National Vanguard audiobook series by Vanessa Neubauer on the centennial publishing (August 2015) of The Celebrated Case of The State of Georgia vs. Leo Frank originally written by future U.S. Senator from Georgia, Tom E. Watson, for the August 1915 issue of Watson’s Magazine (without commentary about text).

_________________________________________

An audiobook version of The Celebrated Case of The State of Georgia vs. Leo Frank with commentary and analysis from the VNN Free Learning College by Alex Linder is available for your listening pleasure.
_____________________________________________

‘The Celebrated Case of The State of Georgia vs. Leo Frank’ by Tom Watson Published in Watson’s Magazine, August 1915, transformed into audiobook by Oscar Turner of Omniphi Media (without commentary about text).

The Celebrated Case of The State of Georgia vs. Leo Frank.

Watson’s Magazine, Volume 21 Number 4, August 1915

The laws of Georgia are extraordinarily favorable to a person accused of crime. He is not only protected in all of his rights under the Constitution of the United States, but he enjoys privileges far beyond those limits. No indictment against him will stand, if it can be shown that a single grand juror was disqualified, or failed to take an oath on that particular case.

Therefore, our grand juries are bound in each case by a special oath, in addition to the usual general oath; and they examine the witnesses in each case, separately, behind closed doors, having the right to call in other witnesses besides those named by the State’s Attorney.

The law authorizes the Judge to remove the case to another jurisdiction, himself, whenever the circumstances satisfy him that the ends of justice require it.

If the Judge does not act upon his own initiative, the defendant’s counsel can move for a change of venue; and support it by affidavits tending to prove that the feeling in the community is so excited against the accused, that it is impossible for him to therein have a fair trial.

Our Code is also exceedingly lenient in the matter of continuances. The absence of a material witness; the illness of leading counsel, or of the defendant; the want of sufficient time to procure important testimony, are among the grounds upon which accused persons gain time; and these motions are continually being made for no other purpose than to allow for the passing away of whatever local prejudice may have been aroused by the first rumors and exaggerations incident to most crimes of violence.

If the defense is ready for trial, and makes no motion to change venue, each juror of a legally qualified panel is subjected to a rigid examination, as to his freedom from bias and prejudice in that particular case; and the defendant can put each juror, separately, on trial—the Judge being the trior—and offer against the juror such evidence as will prove that he is not, in the eyes of the law, a fair juror to try that case.

During the trial, the defendant may act, wholly or in part, as his own lawyer; he may interrogate the witnesses, and he may address the Court. If he does not choose to make a statement in his own defense, to the jury, he may remain silent; and the law does not permit the State’s Attorney to comment upon that silence.

He may write out a statement in his own defense and read it to the jury, or he may tell his story in the usual way of verbal narrative; he can cover almost any ground he pleases, and he can talk as long as he likes; and if he omits any fact, or explanation which his lawyers consider material, they are privileged to direct his attention to his failure to cover that particular point.

After the defendant has finished his statement—of ten minutes, or ten hours—and has been aided by the vigilance of his lawyers, he can say to the State’s Attorney:

“I am willing for you to ask me about the case.”

But if the defendant does not voluntarily make this offer, the State is not allowed to interrogate him at all.

Nor is the State’s Attorney permitted, in his address to the jury, to comment upon the fact that the defendant was unwilling to be cross-examined.

In no event, can the accused be put under oath; but our law makes it the duty of the Judge to instruct the jury, that it is their privilege to attach to defendant’s statement just such weight as they see fit. They may believe it in part, and disbelieve it in part; they may reject it entirely, or they may accept it entirely; they may disregard all the sworn testimony in the case, and rest their verdict on the UNSWORN AND UNCORROBORATED STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED!

In all the legislation mercifully designed to protect innocence, and to give to a man of good character the golden opportunity to stake his word against the oath of unreliable witnesses, there is nothing which surpasses the Code of Georgia.

Time and again, I have seen a defendant at the bar rise, like a lion from his lair; and make a manly, ringing, indignant statement to the jury, and shake off from himself the evidence of circumstances, or of perjury, as easily as the leonine monarch shakes the dew drops from his mane.

Again and again, during my quarter-of-a-century in the court-house, I have seen my clients, and other lawyers’ clients, confound the prosecution, by facing the Court and country, and saying, with the boldness of conscious innocence—

“Cross-examine me to your heart’s content; I have nothing to hide, and nothing to fear!”

Such a waiver of legal screenage, half wins the battle, the very instant the defendant makes it.

Let me say at this point—in order that you may enter the case properly informed—that the attorneys of Leo Frank were the most experienced and most competent members of the Atlanta bar; thoroughly familiar with local affairs, local prejudices, local politics, local ins and out, of all kinds; and yet they did not move to continue the case, nor did they ask for a change of venue; consequently, those Atlanta lawyers were not aware of any “mob spirit,” at that time.

Afterwards, it became necessary to manufacture things which had not existed; and the “mob spirit,” which Frank’s able attorneys had been ignorant of, was found somewhere in a small phial; was released, expanded, blown upon the four winds, until it became greater than the Djin of the “Thousand Nights and a Night.”

Those who continue the cry of “mob spirit,” and “jungle fury,” and “psychic intoxication,” convict Frank’s lawyers of not knowing their own business; for if a tithe of what is asserted, was ever capable of proof, Rosser and Arnold grossly mismanaged Frank’s case.

Let me say further, by the way of preliminary, that the defendant listened during the eight hours’ cross-examination of his alleged accomplice; that he listened, day after day, and week after week, while his own trusted employees, and former friends gave evidence which linked around him the chain of circumstances; that he saw and heard the eleven white girls who swore that his character for lewdness was bad; that he listened to the white girls who swore to his lascivious conduct, in their dressing-room, and to his taking Rebecca Carson into the ladies’ private room, during work hours, and remaining inside, alone, with her for fifteen or twenty minutes; and that he sat silent while his negro trusty, of two years’ standing, told the jury how he would peep through the key-hole, and watch Leo Frank commit sodomy with Daisy Hopkins; yet when this educated young man, this graduate of Cornell, at last took the stand to make a statement in his own defense, he drew around himself the screenage of our most lenient Code, and did not dare to say to Court and country—

“I am willing to answer questions!”

In all that month of tedious, desperate conflict, Leo Frank was the only person involved who escaped the ordeal of cross-examination, excepting the eleven white girls, whom his lawyers dared not interrogate.

The State cannot go further than to inquire whether the defendant’s character is good or bad; but the defendant can go into particulars, and can inquire of the witness, “What is it, that you know against me?”

But in this case, Leo Frank did not put the white girls to the trouble of pulling the cover off his double life. He and his lawyers were only too glad to let the ladies go, without a word, after they had sworn that he was bad.

It should deeply impress you to learn, that eleven unimpeachable and disinterested white witnesses testified to Frank’s double life; and that what they knew of him was learned by them in his place of business, where Mary Phagan came to her death; and Frank was so certain the eleven white witnesses would only make it worse for him on cross-examination, that his lawyers were afraid to ask those women what it was they knew!

Is that the conduct of innocence?

On Memorial Day, 1913, (April 26^th) Mary Phagan left her mother’s home, shortly before noon, after having eaten dinner; and she was dressed in such cheap finery as a girl of her humble station in life could afford. She took the street car on her way into the city, and left it at a point some 300 yards from the National Pencil Factory, where she worked. On account of their running out of the metal tips, she had been laid off that week, after Monday; and she was now on her way to the office to get her Monday wages because Frank, the Superintendent, had refused to send it to her by her friend, Helen Ferguson, the day before, when Helen asked for it, as she had often done previously.

When last seen, Mary was within two blocks of the factory (to which two or three more minutes’ walk would have carried her), but no one saw her when she entered it.

That night, her people gave out the alarm, for they at once suspected foul play. Mary was not quite fourteen years old; and had never been irregular in her habits, nor ever out of nights; and her failure to return home created the most distressing anxieties and forebodings.

The police were notified, and a search for the missing girl commenced. At first, it was believed that she had overstayed herself with some party of friends, enjoying the holiday; and there were vague reports of her having been seen, first with one companion, and then with another. But none of these rumors proved well-founded; and the dread apprehension of something tragic grew stronger and stronger in the household of the mother, and also among the police.

During all of that evening of the efforts to locate the missing girl, nobody appears to have thought of calling up the Leo Frank house, and asking him had he seen her. True, he would not have been found at home; he was spending that particular afternoon alone in the factory, but neither Mary’s folks, nor the police suspected it.

Let us now turn our attention to Frank, and follow his movements that Memorial Day morning. In parting from the night watchman, Newt Lee, who of course went off duty early, Frank asked him to return that afternoon at 4 o’clock. Frank explained that he wanted to get off earlier than usual.

During the morning (Saturday, 26^th), several employees, and relatives of employees, came to get wages due, and got them from Frank. Two men, Denham and White, were at work on the fourth floor, tearing down an old partition and putting up a new one. Necessarily, they made a deal of noise at this kind of work; and they were doing it some 200 feet back from the elevator shaft and stair-landing. Consequently, they were the less apt to hear a scream two floors below, or to hear the sound of a fall, or to hear the elevator, if it ran.

The wife of one of these workmen (Mrs. Arthur White) came to the factory to see him at 11:30, and unexpectedly returned at 12:30. She was not an employee, and did not know Jim Conley.

But Mrs. White, and two white men (Graham and Tillander) swore that they saw the negro, sitting not far from the foot of the stairs, on the first floor, where Conley worked, and where he generally sat when idle.

Frank’s office and place of work was on the floor above; and his desk was in the inner room, while the safe was in the outer. The time-clock was near by, and it was Frank who put in, and took out, the slips of paper on which the punches were registered.

Frank stated, again and again, that he left his office at about 11 o’clock that morning, and went to his Uncle Montag’s place of business; and that, after his return to his office, he never left it at all, until he went home to dinner, at about 1 o’clock p.m.

He did go to Montag’s, and a white lady, of the most unquestionable character, made affidavit to the fact that she saw him and Jim Conley in close conversation at about 11 o’clock, near Montag’s place.

This bit of testimony is of superlative importance; and the defendant was never able to shake it in the least.

It shows that the Jew was talking in a secretive, confidential manner with the negro, on the sidewalk, where he thought he was unobserved—and this negro had been his trusty for two years! This is the same negro upon whom such a torrent of vituperation was afterwards poured, when it became necessary to find a scapegoat for Leo Frank.

The story, invented long afterwards, that Conley was drunk, and was “hiding behind some boxes in the gloom,” is exploded by two white ladies—Mmes. White and Waits—and by two white men—Messrs. Graham and Tillander.

Taking those four witnesses—who have no interest whatever in the case, and whose characters are entirely above attack—is it not clear to your mind that both Frank and Conley were on the scene of the crime that Saturday morning, and that each man knew the other was there?

Besides, if the stenographer did not misunderstand Harry Scott, Frank told him, on the Monday following the crime, that Conley was in the factory that Saturday morning.

As the whole argument pivots upon this vital fact, let me quote Harry Scott’s exact language, from page 80 of the record:

“I knew on Monday that Mrs. White claimed she saw a darkey at the factory. I gave that information to the police department. Mr. Frank gave me the information the first time I talked with him.” (Monday afternoon.)

Bear in mind, that Scott was a Pinkerton detective, whom the Pencil Factory had employed to ferret out the crime; and that Scott was on the job, as a friend to Frank.

According to medical testimony, Mary Phagan’s death occurred in less than 45 minutes after she ate her dinner. The experts claim that the condition of the stomach proved this. But waiving all questionable evidence, we come directly to what Leo Frank said—said with careful consideration, knowing that his words were being written down.

After the girl’s body had been found inside his place of business, and the rigidity of the remains showed that she must have been killed many hours before she was discovered, necessity compelled Frank to admit that she had come into the building that Saturday afternoon. There was no way out of it; the corpse was there; consequently, the living girl had come.

But, when?

The State followed her from her mother’s, and onward in the street-cars, to the corner of Marietta and Forsyth Streets; and then traced her within two blocks of the factory, going in that direction, and in less than four minutes’ peart walk of its door.

Watches and clocks varied, as they always do, but the time was right around the noon-hour.

With the stiff, cold body in his place of business that night, and the girl walking toward the door somewhere near midday, Frank was necessarily compelled to fix a time, at least approximately, for her arrival.

And he did so. He told Chief Lanford that the girl came to him for her money “at from 12:05 to 12:10, maybe 12:07.”

His stenographer swore she punched the time-clock, and went away at 12:02; and Frank said that the girl who was killed came next.

He did not know that another girl had come, at that identical time, 12:05, and had remained until 12:10; and had searched both offices for Leo Frank, without seeing him, or hearing him; and without seeing or hearing anything of Mary Phagan.

This girl, whose visit to his vacant office was unknown to Frank, proved the most invincible link in the chain of circumstantial evidence against him.

When he afterwards learned the time of her visit, he changed the time of Mary’s; but he only sunk deeper into the mire, as will be shown you later.

The sum of one dollar and twenty cents was due Mary, and she not only wanted that pitiful sum, but wished to know whether there would be work for her, the following week. Therefore, she came and got her pay envelope, and asked her employer—“Has the new metal come?” This was the same as asking, “Will there be work for me next week?”

Frank told his detective that he answered the girl by saying, “I don’t know.”

The room in which Mary worked, putting the metal tips on the pencils, was on the same floor as Frank’s office. It was some 200 feet away, and a door cut it off from the intervening space.

The toilet for men and women was back there, beyond where Mary worked; and the men’s part of the closet was separated from that of the women by a thin partition.

In going to his toilet, Leo Frank had to pass close by Mary Phagan; where she sat at her machine; and he had been doing this, daily, for many months. There were only four girls who worked in the metal room, and Mary was one of the four.

Remember this, for after the dead body was found, Frank claimed that he did not know whether a girl named Mary Phagan worked for him or not. He said he would have to consult his books!

Now, let us return to Frank’s office, which he claims not to have left at all, after his return from Montag’s. He told Harry Scott, in the hearing of John Black, that he was in his office continuously, from the time Hattie Hall, the stenographer, left at 12:02, on until Mrs. White saw him in the outer office at 12:30.

Mark you, Frank and Conley are both visible at 12:30, one upstairs, and the other down. Only about thirty feet of space separates them.

For the present, we will not concern ourselves with the question as to where they were after 12:30, but will ask, Where were they between 12:02 and 12:30?

Within that brief period of less than half an hour, lies one of the blackest crimes on record. Within that brief and guilty period, Mary Phagan enters into the possession of Leo Frank, in his private office, according to his own statement.

He does not claim that the girl had ever spoken to the negro, or had anything to do with him, or was in his power that fatal day. He admits that the girl safely passed the negro, as Hattie Hall had done, as Mattie Smith had done, and as Mrs. White had done, that same day, and near the same time.

He admits that the doomed girl arrived unmolested, in his private office, where the two were alone, with no persons nearer to them than the negro servant down stairs, and the two hammering and banging carpenters, two floors above, and 200 feet back.

He admitted to Chief Lanford, and swore to the Coroner’s jury, that Mary Phagan went into his office, power, and possession, at a time that he variously fixed at from 12:05 to 12:15.

Then, where was Mary, that Monteen Stover could not see her, when Monteen was in the office, from 12:05 to 12:10?

And where was Frank?

The State contends that when Mary inquired, “Has the metal come?” Frank answered, “I don’t know,” and that he took her back to the metal room, on the pretense of looking to see whether the metal had come. As they passed into the room, Frank closed the door behind them, thus giving them freedom from interruption, for no one was at work on that floor on this legal holiday.

In his statement to the jury, Frank said that, if he was not in his office at the time Monteen Stover swore he wasn’t, he might have unconsciously gone to the toilet.

The adoption of the theory not only gives him an unconscious spell of five minutes, but places him in the metal room, where Mary Phagan’s blood and hair were found. It not only places him at the place where Mary was assaulted, and then killed; but places him there at about the time it was done!

In his desperate effort to escape the logical consequences of Monteen’s evidence, he runs into a position equally desperate.

To place himself where Mary was attacked, at the time she was attacked, is about equivalent to a confession that he was either the principal or the accessory in that attack.

To arrive at a correct idea of the manner in which Mary was assaulted, we must have recourse to the testimony of Doctors Harris and Hurt.

Taken together, they show that the girl was struck a violent blow, in front, which did not cut the skin, but which gave her a blue-black eye—just such a blow as a clenched fist usually gives. In the back of her head was a cut to the bone, 2 ½ inches long, “ranging from down upward.”

These two blows had been inflicted before death, and at practically the same time. The blow on the back of the head had rendered the girl unconscious.

There was blood caked in her thick, long hair; there was blood on her drawers, and there was blood on her private parts. There was evidence of violence and some sort of penetration, in the vagina, and this penetration appeared to have been made just before her death. The uterus was that of a virgin, and there was no evidence of pregnancy.

Her drawers were not only bloody, but torn, all the way up; and a strip of her under-garment had been torn off.

This strip had a soft knot tied in it, as if it had been made a sort of pad to catch the blood; and this pad had soaked up the blood, and was full of it; therefore it had been under the cut in the head!

In the removal of the body, the strip had slipped; and it was found lying loosely around the girl’s neck, where it served no purpose of the murderer, for the cord did all that was necessary.

For the present, we will continue ourselves to these physical details, and endeavor to ascertain what they mean.

Unless we are ready to believe that this pretty little white girl, dressed for the Memorial Day, was more filthy in her personal habits than the commonest wench, you will reject with disgust the contention of Governor Slaton, that the blood stains came from her monthly sickness. No bandage was on her person, and her under-clothing was violently torn—and she was bloody, and there were signs of violence inside the vagina, do you doubt that some sort of sexual attack was made upon her?

Be that as it may, the wound which ripped her scalp to the bone bled somewhere; and the question is, WHERE?

To cut the inquiry as short as possible, I will say that the evidence in the record fails to show any blood, anywhere, except on the first floor, at the ladies’ dressing room, not far from the metal room door.

The immense importance of the blood-marks begins to be obvious, when the record discloses the fact that the metal room and first floor had been swept up on Friday evening, preparatory to the legal holiday which would close it until next week.

The men who cleaned up the place swore positively that there were no unusual marks on the floor Friday. Mell Stanford swept the floor, every foot of it, and was emphatic in his testimony. Equally emphatic was R.P. Barrett.

Both these men were satisfied employees of Leo Frank; and when these two white men, early Monday morning, made the outcry about the blood on the floor, neither one of them had the slightest idea that their discovery would hurt Leo Frank!

They found the blood, and they immediately made the outcry, but they did not know whom it would implicate in the crime. Please remember this.

At that time, Leo Frank had not been suspected, much less accused; and at that time, he was endeavoring to fasten suspicion and evidence of guilt upon Newt Lee, the night watch.

These tell-tale marks on the floor caused excitement among the officers and employees of the factory, and every one could see that an effort had been made to hide the blood by smearing a white substance over it—haskoline.

Of course, the attempt to conceal the spots had made them the more conspicuous; and there was absolutely no conflict in the testimony as to some sort of spots on the floor, and some sort of white stuff smeared over them.

To say that the accusing spots were on the floor Friday, is to impute willful perjury to two of Frank’s friendly and intelligent workmen—a perjury without motive, and against their own interest.

To say that the accusing spots were not on the floor, Friday, imputes perjury to no one, for no one swore that the spots were there, Friday.

Following the rules of law, we are forced to accept the positive evidence, that the spots were not on the floor Friday, but were there Monday morning.

Then we come face to face with the question—

How came the spots on the floor?

Say that they were made by paint: who spilled the paint, on that floor, after Friday, and before Monday?

Produce the man, the woman, the boy, or the girl!

The defense could never do it, and cannot now do it.

Say that the spots on the floor were made by blood: who spilled the blood, on that floor, after Friday, and before Monday?

Produce the person who did it!

The defense was unable, and is now unable, to produce such a person.

What, then, is the conclusion of inexorable logic? Nobody did it, excepting the one man who does not dare to acknowledge that HE did it!

That he may have had an accomplice in it, does not alter the state of the case.

Reasoning by the process of exclusion, we will say, quite naturally, that if any person, innocent of crime, had spilled that blood (or paint), and had hurriedly tried to cover it with white powder, the innocent person would have come forward, when the hue and cry went forth, and would have said—

“I’m the person who made those marks on the floor, after Friday and before Monday; and I will tell you how I came to do it.”

More especially would an innocent person have done that, had he seen another innocent person endangered by the failure to account for those damning spots.

But when no person comes forward to innocently explain what is the inference?

It is, that those spots show somebody’s guilt; and the somebody who is responsible for the spots, is afraid to say, “I made them!”

Where does that process of reasoning take us? It takes us to Leo Frank, as the only person in the building who dares not come forward and tell how he came to make them and why he tried to hide them.

IT WAS MARY PHAGAN’S HAIR.

Let us go a step farther, and see what was found in the metal room, early Monday morning.

Frank’s machinist, R.P. Barrett, had been at work in the metal room until quitting time Friday evening, and he left a piece of work in his machine. Immediately upon his return, Monday morning, he noticed on the handle of his bench lathe, some strands of hair, swinging down. He at once called attention to it; and the strands of hair were seen and examined by numerous employees of the factory.

The hair was almost immediately recognized as Mary Phagan’s, for the only other girl there who had hair like Mary’s was Magnolia Kennedy; and Miss Magnolia had not been in the factory, at all, after Barrett quit work Friday.

One of the girls went running to the others, exclaiming, “They have found Mary Phagan’s hair on Barrett’s machine!”

All this was on Monday morning, when the general agitation had taken no definite direction; and when the men and girls in the factory were expressing themselves spontaneously, and truthfully, without a thought of saying a word that would implicate the Superintendent, Leo Frank.

Please bear this in mind!

There was no “frame up” against anybody, in the outcry about the blood and the hair, for at that time nobody had any idea of who was guilty.

As the hair was not on the handle of Barrett’s machine, when he took his hands off it, Friday evening; and as the hair was on the machine, Monday; and as the hair showed for itself that it was a woman’s; and as the girls who knew Mary said it was hers, we must believe it was hers, unless some girl, or woman, came forward and said, “The hair is mine, and I will tell you how it came to be on the handle of Barrett’s machine after Friday.”

There were 100 girls and women at work in the place, and only one of them had hair like Mary’s; and this one girl (Magnolia Kennedy) said on oath that the hair was not hers, but seemed to be Mary’s. What follows?

Unless some outside woman’s hair got on Barrett’s machine, after Friday, we must conclude that the hair was Mary’s.

It is impossible to suppose an outside woman, for if one had come to meet Frank, or any one else, after Friday, either Frank, or the woman, or both, would have given that explanation, and ended this part of the case.

Isn’t that perfectly clear to your mind? Let me state it, again:

If Frank had an assignation with some outside woman, and took her to the metal room, where her hair might have dropped on the handle of the machine, is it conceivable that he would fail to thus account for the hair?

If any other man had such an appointment with some outside woman whose hair might have got on the machine, would not that man have come forward to save Frank?

Why did no such man, and no such outside woman pretend to have been the cause of the hair on the machine?

Because no such man, and no such woman existed.

Then we reason ourselves right back into the factory, and we say, that the long strands of woman’s hair, of that peculiar golden-brown color, came from the head of one of the 100 girls who worked there; and that, as not one of these girls can be induced to even pretend that the hair was hers, we are under the logical compulsion of saying it was Mary’s.

Those who would have claimed it, had it been theirs, will not; therefore, the hair didn’t belong to any of them. But it had belonged to somebody, and as that somebody cannot be found by the defendant, or by the defendant’s lawyers, or by the defendant’s detectives, or by the defendant’s partisans, we are driven to the conclusion that this undiscoverable somebody was Mary Phagan.

Did the defense attach importance to this finding of the woman’s hair on the handle of the machine? Did the able lawyers of Frank endeavor to account for the accusing strands? They did. They struggled to get away from the hair, as hard as they struggled to escape from the blood. What explanation did they offer?

They proved that the girls sometimes combed and did up their hair, not far from Barrett’s machine; and they argued that some woman, doing this, might have flung her combed-out hair, in such a manner that it fell on the crank handle!

Very well, produce the woman with that kind of hair! The defense is unable to do so.

But the State goes farther, and says to the defendant, produce ANY GIRL, OR WOMAN, who was in that room after Barrett left his machine Friday!

Again, the defense is unable to do it.

What follows? Of logical necessity, it follows, that as some woman, or girl, was in that room, after Barrett stopped his machine on Friday, and as no living girl or woman can be produced, the girl who was there is not alive!

Even the sapient Burns realized to the full the enormous weight of those six or eight strands of woman’s hair, swaying upon the handle of Barrett’s machine, for Burns’ man, Lehon, gave out a statement, which was thus reported:

Burns’ Detective Declares Hair Was Placed by Reporter to Get “Scoop” in Frank Case.

Special to The Washington Herald.

San Francisco, March 20.—Evidence which it is claimed will clear Leo M. Frank of the charge of murdering little Mary Phagan, in Atlanta, on April 26, 1913, is in possession of Dan Lehon, a New Orleans detective, now in San Francisco.

“One of the most startling bits in the chain of evidence which the State wove about Frank was a strand of hair found on the second floor of the factory,” said Lehon today.

“I am prepared to prove that the lock of hair was placed on the handle of a lathe by a newspaper reporter for the sake of a sensational ‘scoop.’”

In March, 1915, Burns and Lehon were “prepared to prove that the lock of hair was placed on the handle of a lathe by a newspaper reporter.”

Prepared to prove it, you see!

The Burns Detective Agency had abandoned in despair the efforts to find a girl who would say that she went to that metal room after Friday evening, and that the hair might be hers.

To find such a girl, is doubly difficult, for the reason that Mary’s hair and the hair on the machine matched; and that no other girl in the factory had that kind of hair; and it was not only necessary to discover an outside girl with hair like Mary’s, but a girl who could swear to an arrant falsehood without being caught in it.

Consequently, the noble Detective Agency abandoned that line, discouraged by the exposure of the bungling briberies of Epps, Duffy, Ragsdale, and Barber.

They leave the girls, and discover “a newspaper reporter!”

Well, where is he? Who is he? Why hasn’t he been produced? The Prison Commission would have been glad to hear the gentleman.

The Governor would have been overjoyed to welcome such an ally.

The crime was not known to any reporter until Sunday morning; the hair was found Monday morning at 6:30 o’clock; how did the reporter get into the room Sunday, without being seen? How did the reporter get the hair? Where did he get it? Did he pull it out of Mary’s head in the basement, or did he go to the morgue after it?

Tell us who is the reporter that remained silent during all that prolonged trial of Leo Frank, during all the months of effort to find new testimony, during the year and more that the case has travelled from Judge to Judge, from court to court, from courts to Prison Commission, and from Prison Commission to the Governor!

Hard-hearted newspaper reporter! who must necessarily have been an Atlanta man, working for one of the Atlanta papers, which have been so partial to Leo Frank!

Apparently, Burns and Lehon give the public no credit for common sense. These brazen rascals have given out statement after statement, audacious falsehoods, told with confidence and repeated with brazen insistence, because the State of Georgia had no press agency to defend her—and her Governor was a partner of the law firm defending Leo Frank!

The Governor himself was mightily worried about the hair; and when he signed the 15,000-word mass of incoherences which sought to justify his commutation of the sentence, he gave the public to understand that Dr. H.F. Harris had virtually destroyed the value of that part of the State’s case.

What is the truth of the matter, as shown by the official record?

The grave of Mary Phagan was opened, and some of the hair taken from the head, ten days after her death. At the morgue, the undertaker, Gheesling, had cleansed the girl’s head and hair, by washing it out thoroughly with tar soap.

Now, the Doctor was asked to make a microscopic examination of the two tresses of hair; the one found on the handle of the machine; the other, taken from the exhumed body.

This is what Dr. Harris said—

“Affiant further says that the two specimens (of hair) were so much alike that it was impossible for him to form any definite and absolute opinion as to whether they were from the head of the same person or not.”

Were there ever two drops of water, grains of sand, leaves of trees, scales of fish, or strands of hair, exactly alike?

Are any two hairs of your head precise duplicates? Is there not a slight variation of texture and size in every two hairs out of every person’s head?

When Dr. Harris’ microscope failed to reveal any decided difference in color, size, and texture, between the tress that came from the grave and the one which came from Barrett’s machine, you may feel as certain as you need feel about anything, that the two tresses were once a portion of the same head of hair.

That which we do not see, and do not learn from others who do see, we must learn from proved facts which convince us to a moral certainty; and when the microscope failed to show any difference that a conscientious examiner could swear to, the jury was bound to believe the hair was the same, unless the defendant could offer some evidence going to show that some other person dropped the hair on the machine.

Until the defendant made some effort to identify some other person whose hair got on the machine in some way, after Friday, it would not have helped the defense, even if Dr. Harris had sworn that the hair on the machine was not the same as that taken from Mary Phagan’s grave; for the simple reason that the State, and the jury, would immediately have said—

“As you claim that it is different hair, there must be another girl whom you had in your employ, and whom you can produce. PRODUCE HER!”

So, it must be apparent to you that, if Dr. Harris had testified as Governor Slaton insinuated, the defendant would not have been relieved, unless he could produce the other girl. And if he could have produced the other girl, he did not need the evidence of Dr. Harris.

Which ever way you take it, you find yourself going round to the same conclusion: the hair was Mary’s, because they could not prove it to be anybody else’s; and it had to be somebody’s.

Produce the girl who went back there and combed her hair. It can’t be done. Produce the woman who went back there, and did up her hair. It can’t be done. Produce the girl, or the woman, who will swear that the hair might have been hers. IT CAN’T BE DONE!

They could monkey with the cook, and squelch her; they could monkey with the keeper of the lewd house, and run her out of Atlanta; they could buy poor old Ragsdale, and E.L. Barber; but they were utterly unable to prevail upon any woman to testify that the hair on Barrett’s machine might have been hers.

For Heaven’s sake, use your common sense! What is the ONLY solution as to the hair, WHEN NOBODY will claim it?

The only possible solution is, that the girl who could have claimed it, IS DEAD! Dead in her tender youth, in the flower of her maidenhood, in her glory of virginal purity—dead, as your little girl, some day, if other Leo Franks escape just punishment, through the machinations of Big Money.

Tell us this—O tell us this!—If that hair on Barrett’s machine came from the tresses of some girl who was still alive at the trial, why in God’s name, shouldn’t she have come forward, and claimed it?

There was nothing to disgrace her. She could have said she went to the toilet. She could have said she stood there, by the machine, doing up her hair. She could have said that she idly let a few strands fall, and that they might have caught on the handle of the machine.

There was no disgrace to fear—why didn’t the girl come forward?

There is but one answer:

The girl was dead!

If, in Mary’s uplifted, horrified, frantically opposing little hands, there had been found some hair, from the head of the simian Jew who was assaulting and killing her, the evidence wouldn’t be a bit stronger.

Governor John M. Slaton had before him the undisputed testimony of the only possible girl, excepting Mary, whose hair it could have been; and this girl swore it was not hers, but seemed to be Mary’s.

When the only other possible girl swears herself out of it, what does inexorable logic say? Exclude every other person, and you have Mary Phagan.

It was Mary who was there, Saturday; and she asked Frank a question which suggested a visit to the metal room!

Governor Slaton admits that if it was her hair, it furnished the highest and best evidence of Frank’s guilt.

Does it? Then Frank’s guilt is demonstrated.

Again I repeat, we lose Frank and Mary at 12:05; and we locate Frank again at 12:30, standing in his outer office, at the open safe, and starting nervously when spoken to by Mrs. White; but we do not find Mary any more, until 3 o’clock that night, when the night-watch, Newt Lee, in making his rounds, has a call of nature, while down in the basement, goes to the toilet there, and the light of his lantern happens to fall upon the white legs of the dead girl—her dress having been partially thrown back as she was dragged by the heels, over the dirt floor.

Newt Lee rushed up the ladder, and through the trap door, got the police headquarters over the telephone, and called for the officers to come at once: he told them he had found a dead white woman in the basement.

They rushed to the place, went to the basement, and examined the body. It was lying on the side face, almost on the face; and the face itself was dark with congested blood, and with the dirt over which she had been dragged. Her tongue was out of her mouth, and around her neck was a thick twine cord, tied so tight, that it had sunk into the flesh.

Her arms were in a fixed position, folded across the breast. She was rigid all over. Near the body, lay her hat, shoes, and handkerchief. Near, also, were two notes, which purported to have been written by the girl to her mother, describing how the tall, slim night watch had seized her as she went to the closet, and had thrown her down the scuttle-hole into the basement.

Thus, the notes directed suspicion to Newt Lee.

We may dismiss at once the idea that Newt Lee could have been guilty, but we must not forget that the notes accused him, positively and circumstantially. If we afterwards learn from the record that Frank caused Lee’s arrest for the crime, and fabricated a time slip for Saturday night, which gave Lee a period of the night unaccounted for on the clock—a sufficient period for him to have gone home and changed his shirt; and if we further find that Frank hinted, and insinuated against Lee, until they searched his premises and found a bloody shirt in Lee’s clothes barrel—if we shall hereafter learn all this from the record, we will be getting close to the man whose active brain dictated those notes.

When the officers had completed their hasty examination of the body, they went to the telephone, and rang up Leo Frank’s house.

Newt Lee had already tried for several minutes to get a response from somebody at Frank’s house, but had failed. The officers tried, long and earnestly, and they also failed. No one would answer.

WHAT WAS FRANK’S TRUE CHARACTER?

Before we go further, let us see what the official record proves, as to the moral character of Leo Frank, of whom the veracious Burns recently said—

“And it made them angry when I offered $5,000 reward for the slightest evidence showing immorality in all of Frank’s life. That offer still stands, and has never been sought—and still the stories continue in Georgia that he is a pervert.

“I have never known a cleaner, more honest, more God-fearing man than Leo Frank. Only his abiding faith in his God has, according to my belief, kept him up through the ordeal he has experienced. And that faith will be rewarded, for he will be proven innocent.”

Burns’ money, the “offered $5,000,” is somewhat more unattainable than the bag of gold that you can get, if you will hasten to the end of the rainbow. If anyone was ever silly enough to become “angry,” when Burns “offered $5,000 reward,” I never heard of it. To try to get blood out of a turnip, would be a sensible experiment, compared to an effort to get that money out of Burns.

What says the record—leaving Jim Conley out of it—concerning Frank, than whom the garrulous Burns has never known “a cleaner, more honest, more God-fearing man?”

The author of the Governor Slaton document says that 100 witnesses swore to Frank’s good character, and less than a dozen testified he was lewd. The world is therefore expected to believe, that the overwhelming weight of the evidence was in favor of the chastity of the accused.

Out of the hundreds of people who are acquainted with young men about town, how many really know their secret sins? How many could swear to anything disgraceful?

When 100 Jews go upon the stand, and give Frank a good character, they no doubt are perfectly honest about it; but when ten white Gentile girls swear they had worked at the pencil factory for years, and that Leo Frank’s character for lasciviousness was bad, the jury must not disregard this positive testimony, and rely upon the 100 negative witnesses.

And when the cowering defendant dares not put a single question to those positive witnesses, their evidence against his character, based on personal knowledge, must be accepted.

Miss Myrtice Cato and Miss Maggie Griffin testified to Frank’s habit of taking Rebecca Carson into the ladies’ dressing room, on the fourth floor, during work hours, and the attorneys of Leo Frank did not dare to ask those white girls a single question.

C.B. Dalton admitted, under oath, that he and Frank had frequently had a woman of the town in the factory, and that he had even gone to the basement with her.

The woman from the outside, with whom Frank was alleged to have indulged in unnatural vice, was Daisy Hopkins, and the defense had to put her up.

Daisy denied it, of course; and on cross-examination she gave the following remarkable testimony:

“I have never been in jail. Mr. W.M. Smith got me out of jail.

“I don’t know what they charged me with. They accused me of fornication.”

However, when Jim Conley peeped through the key hole, and saw the sight which he swore he saw, you might read page 55 of the record, not for evidence of the guilt of Frank, but to obtain an idea of a pervert. If you will read the Old Testament account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, you will have a clear vision of the darker slime of this case. I do not care to quote the evidence, but merely cite you to the page. (You can find it also on page 285, 141^st Georgia Reports)

So much has been said about Frank’s chaste character—a pet of the Rabbi, a favorite of Cornell, a model husband, &c.—that I will give you a little glimpse into Nellie Wood’s evidence:

“Question: Do you know Mr. Frank?

Answer: I worked for him two days.

Q. Did you observe his conduct toward the girls?

A. His conduct didn’t suit me very much.

Q. You say he put his hands on you; is that all he ever did?

A. Well, he asked me, one evening—I went into his office, and got too familiar and too close.

Q. Did he put his hands on you?

A. Well, I did not let him complete what he started. I resisted him.

Q. Did he put his hands on your breast?

A. No, but he tried to.

Q. Well, did he make any attempts on your lower limbs?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And on your dress?

A. Yes, sir.”

Miss Nellie Wood quit, immediately, and never went back, except to get her pay for the two days.

Miss Nellie Pettis gave testimony equally damaging. She told how Frank had leered at her, winked at her, showed her money, and finally asked, “What about it?”

Miss Nellie’s language was unusually vigorous; she told Frank to go to hell!

In a Good Shepherd house, in Cincinnati, there is a poor girl who worked for Frank, and he ruined her.

In a Florence Crittenden Home, in Georgia, are two poor girls who worked for Frank, and he ruined them.

How many other girls he ruined, he knows; but all that we know, is that the State produced eleven more that he wanted to ruin.

Mary Phagan was another.

(In the absence of the jury from the court-room, Judge Roan allowed the girl from Cincinnati to tell how Frank had debauched her; and how unnatural his manner of satisfying his passion was; and she spoke of a scar on her inner thigh made by his teeth.

To understand what sort of creature the evidence in the case proved Frank to be, you would have to read some treatise on moral degeneracy—such a book, for example, as Psychopathia Sexualis.)

HAD HE LUSTED AFTER MARY?

Had this sensual beast lusted after Mary Phagan? Did he make indecent overtures?

The record shows that he claimed not to know her at all.

The point is immensely important. If he had known her, and shown an inclination for her, it is a damning circumstance, if he positively said—after she was found dead in his place—that he did not know such a girl, and would have to consult his books.

DID HE KNOW HER?

Miss Ruth Robinson testified:

“I have seen Leo Frank talking to Mary Phagan.

“I heard him speak to her. He called her Mary.”

Miss Dewey Howell testified:

“I have seen Mr. Frank talk to Mary Phagan two or three times a day, in the metal department, I have seen him hold his hand on her shoulder. He called her Mary.”

W.E. Turner testified:

“I saw Leo Frank talking to Mary Phagan, on the second floor, about the middle of March. It was just before dinner. There was nobody else in the room. He stopped to talk to her. She said she had to go to work. He told her he was the Superintendent of that factory, and that he wanted to talk to her.

“She backed off, and he went towards her, talking to her.”

Gantt also testified that Frank knew Mary, by name.

Had you been a juror in this case, could you have disregarded all that evidence as to Frank’s personal knowledge of the girl?

Believing the witnesses, and believing that he wanted to make her a fresher Rebecca Carson—whom would you have suspected of the murder, when Frank brazened it out, all the way through, that he did not know that such a girl worked for him?

Now, at this point, there comes an incident so natural in its occurrence, and so peculiar in its suppression, that I give it as a part of what happened.

Frank had a cook named Minola McKnight, and her husband worked for the Beck-Gregg Hardware Company. This man, Albert McKnight, told three white men, who were employed at the same place, of some queer things which his wife, the cook, had told him, concerning what she had overheard in the Frank home. In consequence of what the cook’s husband reported to the three white men, Minola was taken into custody, in the hope of getting valuable testimony out of her. She was detained at the station house two days, during which somebody employed a lawyer to represent her. The upshot of the matter was, that Minola, in the presence of her attorney, made a statement which was reduced to writing, and sworn to by her, before a Magistrate of Fulton County.

In his commutation of the sentence of Frank, the then Governor, Slaton, laid much stress upon Minola McKnight’s affidavit, alleging, in effect, that it was entirely false.

You have a right to view that statement of the cook, in the light all the surrounding circumstances, and to say how much moral weight you will give to it—for you are not bound by technical rules, and you are entitled now, to know all that occurred.

In order that you may have a clear idea of this episode, it is necessary to remind you that Frank had hurried Mrs. White out of factory, at about 1 o’clock; that Conley had gone on to his home; that Frank went out to his, and that Albert McKnight swears Frank remained only a few minutes, ate nothing, and hurried back toward the city. Albert told this to the white men he worked with, at the Beck, Gregg Hardware Company, before his wife was arrested. It seems that this information, given by the cook’s husband, was one of the first independent pointers to Frank as the guilty man—independent of the circumstances immediately surrounding the crime.

At the station house, the cook refused to talk to the detectives; but after these black sheep had been ignominiously sent away, the colored lady dried her eyes, composed her rumpled feelings, and spoke as follows:

“Mr. Frank came for dinner, about half-past one, but Mr. Frank did not eat any dinner, and left in about ten minutes after he got there.

“Mr. Frank came back to the house at seven o’clock that night.

“Sunday morning I got there about eight o’clock, and there was an automobile standing in front of the house, but I didn’t pay any attention to it. (It was the automobile of the two police officers.)

“I called them down to breakfast about half-past eight, and I found out that Mr. Frank was gone. (The policemen had carried him with them in their car.)

“I did not hear them say anything at the breakfast table. After dinner, I understood them to say that Mr. Frank and a girl were caught at the office Saturday. I don’t know who said it. Mrs. Frank, Mr. Selig, Mrs. Selig, and Mr. Frank were standing there talking, after dinner, when they said it. I understood them to say it was Jew girl.”

This very remarkable statement of the cook would seem to prove two things; first, that she was not making up a tale, nor repeating one that her husband had made; and, second, that the family of Frank were bandying, to and fro, the words “Jew” and “Gentile,” and the cook caught the word Jew, and got it wrong.

They were no doubt conversing in low tones, and the colored lady was probably listening at the key hole. The mysterious automobile, the unusual absence of Frank from Sunday breakfast, and the general stir in the family, could not have failed to arouse the colored lady’s curiosity; hence her key-hole endeavors to acquire knowledge.

The cook proceeds: “On Tuesday, Mr. Frank says to me, ‘It’s mighty bad, Minola; I might have to go to jail about this girl, and I don’t know a thing about it.’”

If the cook’s husband invented this, he is a most extraordinary inventor.

The cook proceeds: “Sunday, Miss Lucile (Mrs. Frank) said to Mrs. Selig (her mother), that Mr. Frank didn’t rest so good Saturday night; she said he was drunk, and wouldn’t let her sleep with him……She slept on a rug on the floor.”

“Miss Lucile said Sunday that Mr. Frank told her Saturday night that he was in trouble, and that he didn’t know the reason why he would murder, and told his wife to get his pistol, and let him kill himself.”

Drinking so heavily that his young wife had to lie on the floor; tormented by recollection of what he had done; unable, now, to comprehend how he could have done that cruel, cruel murder; calling for his pistol, that he might end it all!

Such is the scene which rises before you, as you reflect upon the cook’s story.

Invented? If so, whoever invented it should go to writing novels. A cook with that talent is hiding a big light under a small bushel.

The cook proceeds: “I haven’t heard Miss Lucile say whether she believed it or not.

“I don’t know why Mrs. Frank didn’t come to see her husband (when he was in jail), but it was a pretty long time before she would come to see him, MAYBE TWO WEEKS.”

(It was nearer three weeks, before Mrs. Frank would go to see her husband—a circumstance to which Frank’s partisans never refer.)

In her affidavit, the cook swears that the Seligs paid her money, and told her to be careful how she talked. Before the notary took her oath to her statements, she was asked:

“Has Mr. Pickett, or Mr. Craven, or Mr. Campbell, or myself, influenced you in any way, or threatened you in any way, to make this statement?”

Answer: “No, sir.”

Question: “You make it of your own free will, and in the presence of your attorney, Mr. Gordon?”

Answer: “Yes, sir.”

The cook signed her name, and took the oath, before G.C. February, Notary Public. The date was June 3^rd, 1913.

I venture to say that every white man who has an intimate knowledge of the characteristics of negroes, will agree, that a negro cook, who had no grudge against her white folks, could never have been induced to fabricate such a tale as Minola told. It is too circumstantial. It gives away inside facts which no human brain could have invented. It bears the ear-marks of truth.

What negro would ever have drawn that gruesome night picture of the young wife, lying on a rug, on the floor; and the young husband, drinking himself into stupefaction, wildly, wondering how he came to murder; and calling for his pistol, that he might kill himself?

The appearance which this distraught young man presented to the police officers, next morning, was in exact accordance with his intoxicated condition the night before!

The evidence of the two white men, John Black and Woods Rogers, tallies precisely with that of the cook; and they had given their description of Frank’s appearance and movements, Sunday morning, before they knew what the cook would swear, about his heavy drinking Saturday night.

It is one of the most striking corroborations in the case. The cook told the truth in the affidavit; and if she lives until Frank dies, she will tell more.

When the two officers went out to Frank’s house, they had no suspicion of his guilt. They wanted him to see the girl, and if possible give them some clue to work on. They found him in the nervous, jerky, rickety state, natural to a man who had been drinking the night before. He asked whether anything had happened at the factory, and was told that Mary Phagan had been found dead in the basement.

He makes no outcry of amazement and horror! He expresses no surprise at the crime. He utters no word of pity for the victim. He offers no information to the policemen. He suggests no possible theory as to the criminal. He closes like a clam, shakes like an aspen, begs for a cup of coffee, refuses to look on the pallid face of the murdered girl, and denies that he knew Mary Phagan!

To this climax of the case, we come by a strong, continuous chain of evidence, furnished by white witnesses, not one of whom was impeached, or contradicted, and not one of whom was unfriendly to Frank, if we exclude the girls he had tried to ruin.

Consequently, it is impossible that you do not recognize in Leo Frank the man who had the lewd character needed in the criminal; the man who had shown a desire to possess this little girl; the man whose refusal to send her money, made it necessary for her to come for it; the man who had her in his possession and power at the time she disappears; the man—and the only man—whom she asked about the metal room, and therefore the man—and the only man—who could have led her back there and shut the door, without arousing her suspicion.

It is impossible for you not to recognize in Frank the only man who had the opportunity which the metal room afforded, when she asked the fatal question—“Has the new metal come?”

After he had accompanied the officers to the morgue, and to the factory, he returned home, and was there the remainder of the day, so far as the State knows. On Monday, he was at the factory, where of course excitement prevailed.

All that day, while Barrett and others were talking of the blood-spots, and the hair, and were casting about for clues, nobody mentioned Frank as the possible criminal. Nobody seems to have realized that he and Conley were the only two men who could have killed the girl. It is highly probable that none of them knew that the doctors, and the undertaker would testify that the body had been lifeless for so long a time, as to carry the murder back to near the noon hour Saturday.

These definite conclusions often ripen slowly—so slowly that we sometimes wonder at our own blindness in not seeing them at first glance. When the scientific evidence fixed the time of the crime somewhere near the noon hour, and the girl’s stomach corroborated the doctors, the area of the investigation narrowed at once, the exact time that Monteen Stover was in Frank’s vacant office.

Taking the time when Mary was seen going toward the building, and only two blocks distant, we are driven to the conclusion that she had entered and disappeared before Monteen arrived; and that she was in the metal room, unconscious, while Monteen was waiting in the vacant office.

Frank’s partisans have to contend that Mary left him at that time, and went down stairs, on her way out.

If so, why was she not seen by Monteen Stover?

But they contend that Conley seized her as she reached the foot of the stairs.

Then, how came the blood, and the hair, up stairs, and not down stairs?

And would not Monteen, entering, have caught Conley in the act?

She would have caught Frank in the act, had it not been for the closed door of the metal room!

THE BLOOD ON THE FLOOR.

Pardon me for dwelling more at length on the blood, up stairs, on Frank’s floor. What is the official record as to this blood?

J.N. Starnes testified:

“I saw splotches that looked like blood…some of which I chipped up. I should judge the area around those splotches was a foot and a half. It looked like a white substance had been swept over it. There is a lot of that white substance in the metal department.”

R.P. Barrett swore positively, “It was blood!” The spots were not there Friday; the largest was “four or five inches in diameter, with little spots behind these from the rear, six or eight in number.”

Mrs. George W. Jefferson was another worker in the metal department. She swore:

“We saw the blood, Monday. It was about as big as a fan, something white was over it.

“I didn’t see the blood Friday. It was not paint.”

N.V. Darley, manager of a branch of Frank’s factory, testified:

“Mr. Quinn called my attention to the blood spots. Barrett called Quinn’s attention to it. Barrett showed me some hair on a lever of the lathe.

“It looked like an attempt had been made to hide the (blood) spots. The white stuff practically hid the spots.”

What made the spots, and who tried to hide them?

We narrow the investigation to Saturday, because three white witnesses swear the spots were not there Friday.

Harry Denham and Arthur White did not go to the metal room; and none of Frank’s visitors did, on Saturday, if we leave out Mary Phagan.

If we except Leo Frank and Mary Phagan, we are absolutely unable to trace anybody to the metal room, on Saturday.

Then, if the blood, and the hair, prove that at least two persons were in the metal room, Saturday; and if the evidence excludes the possibility of those two persons being other than Frank and Mary; we are forced to the conclusion that these two went there; and, if one of the two died by violence, we can’t escape the conviction that the other did the killing.

Of course, the State’s theory is, that when Frank struck the girl, her fall, backward and downward, was broken by the metal crank-handle of Barrett’s machine; and that his projecting shaft tore out some of her hair, and ripped her scalp to the bone, inflicting the wound which ranged “from down upward,” producing unconsciousness.

No other explanation can be given of two wounds simultaneously given, one in the face and the other on the back of the head.

Governor Slaton declared that the body could not have reached the basement by the elevator.

What difference does it make?

The corpse was there; and no signs of a struggle, no signs of blood, no signs of torn-out hair, could be seen.

On the contrary, Sergeant Dobbs testified that he saw the trace of the dragging of the body; and this trace led from the elevator, to where he found the girl. Her face was scratched and soiled, in exactly the way it would have been, had she been dragged by the heels.

These surface abrasions of the skin were made after death, the doctors said; and there is no other way to account for them.

So far afield have gone some of the Hessian theorists that they have argued the crime itself into the basement, where Conley, they say, held the girl’s nose in a bank of cinders until she was smothered! Yet here is the official record which shows that there was no accumulation of ashes or cinders in the basement, no ashes or cinders in the girl’s nostrils or mouth; no ashes and cinders in her hands. The entire floor was just an ordinary dirt floor, gritty, of course, and with ashes and cinders sifted thinly on the surface, and trodden into the earth.

What more did the criminal need, than the cruel cord, tied around her neck in a running noose—a cord large enough, and strong enough to strangle a horse? I have had that horrible thing in my possession, and I know what powerful twine it is. You could tie and hold a steer with it.

As it was strangling the poor child, her tongue protruded from her mouth, half an inch—and there was no bruise, and no cinders on the tongue.

No rapist, or murderer, could hold a strong girl’s face buried in ashes and cinders, and kill her that way, without leaving indelible marks in the ashes and cinders, and without leaving indelible marks on the girl’s front face—and on her neck, where his ruthless fingers gripped and held her!

Is it not so?

Upon this girl’s neck, was no sign of violence, save where the hemp cord buried itself in her flesh.

No crueler mortal was ever instigated of the Devil, than the monster who roped that child’s tender throat, and gloated over her as she died!

How did her body get to the basement?

It does not matter; or if she went there while alive, neither Frank nor Conley could have carried her, without the other knowing it; and if she went there dead, both were necessary for the work.

There are only two ways of getting into the basement from the floor above: one is the elevator, and the other is the ladder. The foot of the ladder rests on the dirt floor, and it runs up to the hold covered by a trap door.

How large is this hole? It is two feet square. The witnesses said that one person, at a time, could pass through this hole in the floor, and descend the ladder, but that it was a difficult matter.

In other words, it was a tight squeeze for a grown man of average size to go down through this two-foot hole in the floor.

That being the size of the opening, and that being its location, you can readily see that it is an awkward, troublesome job for a full-grown person to go to the cellar in that way.

With the elevator, it is altogether different. To use it with ease, nothing more was need than to unlock the power-box—and it was found unlocked Sunday morning!

Consequently, whoever wanted to use it, Saturday, could do so; and the fact that it was found in usable condition Sunday, naturally inclines you to believe that it had been in use Saturday.

Is it not so?

At all events, there was the elevator in condition to be use, with no other labor and difficulty than to open the door, step in, and pull the cable; the car would do the rest. But, with the other way of reaching the basement, there was a trap door to be lifted, and a ladder (not stairs) to descend; and when you give to any man the task of carrying a corpse weighing 127 pounds down that ladder, you have assigned to him a labor not only most difficult, but decidedly dangerous. The slightest loss of balance would have tumbled him off the ladder, and imperiled his neck.

Between the easy-going elevator and this hard-going ladder, which does your intelligence choose? Why not take the elevator?

If my argument about the blood, and the hair, is sound, the elevator must be chosen, for you cannot suppose that the criminal toted the dying girl down stairs from the first floor. To have gone with her toward the front door, where a visitor was likely to enter any time, would have been sheer madness.

But the elevator afforded secrecy, celerity, and noiselessness; no one could see what was in it, and no one could hear it, for the two carpenters on the fourth floor were not only engaged in the noisiest work, but were 200 feet back from the elevator shaft.

Even if there was a risk in the easy, swift use of the elevator, it was infinitely less of a peril than to lift the corpse, and carry it down the stairway, and then get it through the trap-door, and down the ladder.

Why should we not do what a criminal in such a case would naturally do—follow the line of the least resistance, and adopt the safest, easiest, quickest method?

Governor Slaton did not cross-examine Leo Frank, or the accomplice, Jim Conley; but the Governor went to the factory, and travelled up and down in the elevator; and after having done so, declared that Mary Phagan’s body could not have been taken to the basement by the elevator. Why not?

Because (as he says) on Saturday morning, a soft substance (excrement) had been deposited on the ground, in the shaft, and this excrement was found unmashed, Sunday. Wonderful Governor!

In the first place, the bottom of the shaft is uneven, and the elevator can rest upon the earth at one part, and not touch at others. In the second place, elevators do not always stop exactly at the bottom. In the third place, the elevator did not mash the excrement when the men first went down it, Sunday morning!

THE JEWS FIRST ACCUSED FRANK.

Let us go back to the Monday, following the Saturday of the crime.

The city of Atlanta was seething with excitement; the factory was in a hubbub; the detectives and the police were scouring the earth to find clues. Almost everybody suspected the night-watch to be the criminal. He was put under arrest, and he was manacled.

That’s what the Gentiles did, at the instance of Leo Frank, who intimated his belief in Newt Lee’s guilt.

What did the Jews do?

They pussy-footed to the strongest team of lawyers in Atlanta, and secretly employed them to defend Leo Frank!

Be it remembered, always, that the rich Jews of Frank’s immediate family and business connection, were the first to accuse him of this hideous crime.

Before the Gentiles had said one word against him, or taken any action against him, his own people had done what was never done, anywhere, at any time:

They hired the most expensive lawyers, before there was a breath of Gentile accusation against this alleged martyr of “race hatred.”

When you reflect upon this fact, your mind will connect it with the story which the cook told her husband. The Seligs (the parents-in-law of Frank), of course, knew how Frank had raved that Saturday night; their daughter would have been unnatural if she had not spoken of the horror which possessed her, when that drunken husband was wildly talking of the murder, and calling for his pistol.

As sure as God made the world, the Seligs communicated with the Montags, and the Haas brothers, that very day; (the police had got them on the telephone just after finding the corpse), and they pussy-footed to the law firm of Rosser & Brandon—a firm soon to be augmented by the Governor-elect, John M. Slaton.

(Keep this detail in mind.)

Consider the phenomenal situation!

There lies Mary Phagan at the morgue; there sits Newt Lee in jail, with handcuffs on; there go Barrett, Standford, Mrs. Fleming, and others, showing the blood, and the hair; there goes Jim Conley, about his work as usual, in the same clothes he wore last Saturday; there goes Leo Frank, who has changed HIS clothes, and who tells the police that he doesn’t believe that the night-watch has told all he knows; and there goes somebody to plant a bloody shirt in the night-watchman’s clothes barrel; and somebody fixes a time-slip which gives Lee time to have gone to his home during the night of the crime—and this is done after Frank had told the officers the time-slip was regularly punched; and it is Frank himself who, after the bloody shirt has been planted on Newt Lee’s premises, urges the police to search those premises!

And during all that time, the best lawyers have been secretly engaged to defend Leo Frank—lawyers who will soon take into their firm the man whom the people had recently elected to be their Chief Magistrate!

When the detectives lose faith in the bloody shirt—there was no African odor on it, and the blood was too evidently a recent smear inside and out—Frank has another shot in the locker. He tells the officers that J.M. Gantt had been intimate with Mary Phagan, and hints that he had been too intimate. He also informs them of Gantt’s visit to the factory, Saturday afternoon, to get two pairs of old shoes he had left there. Consequently, the excited police go and nab J.M. Gantt.

Thus the martyr of race hatred flings the meshes of suspicion around two innocent men, before he himself has been suspected by anybody, excepting the rich Jews who had swiftly, stealthily employed for the martyr the supposedly ablest lawyers in Georgia.

And so thoroughly uneasy are these rich Jews, that the Governor-elect is soon added to the Rosser firm—to the amazement of the political friends of John. M. Slaton.

To be exact, Rosser took the Governor-elect into his firm in May, 1913.

Mary Phagan was killed in April.

To fully comprehend the infamous betrayal of the State of Georgia, by Governor Slaton, you must keep in your mind the astounding fact that he joined Rosser’s firm, after that firm had been employed to defend Frank, and had publicly taken part in his case.

If an angel from Heaven should swear, on a stack of Bibles, that Slaton’s partnership with Frank’s leading lawyers had nothing to do with his commutation of the sentence, you might possibly believe it.

A Governor cannot practice law openly; and in June, 1913, John M. Slaton was to be inaugurated for a term of two years.

Why, then, did he, in May, join a firm with which he could not openly act, until after June, 1915?

And why did Rosser, in May, 1913, take in a partner whom he could not openly use, during the next two years?

Mark this: On Monday, Jim Conley and Frank came and went; Lee and Gantt were in limbo; others were suspected, and temporarily detained; and still, not a word was said against the Jew. His battery of lawyers was masked; nobody knew such a battery had been positioned; his Montags laid low; his Seligs were equally discreet.

Suddenly, like a scene-shift on the stage, the officers turn to Leo Frank, and say, in substance, “We will have to interrogate you, Mr. Frank!”

Then, the legal battery unmasks. Frank refuses to answer any questions, until his Rosser comes!

Innocent? When did conscious innocence ever play the game with trump cards up its sleeve?

The crafty Frank knew from the first that the dogs would find his trail, sooner or later; and he had not only prepared for the struggle by retaining crack lawyers, but he had kept suspicion off Jim Conley, not even informing his detective, Harry Scott, that Conley could write.

Scott would not know the rudiments of his business, if he had not realized, early in his investigations, that if Frank was innocent, Conley was; and if Conley was guilty, Frank was.

The thing is plain enough: put Conley at the foot of the stairs, and Frank at the top, and the girl going up or down the stairs, it is impossible for one of the men to seize the girl and do what was done to her, without the other man knowing it.

The doors were open between Frank and Conley; the space separating them was inconsiderable; Conley could not strike the girl in the face, and knock her down, without Frank hearing it; whereas Frank could go with her back to the metal room, and close the door.

Because of the certainty that, if Conley committed the crime, Frank knew it, Harry Scott and the police officers made every effort to find the criminal, in somebody else. Only as a last resort, did they turn to Conley.

Reluctant to betray his boss, and to get himself in trouble, Conley denied all knowledge of the crime; and went to pouring out lies, in true negro style. But the conviction grew that only he and Frank could be implicated, because only they had had the opportunity.

Finally, the negro broke down, confessed, and asked to be taken to Frank, so that the two could be heard to talk the matter over.

And the innocent martyr, a graduate of Cornell, shrinks from meeting the ignorant negro, in the presence of witnesses.

Yes! The white man is afraid to face the black, who accuses him of the most heinous crime ever perpetrated in the South.

What was Frank’s excuse for not facing the negro, and talking with him about how the little girl came to her death, in his place of business?

His excuse was, that Rosser was out of town. But Haas was not out of town, and Rosser’s partners were accessible.

However, the innocent martyr dared not confront a guilty negro—a low-down, drunken brute, they call him—because Rosser was not present, to prevent the black brute from getting the better of the educated white gentleman who was President of the Atlanta B’nai B’rith.

And this is the same shrinking, cowering culprit who could not look at the dead girl’s face, pretended not to know her, feared to ask the eleven white ladies why they swore he had a lascivious character, and hid himself behind his legal immunity from cross-examination!

This is the victim of mob spirit, and race hatred—this Jew whose rich kinsmen stealthily hastened to hire lawyers before any Gentile had accused him, and whose Jewish wife utterly refused to go to him for three weeks after his arrest!

There are some actions that speak like thunder claps; and the secret employment of those lawyers, together with the abhorring avoidance of Frank by his own wife, are just such actions.

How, in the name of God, can any sane man believe him innocent, after weighing those two stupendous facts?

THE JEWS closest to him, CONDEMNED HIM, before the Gentiles even suspected him!

It was not until the 29^th of April that Frank was detained at police headquarters, to await the action of the Coroner’s Jury. After a careful investigation of the case, Frank and Newt Lee were both held. Frank had testified at length under oath, and not one word of suspicion had he dropped on Jim Conley. He did not tell the Coroner that Conley was in the factory on Saturday, nor did he disclose the fact that Conley could write.

He did not utter a word that would clear Newt Lee, and give to that innocent darkey his freedom.

He was perfectly content to screen Jim Conley, and to see the halter close upon the neck of Lee!

On May 24^th, Frank was indicted by twenty-three grand-jurors, four of whom were Jews. (Not one of those official accusers has ever asked that Frank’s sentence of death be commuted.)

On July 28^th, 1913, Frank’s trial commenced, before Judge L.S. Roan, and a jury, selected jointly by the State and the accused.

Until August 20^th, the Court was hearing the evidence, and on that day the attorneys began their speeches. Fiver days later, the case went to the jury, and on the same day, a verdict of “Guilty” was returned, without recommendation to mercy. On the next day, Judge Roan sentenced Frank to be hanged on October 10, 1913. His attorneys moved for a new trial, which Judge Roan refused; and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the Court below.

The Supreme Court reviewed all of the evidence, at great length, and decided that it was sufficient to sustain the verdict. This decision appears in the 141^st volume of Georgia Reports, and speaks for itself.

Four of the six Justices held that the trial of Frank had been perfectly fair, and that he had been properly convicted. Two of the Justices differed; and held that Judge Roan should not have permitted Conley, and several white witnesses, to testify to the independent acts of immorality, on the part of Frank.

The decision, as published, shows that this was the only question upon which our Supreme Court divided; and you can see that it was a point of minor importance. The real issue in the case was, whether Leo Frank murdered Mary Phagan, for the indictment did not charge him with rape.

Consequently, Justices Fish and Beck went off on a spur track, and did not jump the rails on the main line.

No matter how immoral the jury believed Frank to be, they were too intelligent to convict him of murder, on evidence of sexual vices.

It is well for you to know what the Supreme Court divided on; because the public has had the fact of the divided court dinned into its ears, for more than a year, without having been told the comparative insignificance of the division.

Neither has the public been told that when Frank’s lawyers took the division of the Justices too seriously, and demanded a re-hearing of the case, the Supreme Court unanimously refused it. This of itself proves that the dissenting opinions of Justices Fish and Beck left no deep impression even on their own minds.

THE SUPREME COURT REVIEWED THE EVIDENCE.

With an effrontery hard to comprehend and sufficiently condemn, it has been stated, again and again, that the State of Georgia has no court that can review the evidence in a criminal case! Every volume of our Supreme Court decisions (Georgia Reports) proves the audacity and shamelessness of the falsehood, first published by C.P. Connolly, and finally by the Governor who commuted the sentence. So far is the statement from being true, that in practically every motion for a new trial, there are three stereotyped grounds which are argued before the Supreme Court; to wit, that the verdict is against the evidence, that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, and that the verdict is unsupported by the evidence. While, of course, these three stereotyped grounds are really but one, the fact that they are almost always made, and passed on by the Supreme Court, shows that this highest of State tribunals is constantly reviewing the evidence—weighing it, measuring it—and deciding whether it shows the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

If, in the opinion of the Court, the evidence fails to do this, the judge below is reversed, and a new trial ordered.

When C.P. Connolly stated in Collier’s, that the Supreme Court of Georgia had no such power as this, it was possible to explain his mendacity upon the assumption of his ignorance; but when Governor John M. Slaton used almost the same words, in saving the neck of his guilty client, no such excuse can be made for him. He lied, with deliberation and moral turpitude.

On page 247, of the 141^st Volume Georgia Reports, you may read the 20^th head-note of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Frank case:

“20. The evidence supports the verdict, and there was no abuse of discretion in refusing a new trial.”

In the body of the decision, page 284, you may find these words:

“20. The record is voluminous….We have given careful consideration to the evidence, and we believe the same to be sufficient to uphold the verdict, and as no substantial error was committed in the trial of the case, the discretion of the Court in refusing a new trial will not be disturbed.”

In two other cases, reported in this same volume, the Supreme Court was asked to review the evidence against the defendant, and to decide whether it showed guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The cases are those of Brown, and Hart, both murder cases; and the Court held that the evidence must demonstrate the guilt of defendants beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a maxim, a standing rule, an invariable principle with our Supreme Court; and every Georgia lawyers knows it.

ENTER, BURNS!

The decision of our highest court was supposed to settle the Frank case.

Such a decision has always been taken as final, except in extraordinary cases, where new evidence developed after the trial—evidence which might have caused a different verdict, and which could not have been discovered before the trial, by the use of diligent methods.

Here it was that Burns came roaring into the case, airily assuming that it had never been tried. Burns blotted out the trial judge, the jury, and the Supreme Court. Burns made a calliope of himself, and every resounding note he struck echoed deafeningly through the Atlanta dailies, and through the Northern papers owned by the Jews, and by William Randolph Hearst. Burns ostentatiously visited the pencil factory, just as though he had recently discovered its whereabouts; and he sleuthed over the premises with unearthly skill and subtlety, just as though the crime had been committed the day before. After running up and down the stairs; and poking his nose first in one room, and then in another; and travelling back and forth in the elevator; and cannily boring holes into everybody with his all-knowing eyes, Burns came forth to the reporters and yelled into their eager ears the startling discovery he had made!

He had discovered—the blatant ass had actually discovered, that the crime was the work of a pervert of the lowest type, and this pervert was a man that no one had even suspected! He, Burns, meant to locate that unsuspected man, demonstrate his guilt, and overwhelm the Pinkerton Detective Agency, and the Atlanta police. He, Burns, was “utterly confident,” he would lay his hands on this unsuspected pervert, and, by proving his guilt—Burns felt sure he would confess—he would show what boobies the Pinkertons, and Atlanta police, had been, when they arrested Newt Lee, J.M. Gantt, Jim Conley, and Leo Frank.

Never in my life, have I known any man to make as much noise as Burns made; and never have I known the daily papers turn themselves into sounding boards, fog-horns, and megaphones for anybody, as willingly as they did for this empty, vociferous, and pestilent scoundrel, William J. Burns.

There is just this much to be said to the credit of this intelligence: he then saw the same thing that Harry Scott had seen; to wit, he couldn’t implicate Jim Conley (at the foot of the stairs) without implicating the white man, at the head of the stairs. Burns saw what any sane man ought to have seen, that the crime could not steer clear of both the white man and the negro, when they were so close together, and each knew of the other’s presence, and each knew of the presence of the girl.

If she left Frank, she went to Jim, almost in Frank’s presence; if she did not go to Jim, she never left Frank!

Even an asinine pseudo-detective, like Burns, could see that.

The only people who do not see it, belong to the class who, having eyes, see not.

Burns knew that Frank—if innocent—would have said, at the very beginning:

“The girl must have been assaulted and killed, almost immediately after she left my office; and as nobody but Jim was at the foot of the stairs, Jim did it. Go and nab Jim! Don’t bother with Newt Lee! Don’t arrest J.M. Gantt! Don’t search Lee’s premises for a blood-stained garment.

“Seize Jim! Search his premises. Jail the woman he lives with. Question them, separately. Compel Jim to tell what became of Mary, after Mary left my office, for she never reached the door; she was stunned, assaulted, and strangled inside my place; Jim and I were the only men in the house who could have known the girl was there, and who could have made the attack on her; and, as I did not do it, JIM DID!”

Oh, gentlemen, gentlemen! use your common sense! Isn’t that what you would have said, had you been where Frank was, and none of that little maiden’s blood reddened your hands?

What’s the use of publishing falsehoods about Georgia laws, Georgia courts, and Georgia people, when one of our children lies in her untimely grave, and the record-evidence so plainly proves the infernal guilt of the man whom Rosser’s partner, John M. Slaton, rescued from Biblical punishment?

Burns knew that had Frank been innocent, he would have put Harry Scott, and the other officers, on the trail of Jim Conley, instead of Newt Lee; and Frank would have told the detectives that he recognized Conley’s writing in those notes; and that it was Conley who must have grabbed the girl as she reached the bottom of the stairs!

Burns isn’t altogether a nin-com-poop; and he therefore knew that the screening of Jim Conley by Leo Frank, meant exactly the same as the screening of Leo Frank by Jim Conley, to wit—that they were both guilty.

Consequently, Burns went roaring into the North to find his pervert “who is still at large.”

There is evidence in the record which shows that Burns tried to make a dummy out of a Chicago darkey named Allen. It appears that Burns pretended to be mysteriously turning the earth over, in Cincinnati. From time to time, Burns vigorously smiled, upon mankind, and fog-horned the information that he was making “most gratifying progress” in his sleuthing after that elusive pervert who had never been suspected.

We were told that Burns was compiling a mighty document, as he went along, and this dynamic document—as he vociferously shouted—would clear Leo Frank.

Naturally, Burns got on our nerves. He stayed there. We became obsessed with Burns. He agitated our reflections, disturbed our digestions, and monopolized our dreams. I never saw anything like it. The expense account of the Haas Finance Committee would, in my judgment, be more interesting than any human document that could be found this side of Jerusalem.

But all things must have an end; and even the Burns peregrinations and vociferations had to reach their final show-down; and when Burns’ famous report came into view, it was nothing in the world but another argument—and a sorry one—on the evidence in the record!

Whichever way he turned, Burns ran against an impassible wall. It was the resource of desperation, when they fixed upon Conley as the only criminal; they did not do it, until there was nothing else to do! And they could never have “got away with it,” if Rosser had not had a partner in the executive office.

WHAT ABOUT THE MOB?

In his very long, and very incoherent defense of himself, Governor Slaton urged the importance of what he called some newly-discovered evidence. That trumped up stuff was made on the basis of an extraordinary motion for a new trial; and when Judge Benj. H. Hill overruled it, the case again went to our Supreme Court, which unanimously decided against the defendant.

Not until he had twice gone to the highest State court, with nearly 200 different assignments of error, did Frank raise the point that he was not present, in person, when his lawyers waived his appearance, and received the verdict.

Judge Roan knew of the intense, but repressed feeling in Atlanta; and he feared that this feeling might escape control, if the defendant was acquitted. Suffering from the cancer which took his life not long afterwards, and worn down by the terrific strain of the trial, Judge Roan was naturally nervous, and apprehensive. But, as a matter of record, it was proved that he had nothing tangible to base his anxiety upon, for the Sheriff—who has, for cause, been Frank’s champion—testified that there had never been any disturbance, no mob, no mob threats, &c.—and a score of deputies and other citizens swore to the same thing.

No evidence to the contrary could be obtained.

Remember, in this connection, that ex-Governor Brown, in his statement to Governor Slaton, said that certain gentlemen had brought him vague rumors of an intended mob; and that on the strength of these vague rumors, he had requested that some of the officers and soldiers of the National Guard sleep at the armory that night.

Ex-Governor Brown further stated that he caused the Mayor to have the city scouted, in automobiles, and that there was absolutely no sign of any mob, anywhere. Not as many as three men could be found bunched together.

Therefore, all the wild talk about mobs, and the holding of the military in readiness, frittered away into “vague rumors,” which led the Governor to request that a few soldiers sleep where they could act quickly, if needed.

The lawyers of Frank made out a narrative of mob demonstrations, and mob pressure, drawing upon their imagination with prolific liberality. They carried this before Judge William Newman, of the Federal Court, on a writ of habeas corpus, which took the defendant out of the custody of the State. Losing before the Atlanta Judge, the lawyers persisted, until they got the case before the Supreme Court of the United States.

On April 19^th, 1915, a decision was rendered against Frank, seven of the Justices holding that all the alleged facts as to mob violence had been carried before the Supreme Court of Georgia, and had been considered by that court “at times and places, and under circumstances wholly apart from the atmosphere of the trial, and free from any suggestion of mob domination, or the like; and the facts were examined, not only upon the affidavits and exhibits submitted in behalf of the prisoner…but also upon the rebutting affidavits submitted in behalf of the State, and which, for reasons not explained, he has not included in his petition.”

The seven Justices, therefore, held that as Frank’s lawyers had failed to include in their pleadings the evidence upon which Judge Hill, and our Supreme Court had based their decisions, the United States Supreme Court must assume that the Georgia courts had reached a righteous decision on the question of mob violence.

The seven Justices of the United States Supreme Court evidently suspected that the counter-showing, as to the existence of the alleged mob violence at the trial, must be conclusive, else Frank’s attorneys would not have been afraid to let the Court, and the country, see how crushingly the State replied to those belated and manufactured charges.

The seven Justices cited numerous cases, in which our Supreme Court had granted new trials because of mob violence; and one of these was that Will Myers, THE JEW, who brutally murdered Crowley, near Atlanta, and who made a suspicious escape from the jail. If alive, he is yet roaming the earth, a free man—in consequence of the extreme jealously of Georgia’s highest court in seeing to it, that even the guiltiest wretch shall be given a fair trial.

But it is said that two Justices of the United States Supreme Court dissented. So they did—but upon what?

Justices Holmes, speaking for himself and Justice Hughes, took the entire statement of Frank’s lawyers as true—prima facie—and taking it to be the truth, those members of the Court held—

“Upon allegations of this gravity, it (Frank’s petition) ought to be heard,” by the Federal Courts, although it had already been heard and decided by the State Courts. Justices Holmes and Hughes held that it was proper to decide against the State, without seeing the State’s side of the case; and to treat as null and void a State-Court decision, because of an ex-parte attack upon it!

I don’t think many good lawyers will accept that as good law; and such a principle certainly antagonizes all previous decisions. The seven Justices merely followed precedent; to have ordered the re-trial, in the Federal Courts, of an issue of fact, which the State Courts had already tried, and decided adversely to the defendant, would have been revolutionary.

But it is sufficient to remind the unprofessional reader, that Justices Hughes and Holmes went no further than to decide that, taking the allegations of mob violence to be true, Frank had a right to be heard on that point. And the professional, as well as the unprofessional reader will be surprised to learn, that Frank had been fully heard on that very point—and that the record shows that there wasn’t a particle of merit in the point. Why? Because there was no evidence to support it.

THE FACTS ABOUT CONLEY.

You will have noticed that I have discussed the case, upon the testimony of the unimpeached white witnesses, without using Jim Conley at all.

Let us now consider the negro, who has been so widely and violently assailed by the Frank partisans.

What are the facts as shown in this official record? They are, that Conley has been continually at work for white men, in Atlanta, and that he never had any trouble with any white person; nor was he ever a convict, except for thirty days, when he was sentenced in the police court for fighting another negro. In 1904, Jim had a row with a darkey, and was fined $1.75, which he paid. In 1905, he paid the same fine, for the same luxury. In 1906, they raised the price on him, and fined him $3.75, which he paid. In 1907, he had two fusses, and paid $26 for the brace. Finally, in 1912, he was given a sentence of thirty days.

At that time, he was in the employ of Leo Frank.

There is no evidence that he had ever been accused of violating a State law, much less convicted of any crime. The record shows that Conley had been a steady, regular worker at the pencil factory, for two years; and, in that length of time, Frank and his associates had found no serious fault with the negro. He was accused of borrowing nickels and dimes, which he was slow to repay; and one gentleman who had occasion to send Jim for a pot of beer, swore he wouldn’t believe Jim on oath: “I have had no confidence in him since he put water in my beer.” So, you see, there is really nothing of importance that they could prove against the negro, and you may be sure they left no stone unturned. Then, what is the gist of this evidence?

It is, that he saw two girls go up stairs, and only one come down; Mary went first, and Monteen followed; and Monteen remained up stairs quite a little bit, and then came back down and went away; and that he had already heard steps like two persons walking back to the metal room, just before Monteen came in; and that, after Monteen left, some one came running to the front up stairs on tip-toes; and then he heard the “stomp” that Frank always made when he was signaling Jim about a woman; and that he answered the signal, and found Frank near the head of the stairs, looking wild and excited; and that Frank asked him if he had seen a girl come up stairs, and Jim answered, “I seed two go up, but I ain’t seen but one come down.”

Then Frank told him that he had tried Mary in the metal room, and that she had resisted, and he had struck her, and “I guess I hit her too hard;” and that she had struck something and fell.

Frank told the negro he must help get the body to the basement; and the negro went to where the girl was lying on her back, with hands and arms up.

Frank had torn a strip form her underclothing, had folded it, and had placed it under her head—and that blood-clotted piece of undergarment had its tremendous weight with the jury, for it accounted for there being no blood on the floor beneath the hair on the lever she had struck in falling.

Jim picked up the body, carried it a few steps, and dropped it, near the dressing room, and the blood spattered, as her head again hit the floor.

Frank had to help Jim with the body, and they carried it to the elevator, the key of which Frank hurried to his office and got. They took her to the basement, and left her right there by the elevator, from which Sergeant Dobbs afterwards saw the signs of dragging commence.

Frank was so excited, that he ran up the ladder, telling Jim he would catch the elevator as it passed him on the floor above. This he did.

Then they were in Frank’s office, and Frank talked excitedly, ramblingly, and, all at once, exclaimed—

“Why should I hang? I have rich people in Brooklyn!”

(At that time, and at the time Jim told the police of this, the negro did not know that Frank had any wealthy kinspeople anywhere.)

Then Frank asked Jim to write the notes, and the negro wrote four, two of which seemed to suit Frank; and he put them all in his desk. He gave Jim money, but took it back, saying he would attend to that later. He outlined a scheme by which the negro was to take the crime upon himself, promising to get him out on bond, and spirit him away. He made Jim promise to return that afternoon, and help him to dispose of Mary’s body. Then they left the building, Jim going for a drink of beer in a near-by saloon, and then walking homeward with Ivie Jones. At home, Jim got to thinking about what had happened, and he was afraid to go back to the factory. Nor was he there Sunday, but he turned up as usual Monday morning.

In the two notes found lying beside the dead girl, she was made to tell her mother who it was that attacked her, and to explain how her body got to the basement. She said that as she went to the toilet (Frank’s floor toilet!) the night watchman seized her, and flung her down the scuttle-hole. Notice the wild confusion which raged in the mind of the real author of the notes! He puts the place of the deadly assault right where it occurred; but postpones the time of the crime until night, when Newt Lee will be on duty. He doesn’t realize the difficulty of explaining how Mary was kept in the building, from about noon until dark; but he does realize that he must try to account for the corpse being in a place the girl had never entered.

So, in one breath, he put the girl at the toilet, near the blood and the hair; and in the next, he has her flung down the ladder, into the basement, where no blood and no hair could be found!

Now, if you can believe the blood and the hair made their way perversely from the basement to near the toilet, to which, as Frank told the jury, he might have gone unconsciously, you may also believe that a negro, having committed the crime, seated himself by the corpse, in a dark cellar, to write notes of explanation to the girl’s mother.

Robust animals, like Conley, do not commit the crime of Sodom: that is the vice of the degenerate, and Leo Frank’s face looks the part to perfection!

Consequently, such a robust and natural negro as Conley, would be almost the last man you could imagine as the author of the notes in which unnatural intercourse with that little white girl is suggested.

Now, let us put our mother-wit to the work on this negro witness.

When the record discloses that he had worked two years for Leo Frank, we must assume that a certain intimacy and confidence had been established between the two.

When we learn from disinterested white witnesses, that Frank had had women of the town to visit the factory, during business hours, and on Saturday afternoons, we are bound to believe that the negro knew of it, because his place was near the front entrance.

Wouldn’t Frank, who was afraid of his Uncle Montag, want someone to keep a watch-out for him, when these lewd women darted in and out? Naturally. Then, who would serve his purpose better than this submissive negro?

But, let us come directly to the question which goes to the bowels of the matter:

What evidence did the State have on Jim Conley, when he at length broke down, and confessed?

The State had none—absolutely none—except that three outsiders had seen a negro, whom they did not know, occupying a seat where Jim usually sat.

In other words, the State had no more evidence against Jim than it had against Frank, to wit—that he was in the factory on Saturday.

Therefore, when the negro confessed, he gave evidence which the State had been unable to get; and, if he had kept his mouth shut, Newt Lee might have suffered. After all, the dead body was found where Lee alone had been, for nine-and-a-half hours; and the forged time-slip did show a gap of an hour, and his clothes-barrel did hold a blood-stained shirt which might be his. Therefore, excited minds might suspect his guilt—especially if the person who planted that shirt would also swear he saw Mary Phagan on the streets, Saturday afternoon.

That Frank, and his partisans were dead-set against the innocent Newt Lee, is shown by their desperate effort to prove, by a prostitute, that she passed the pencil factory Saturday afternoon, and heard a woman’s scream!

Remember, that all of this horrible work against an innocent negro, was in full progress, at the time Conley made his confession.

In other words, Newt Lee (accused in the notes) was being “framed up,” by Frank and his lawyers, when Conley blocked the hideous scheme by his confession.

Remember, also, that Haas, the lawyer, and Montag, the principal owner of the factory, had both been told over the telephone, by the police, of the same finding of the corpse—told at the same time that the policemen were persistently trying to get Frank, on the telephone. They could hear the phone buzz and ring at the other end, but no response came from Frank’s house.

Now, another thing: Suppose the undenied facts are inconsistent with the theory that any negro committed the crime!

Did any black assailant of a white woman ever go looking for a cord with which to strangle her, when his fingers were already on her throat? Never!

Did any black assailant of a white woman ever choke her to death, and then reverently fold her hands across her breast? Never!

Did a black rapist, and murderer of a white girl ever seat himself near her, to write four notes to her mother? Never!

Did such a negro criminal ever return to the scene of his crime, and go about his work as usual? Never!

Then, the conclusion which fixes itself in your mind is, that whoever used the cord was not a negro; and whoever folded those pulseless hands across the child’s bosom, and wrote the notes to her mother, was not the principal perpetrator of the crime; and if the negro afterwards came and went about the premises, as if nothing had occurred, he did not assault the girl.

Let us view it from another standpoint:

If there are undisputed facts in the case which cannot be explained outside of Jim Conley’s testimony, are we not safe in taking his evidence to that extent?

The undisputed facts which cannot be cleared up, without the aid of the negro’s story, are these:

1. There was no blood on the floor under the bench-lathe, where the hair was found;

There was blood, a few steps distant, in the next room;

There was a cloth, stained with blood, hanging loosely around the girl’s neck;

Her hands were decently crossed upon her bosom, and so rigidly fastened there, that they did not fall apart, when the corpse was dragged by the heels, 125 feet over a dirt floor which scarified her face.

The negro told the jury how he found Mary’s body, with a piece of cloth under her head, “like to catch the blood.” The jury saw the cloth, and the jury knew that no black man ever killed anybody, and then folded a strip of cloth, torn from the dress, to catch the blood. If not used to soak up the blood, why was the cloth loosely tied around the head?

The negro explained how he dropped the heavy corpse, in passing the dressing room, and thus spattered the floor with blood.

The negro told the jury, quite simply, and without knowing the vast psychological value of his statement, that he “put her hands down,” and folded them across her bosom. Did any man ever do that, for any victim of his lust? Never in God’s world!

Now, when you consult the evidence of other witnesses, and find that the girl’s arms remained in that position, as she was being dragged on her face, your intelligence drives you to the conclusion, that her arms became rigid, in that position, long before she was dragged.

Then, you are pushed back to the story the negro told—the story of Frank’s calling to him for help; the cloth under the bleeding head; the carrying of the corpse to the elevator; the leaving of it, on its back, in front of the elevator shaft, with the arms crossed as Jim had put them, up stairs.

Take Jim’s story, and every kink untangles, every crease smoothes out; reject it, and there are undisputed facts in the record which no human ingenuity can explain.

Isn’t this itself a most powerful corroboration of Jim’s evidence?

Given essential facts which imperatively call for explanation, and which nobody can explain without the negro’s help—what follows?

As sane people, we must accept the negro, to that extent.

If we accept him as to those unexplained, and otherwise unexplainable facts, we need not bother our heads about other details of his evidence: we have enough to understand the crime, and to identify the criminal.

And when you remember that one of these two men, Frank and Conley, successfully withstood a cross-examination of eight hours, while the other refused to be cross-examined at all, your mind gravitates to the story of the man who was vainly assailed by the prolonged cross-examination.

No suspicious tactics had to be used in behalf of Jim Conley. No cook swore against him, in the presence of her attorney, and then took it back. No prostitute had to be spirited away from Atlanta on his account. No poor old preacher was paid $200 to make a false affidavit for him; and nobody acting in his behalf endeavored to bribe, and to intimidate the State’s witnesses.

During the entire two years that have passed since Conley confessed, not a single bit of evidence has been discovered against him, other than that which he voluntarily gave against himself.

And during that whole period, the hirelings of Big Money have never been able to unearth a scintilla of testimony in favor of Leo Frank.

Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict, when a crime is proved, and all other possible persons are excluded, save the prisoner at the bar.

In this case, the guilt of Frank can be shown on two lines, independent of each other. The negro’s corroboration testimony does it; and the circumstantial evidence, without the negro, does it.

The twenty-three grand jurors thought so, and never changed their opinion. The twelve trial jurors thought so, and never changed their opinion. Judge Roan at least thought, the jury was justified in its opinion, for he refused to disturb the verdict; and he never told anybody, or wrote anybody to the contrary. And the Supreme Court thought the same way, for it sustained both the judge and the jury.

HOW CAME OTHER STATES TO INTERFERE?

Never before did we have outside influences brought to bear upon us, in our enforcement of law. We have tried Jews and Gentiles; rich men and poor men; white men and negroes; and we have put many a man to death, after precisely the same sort of procedure that was had in Frank’s case.

Why was Frank made an exception? Why was he singled out for a national crusade against the State of Georgia? Why did New York preachers, and laymen get excited in behalf of this particular convict? Why did Chicago people turn their backs upon all the condemned murderers of the West, and come Pullman-carring down to Atlanta for Leo Frank? When, before, did governors, and legislatures of other States assume that they knew more bout our business than we ourselves knew? When, before, did the Jew papers, the L. & N. Railroad papers, and the Hearst papers arrogate to themselves the right to treat a carefully adjudicated case, as if it had never been legally decided?

(The Louisville & Nashville Railroad belongs to the Rothschilds, of whom the New York Jew, August Belmont, is the American agent. It was the baleful influence of this L. & N. system that debauched Kentucky and Tennessee politics, caused the assassination of Geobel and Carmack, and is now the power behind the throne in Georgia.)

What is to become of Law and Order, in any State, when outsiders claim the right to dictate to it?

After this case had gone the way of all others, the rich Jews formed a Finance Committee, headed by Haas of Atlanta. Contributions were poured into its treasury; and even the Jewish clerks were assessed on their wages. The Burns Detective Agency spent money like water—its own money, of course; and, in every direction, lawyers, politicians, and hack-writers were enlisted. Frank belonged to the Jewish aristocracy, and it was determined by the rich Jews that no aristocrat of their race should die for the death of a working-class Gentile—“nothing but a factory girl.”

The most outrageous misrepresentations were published broadcast throughout the country; and as none of the Atlanta dailies would allow anybody to defend the State, the repeated and undenied accusations were believed by millions of people whose common sense should have suggested to them that, no Southern jury has ever convicted a white man on the sole evidence of a negro.

THEY DARED NOT PUBLISH THE RECORD.

The reason why sentiment in Georgia crystallized against Frank was, that I laid before the people the plain facts as they are preserved in the official record; and the reason why so many honest people in other States have misunderstood the case, and misjudged our Courts is, that the partisan pamphlets were believed to contain the truth.

If the record had agreed with the pamphlets, what was the need of so many pamphlets?

If the record failed to disclose any convincing evidence of Frank’s guilt, why was it never published?

There is but one reply:

The record does show the man’s guilt, and hence they could not print it.

You may be asked, Why did not the State publish the Brief of Evidence? In the first place, the Governor was a member of the law-firm which was getting the biggest fee for saving Frank’s life. But, in any event, it is not to be expected that a sovereign State will appear as defendant at the bar of public opinion when arraigned by a Haas Finance Committee, a rotten Detective Agency, a regiment of feed lawyers, and a pack of nondescript publicists.

A sovereign State may well maintain a dignified silence, conscious of the rectitude of her judicial proceedings, and trusting to the imperishable official record to vindicate her from unofficial and irresponsible assailants.

From the Pittsburg Leader, I extract the following, as a fair sample of the editorials in behalf of Frank:

Few individual cases have attracted the attention and drawn the sympathy of the country as that of Leo Frank, under sentence of death in Georgia. No case has become so celebrated for the same reason—that a man was convicted in advance of his trial, and that the trial itself was a travesty.

The country has been convinced that Frank is a victim of extraordinary prejudice. It takes unusual prejudice to make a man’s life the price of his payment. This is a point which has remained hidden in all the reviews of the case since his conviction.

In all the proceedings that have been taken by Frank’s attorneys, and in all the reviews of the case, the evidence upon which he has been sentenced to death has not once been touched.

Technical points have been passed upon, but not once before any court was the question of evidence discussed.

The various courts took up and passed upon every other point but the one most vital to Frank—that the evidence to convict was lacking.

If you have paid any attention to what I have already written, you know how shamefully false was the statement made in the Leader.

The editorial continues:

Except in one little spot in Georgia, Leo Frank is looked upon as a victim of prejudice, mob law, and perversion of the legal machinery.

Governor Slaton has taken up the application for executive clemency, and promises to virtually re-try the case. He has become impressed by the nation-wide, human protest against Frank’s martyrdom, no less than the seriousness of the charges against the name of his State.

The Governor is receiving an endless string of letters from men and women all over the country asking him to either pardon or commute the sentence; so he may have a chance to establish his innocence later.

The individual letters to Governor Slaton have been strengthened by chain letters which are rolling across the country. Letter chains have been formed everywhere, and are moving like an avalanche toward the Governor’s office in Georgia.

No better cause than this, the life of a man condemned to die, branded as a criminal because a mob demanded blood, ever enlisted the energies and sympathy of the American people.

The only hope for Frank is that the public’s attitude make enough impression upon Governor Slaton to convince him that the case should be re-tried or its victim set free.

Governor Slaton is intensely interested from the first, and never defended, even by the Georgia mob, that there was no evidence to convict any man except one picked out for an application of legal lynch law.

Let every humane man and woman in American write a letter to Governor Slaton. Make up chain letters to convince him that the guilt of Leo Frank is accepted only by a handful of men in one town in Georgia who want his life in a spirit of blood-lust prejudice.

Write today, and tomorrow, and every day until Frank is pardoned, his sentence commuted or he goes to death, lynched by a Georgia mob.

Write today.

In addition to these chain-letters, men were hired to stand at car-stations, in Chicago, and other cities, to enroll the name of every passer-by who would sign a petition; similar petitions were carried from house to house, store to store, office to office, until even the school children of other States were telling us how to manage our affairs.

ENTER HEARST AND HIS SHEARN.

Perhaps the most astounding piece of impudence was that of William Randolph Hearst—partner of Frank’s people in the moving picture business.

He sent to Georgia his personal attorney, Clarence Shearn (of Jerusalem), who happens to be—by the grace of Hearst—a member of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

When William Randolph Hearst whistled for his little Supreme Court Judge, Shearn should have begged permission to remind his master, that although he had responded to his master’s voice, it would not look well for one member of the Supreme Court of New York to invade a friendly State, review a decision of her Supreme Court, and overrule it—without notice to that august tribunal, and without allowing it to be heard in its own defense.

However, this is what Shearn actually did, as related proudly, by himself:

New York, June 10, 1915.

Dear Mr. Hearst:

I went to Atlanta, as requested by you, for the purpose of making a careful examination into the case of Leo Frank, from the impartial standpoint of a lawyer who previously knew nothing about the facts of the case. Supplementing my full oral report to you, I state herewith, for the purpose of future reference the result of my investigation.

In order to arrive at a conclusion based solely upon the evidence, and before discussing the case with any person, I read the printed record containing the evidence introduced upon Frank’s trial, and the argument to the jury made by State Solicitor Dorsey; I also read the State’s brief on appeal, so as to be fully apprised of everything that the State claimed to have established against Frank.

My deliberate judgment, based solely upon the record, and formed as a judge would reach a conclusion in passing upon it on appeal, is that not only did the prosecution fail to prove Frank to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but that, outside of the incredible and interested testimony of the suspected negro, Conley, an admitted accomplice, there is no legal evidence whatever in the case upon which even a reasonable hypothesis of Frank’s guilt may be based. The irresistible conclusion to be reached on the evidence in the record is not only that Frank is innocent, but that the negro is guilty.

After this examination of the record I interviewed and cross-examined Frank in the penitentiary for an hour or more. I then visited the factory where the crime was committed, and carefully examined all parts of the premises involved in the crime which were mentioned or referred to in the testimony. This resulted in confirming the conclusion that I had reached on reading the record.

Yours sincerely,

CLARENCE J. SHEARN.

It is safe to say that no State in the Union, and no independent kingdom in the world, was ever before subjected to such an indignity. It is on a small scale, but it is a gross indignity, nevertheless.

Austria demanded of Servia the right to send her judges to try the Servian assassin of the Archduke Ferdinand, and Servia’s refusal precipitated the European war. Arguing from example, Hearst and Shearn believe that Servia should have granted Austria’s demand!

Shearn’s opinion bears the same date as Hearst’s private appeal to Governor Slaton, which appeal was not published in Georgia at all, and was not given out in the North and West until June 23^rd, three days after the sentence was commuted. In that private appeal, Mr. Hearst says:

Frank was convicted on the testimony of the negro Conley. There were only two men that could have committed the murder, both of these men being in the building at the time of her death. Either Frank must have committed the murder or the negro must have committed the murder, so that the testimony of the negro, which inculpated Frank, exculpated himself.

Ought any man to be sent to his death on the testimony of a criminal, an ex-convict, a confessed accomplice, a proven perjurer, and one who would himself necessarily be convicted as the murderer, unless he could succeed in fastening the crime upon another?

Now, then, is there any other evidence in this case which would tend to convict Frank, any sufficient evidence of any kind or character to corroborate the statements of this criminal, this proven perjurer and this vitally interested negro?

I have made as careful study of the case as I can as a layman, and I am absolutely convinced that there is no such evidence, but my opinion as a layman on this point may not be of any special value.

However, I have at hand to sustain my opinion on this matter the opinion of one of the ablest lawyers and jurists in the State of New York.

This ablest, not only of lawyers, but of jurists, was the little man from Jerusalem—Clarence J. Shearn.

Now, as I have already shown you, the State, at the time of Conley’s confession, had no evidence on him, but did seem to have some on Newt Lee. And if Conley had not given away the joint guilt of himself and the Jew, the busy persons who forged the time slip and bloodied the old shirt, would have manufactured additional evidence against a perfectly innocent man.

The overshadowing fact in the case is coldly ignored by Shearn and Hearst, to wit—the fact that, if one of these two men—Frank and Conley—is guilty, the other is.

If Hearst and Slaton had not both believed Frank to be guilty, they would never have stultified themselves by coupling innocence with life-imprisonment. Innocence deserves a pardon. Either this man committed a crime which forfeits his neck, or he is entitled to go unpunished. There is no middle ground.

Mr. Hearst is many times a millionaire, and he publishes numerous papers and magazines; if the official record fails to demonstrate Frank’s guilt, Mr. Hearst would have published that record. To have done so, would have cost less money than to send Messrs. Brisbane and Shearn to Atlanta—and it would have looked better.

WHAT IS THE PARDONING POWER?

As every lawyer knows, our statutes, constitutional clauses, and rules of practice are built upon the broad foundation of the laws of England. Without a study of the jurisprudence of the Mother Country, we cannot understand the true origin, scope and purpose of our own legal system.

Let any member of the profession turn to his Blackstone, Book IV., Chapter XXXI., and refresh his memory as to the pardoning power.

All crimes in England were supposed to be committed against the King—who was assumed to be present, all the time, in his courts. The crime having been committed against the King, it was his royal prerogative to forgive it.

The King never re-tried a case! Such a thing was preposterous.

The King never set aside verdicts and overruled his judges. Such a thing was inconceivable.

Blackstone expressly says that it would be against all correct principles to allow the power of judging and of pardoning to vest in the same person.

Blackstone quotes the great legist, Montesquieu, who lays down the profoundly wise proposition, that if a magistrate exercised both the power to judge and to pardon, such a combination of separate powers “would tend to confound all ideas of right among the mass of the people; as they would find it difficult to tell whether a prisoner was discharged by his innocence, OR OBTAINED PARDON THROUGH FAVOR.”

Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries (Vol. I., Part II., par. 283), says, “Policy would sometimes require a remission of punishment for a crime certainly ascertained. The very notion of mercy implies the accuracy of the claims of justice.”

In none of the authorities can you find support for the idea that the Executive has power to retry, and to pardon, because, on this re-trial, he reaches a different conclusion from that reached by the jury, on the same evidence. For an Executive to exercise the functions of trial judge and traverse jury, is to confound all principles of separate powers, and to bring administrative anarchy upon the State.

Now, when the pardoning power was written into our Constitution, along with the explicit separation of the right to try (judicial) and the right to extend mercy (executive), such lawyers as Jenkins, Reese, Matthews, Pierce, and Toombs never dreamed that any sane man would contend that the pardoning power in Georgia took a new, radical, and chaotic departure from the Laws of England.

When the Constitution of 1877 gave the pardoning power to the Governor, it also put him upon notice that he must not exercise the power without a reason, which he must communicate to the Legislature.

The two constitutional clauses must be construed together; and when so construed, in the light of English law and practice, they mean, that the Governor’s reasons for executive clemency must be such as the Legislature will approve; and such as will show to the people that he did not act capriciously, did not arrogate to himself the right to set aside the verdict, and did not usurp the functions of a Supreme Court of review.

The prohibition of judicial powers to the Governor, meant, that the executive must act upon something which occurred after the courts got through with the case; or upon some mitigating circumstance which tempered justice and softened the punishment of the guilty.

The Constitution never meant that a Governor could say, “I have re-tried this case, and return a verdict of Not guilty.”

Nor did the Constitution ever mean, that the Governor should say—

“I have re-tried this case, and find a reasonable doubt.”

The Supreme Court has often said that; but no Governor ever said it, until Rosser’s partner got hold of one end of the Frank case.

HOW DID SLATON ACT IN OTHER CASES?

Consider how differently Governor Slaton acted in the case of Nick Wilburn, of Jones County, last year.

Nick Wilburn had grown up in the backwoods, was a mere common clodhopper, never went to Cornell College, and never had girls under him working for five dollars a week. The Devil, in the shape of a woman, tempted him to eat the forbidden fruit, and he did eat. His sin was a grievous one, and grievously he paid for it.

Governor Slaton refused to commute Wilburn’s sentence, and in declining to do so, said:

“Twenty-three grand jurors, twelve petit jurors, a judge of the Supreme Court, six judges of the Supreme Court, three Prison Commissioners, all under oath, have declared the guilt of Nick Wilburn, and that the extreme penalty of the law should be imposed.

“I am sworn to uphold the law, and enforce it. I sympathize with the family and friends of the defendant. It is a great pity that punishment cannot be limited to the offender.

“If I commuted the sentence in this case, it would be equivalent to repealing the section of the Code which provides for capital punishment. It is not in my province to make laws, but to enforce them.

“The responsibility for the verdict is not upon me, but the responsibility would rest upon me, if I interfered with the decrees of a judicial tribunal without good cause.”

What caused the change to come over the spirit of Slaton’s dream, between June, 1914, when poor Nick Wilburn swung, and June, 1915, when Leo Frank was slipped away from Atlanta in a Pullman Palace Car?

SLATON HANGED A GEORGIA BOY, AND BOASTS OF IT.

In the Chicago Daily Tribune, the fugitive ex-Governor of Georgia said, on July 10, 1915:

“They said I am afraid to allow a man to hang. This is untrue.

“I allowed a boy of only eighteen years to go to the gallows.”

The Georgia boy whose death on the scaffold is cited by Slaton as a proof of his courage, had never been in the habit of debauching $5-a-week work girls, nor had he ever been seen to commit the crime of Sodom, nor did he rape and murder a little girl who ought to have been at school.

Therefore, Mr. Hearst did not send Clarence Shearn to Atlanta, to reverse the Supreme Court of Georgia in that case. Doctors C.B. Wilmer and Jake White did not ascend the Throne of Grace in behalf of just a plain common, unromantic Georgia lad, who had killed a man.

It required all the peculiar horror, loathsomeness, and atrocity of the Leo Frank case, to arouse that morbid interest—that weird fascination exerted by the crimes and criminals that are abnormally hideous—to influence the sensational Hearst, to enthuse Mary Delaney Fisher, to capture the Doctors of Divinity, and to set idiots to signing petitions.

In that case, also, the older of the criminals, Jim Cantrell, had been hired by a wicked woman, and he fell into her toils. Bartow Cantrell was a 17-year-old boy. He was wholly under the influence of his elder brother, and he had probably always done as Jim bade him.

At any rate, he took part in the murder, not on his own initiative, and not for his own purposes, but at the instigation of Jim Cantrell and Mrs. Hawkins, the woman in the case.

The Cantrells were brought up in sordid surroundings, and discreditable conditions. In the midst of civilization, they were left untouched by the ennobling influences of Church and State. In the midst of Christianity, a Bible was never put in their hands, until both the Church and the State said to them, “Prepare to meet your God!”

THE LAW IN THE CANTRELL CASE.

In refusing to commute, in the Cantrell case, Slaton wrote:

Under my oath I must uphold the law. It is not my province to make laws, but to execute them. If the people do not believe in capital punishment, it is the duty of their representatives to repeal the law which provides for it.

The appeals that have been made for clemency by good men and women are the promptings of kind hearts and sympathetic natures. Oftentimes apparent severity is really philanthropy, and the enforcement of the law in this case may be the protection of many an honest fireside in Georgia, and may afford security to many an honest husband.

The majesty of the law must be vindicated, and those whose kindly impulses urge them now to request clemency will in their more thoughtful moments recognize the necessity for law enforcement as a protection to the civilization of our State.

For the reasons stated, I cannot interfere, unless at the same time I am willing to make the declaration that, while Governor, the law of capital punishment shall be repealed. This I am forbidden to do by my oath of office.

This July 30, 1914.

JOHN M. SLATON,

Governor.

SLATON, AND ANOTHER CASE OF “CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.”

In September, 1914, there was an effort to save the neck of an old Georgian, made by some people who had little money, and no organization, and no subsidized daily papers, no Doctors of Divinity, and no Hearst-Ochs-Pulitzer-Straus combine, and no champions among the snobs who are Slaton’s “best people.”

The old man was named Umphrey, and he was nothing but a tenant farmer. He was convicted, on purely circumstantial evidence, of having killed his landlord. He was sentenced to death; and there were a few generous Georgians, in and around Dalton, who took pity on the old man—upon whom a motherless daughter of thirteen years was dependent for a support.

But Slaton felt no pity; he devoted no anxious days and nights to the study of that case; he made no mysterious visits to New York while that case was pending; and he had nothing to say against circumstantial evidence, then.

His snobbish soul could see nothing to appeal to him in the case of a condemned man who would not look nicely in the parlor of a Peachtree palace, or in the elegant quarters of an Atlanta Locker Club.

In the Umphrey case, there were no unscrupulous lawyers so highly paid that they forged a letter of a dead Judge, to use it before a Governor who must have known it was forged.

Who cared for the old tenant?

He had no money; he had few friends, and these few had no more money than himself.

Hang him! Hang him on circumstantial evidence! Hang him, and leave his little girl to the cold mercies of the world—a world in which she can do what Mary Phagan did, work where Mary Phagan worked, and fall a victim to some rich employer’s lusts, as Mary did!

And they hanged him, nine months before Slaton repealed the law of capital punishment, abolished the jury system, obliterated two Supreme Courts, and rode into Fame on a pretended mistake of law, and a forged letter of Judge Roan.

When Slaton told the New Yorkers that he meant to retry Leo Frank, and when he kept his word to those millionaire New Yorkers by going through all the evidence, visiting the factory, experimenting with the elevator, and listening to the most elaborate arguments on the details of the record, he cut loose from the laws of England, cut loose from the established practice of centuries, cut loose from the Constitution he swore to support, cut loose from the anchorage of honor—and flung himself upon the shoreless Sea of Shame.

The maddening thing to the people of Georgia, is, not that one man’s life has been spared, but that Jew Money has done for a foul Sodomite and murderer, a thing that shatters all precedents, nullifies the highest law, sinks juries and courts into contempt, brings upon us a sickening consciousness that our public men and our newspapers are for sale, weakens the defenses of every poor man’s home, and adds to the perils that beset every poor man’s child.

Ah, it is a sad day for Georgia! At last we know that a poor man’s home, and a poor man’s child, counts for nothing when Big Money starts out to muzzle the papers, libel the State, invent a case which does not exist, hide the case that does exist, and defeat the Law as laid down by the greatest tribunal in the world.

Woe to the State, in which the poor man has just cause to ask—“Where is my protection? Where is the strong arm that should be my sword and shield?

“Where can I put my child to work, and feel that she is safe?

What has become of my rights, my safeguards, my dependence upon Justice?”

Woe to the State! when the poor man has just cause to say—

“I am nothing! They only show me consideration when they want my vote, and when they put a gun in my hand to fight out the rich man’s quarrel.

“I am nothing! The laws they make are against me. The burden of life is all mine, and none of the ease and enjoyment.

“I am nothing! If my boy—my boy whom the State neglected—commits a crime, he swings for it; but if some rich man’s son lusts after my daughter, lays in wait for her, leads her into a trap, assaults her, and kills her—I am asked to respect the Law, while the Law is hiring automobiles and parlor cars to take her vile destroyer into a fake imprisonment!”

GOVERNOR SLATON HAS A CLANDESTINE MIDNIGHT CONFERENCE WITH HIS PARTNER ROSSER!

It was generally believed that the Frankites had won over two members of the Prison Commission. When it became known that R.E. Davison had disappointed them, and that Paterson alone had voted for commutation, the Frankites were uneasy. They had failed in every court, had failed before the Commission, and were left with a Governor who was known to be a most uncertain quantity. It became an urgent necessity for some strong Frankite to see Slaton at once, and brace him up.

Rosser to the rescue!

The case was on its last legs, and between New York and Atlanta rich Jews wailed lamentably, during the few hours before Rosser got hold of his tricky partner. These two noble men loved the darkness at that time, for reasons that have always been considered sufficient. So, the noble Rosser went up a back street in his automobile, late at night, stopped it a block or two away from the Governor’s; and footed it through the alley, like an impecunious person who desired to purloin the portable property of an unsuspecting fellow creature.

Rosser went into the home of Slaton, and remained for hours, and until after midnight.

What Rosser said to Slaton in this clandestine meeting, will never be known; but it was noticed that next day the lamentations of the Jews were replaced by sly grins, and offers to bet ten to one that Slaton would commute!

Read the following, not as evidence of Frank’s guilt, or as proof of Slaton’s hypocrisy and perfidy, but as a side-light on events in Atlanta:

Atlanta, June 22.

Mr. Tom Watson:

What I tell you I know to be true as God is light, and it is this: The Jews all gathered at the home of the Seligs, on Washington Street, where Frank’s wife and father-in-law live, and from 8 till 12 o’clock, they had a regular old-time Belshazzar feast. They drank wine, high balls, whiskey and beer, and smoked and sang, and had music; and there were not less than a hundred and twenty automobiles full of Jews that came there from the time I say to the late hour.

Now, they all knew Slaton had commuted Frank, and were celebrating it.

And I know a policeman who was on the streets yesterday, to make out like controlling the mob, and he told me he passed the jail every night at 12 ‘clock for a year, and going on duty, and never saw a light in the office of the Sheriff till Saturday night, and he was surprised to see the Sheriff sitting there like he was waiting for somebody, and suddenly a Jew came running up and tapped on the window, and the Sheriff raised the window and the Jew whispered to him, and the Sheriff smiled, and then the Jew ran off and the Sheriff closed the window. Now, that showed conspiracy, and that Slaton was working with the Jews all the time.

In other words, the Jews knew—some on Friday, and some on Saturday—that Slaton had commuted the sentence.

Defending his action, Slaton published an article said to contain 15,000 words, nearly half of them devoted to an attack on Conley, and the other half to misrepresenting the official testimony of the white witnesses. He pretended not to have reached a decision in the case until 3 o’clock Sunday morning. It was said that he signed the commutation a minute after the midnight of Sunday.

When it became known that the Governor had actually re-tried the case, on the same old evidence that had been so often, and so thoroughly threshed out in the courts, the State seethed with indignation.

It was felt that Slaton had usurped an authority not vested in him by the Constitution, and that he had established the principle of, One law for the Rich, and another for the Poor.

In the Wilburn case, he laid down the law correctly; in the Cantrell case, while he was hard as adamant, he was right as to the rigorous letter of the law; in the Frank case he reversed himself at the same time that he reversed all the Courts. Why the difference? There is but one answer: in the cases of Wilburn, Cantrell, and Umphrey, he was not of counsel for the accused, AND, IN THE FRANK CASE, HE WAS.

Leo Frank is now at the State Farm, an honored guest of the managers, awaiting his triumphant release from even the politely formal fetters of the Law.

His little victim, whose upraised hands—fixed by the rigor mortis—proved that she had died fighting for her virtue, lies in Georgia’s soil, amid a grief-stricken, and mortified people—a people bowed down by the unutterable humiliation of having been sold out to Jew money.

On the heights from which the immortals look into the lives of human beings, how vast must seem the moral distance between the little girl, who died, rather than soil the purity that God gave her, and the Governor, who brought this eternal disgrace upon himself and our State!

A child died a heroine’s death, and sleeps in a heroine’s grave; the man is pilloried in eternal infamy.

We gave him a clean commission; and he returned it to us, covered with filth.

The Constitution which he swore to respect, he trampled into the mud.

The great Seal of State went, LIKE A THIEF IN THE NIGHT, to do for an unscrupulous law firm, a deed of darkness which dared not face the sun.

We have been betrayed! The breath of some leprous monster has passed over us, and we feel like crying out, in horror and despair,

“Unclean! UNCLEAN!”

When John M. Slaton tosses on a sleepless bed, in the years to come, he will see a vivid picture of that little Georgia girl, decoyed to the metal room by this satyr-faced Jew; he will see her little hands put out, to keep off the lustful beast; he will hear her cry of sudden terror; he will see her face purpling as the cruel cord chokes her to death—and John M. Slaton will walk the floor, a wretched, conscience-smitten man, AND HE WILL SWEAT BLOOD!

Many, many years ago, there was a sermon preached at Thomson, by a man whose life was as pure as crystal, and who, now and then, was lifted into a simple eloquence that moved all who listened. John M. White was his name—peace to his soul, for he is dead, and I loved him well.

He was speaking of Duty, of the higher path, and the old land-marks; of the honor that a man should guard, as a woman guards her virtue.

He told of the little ermine of the far North, the tiny creature of the snows, the unsullied Diana of the silent woods, so true to its instinct for purity, so loyal to the white drapery that God had put upon it—that the hunters, seeking its life for its priceless fur, smeared filth around the burrow where the dainty thing lived; and how this little dumb brute, shrinking from a vile contact which would soil its spotless covering, fell into the hands of its enemies—preferring death to contamination.

Are the old lessons lifeless? Are the old glories gone? Are there no feet that tread the old paths?

Once, there were men in Georgia—men who were afraid of nothing, save to do wrong; men who sprang to arms, and went to death, on a bare question of principle; men who would no more lie than they would steal; men who flamed into passionate indignation when a legislature was believed to have disgraced the State; men who caught the fire from the heavens to burn a law which outraged Georgia’s sense of honor and justice.

The sons of these men carried the Grey lines, and the tattered Stars and Bars farthest up the heights of Gettysburg; met the first shock of battle at Manassas; led the last charge at Appomattox.

And the songs of these Georgians are today bowed down with unspeakable grief—for they feel that our grand old Empire State HAS BEEN RAPED!

Like the Roman wife of old, we feel that something foul, something unutterably loathsome has crept to bed with us, and polluted us during the night; and that, while the morning has come, it can never restore our self-respect.

We have been violated, AND WE ARE ASHAMED!

Note: Wm. J. Burns has stated that he was employed by the State of Georgia, worked on the case a week, and reported that there was no evidence against Leo Frank.

Burns was never connected with the case at all, until after our Supreme Court had carefully reviewed the evidence against Frank, and declared it amply sufficient to show his guilt.

Burns was never employed in any capacity by the State of Georgia.

Second: Governor Slaton has told it all over the North and West, that Judge Roan requested a commutation of Frank’s sentence.

This statement is false. Judge Roan continued to say, notably to his pastor and his daughter, that the evidence unquestionably demonstrated Frank’s guilt; and not until Judge Roan had been dead more than two months, was a forged letter presented, which stultified Judge Roan’s record, and contradicted his judicial declarations, of record in this case.

THE END.

Centennial References:

The Celebrated Case of The State of Georgia vs. Leo Frank by Tom E. Watson, August 1915
http://theamericanmercury.org/2014/03/tom-watson-the-celebrated-case-of-the-state-of-georgia-vs-leo-frank/

Free American: 100th Anniversary of the Murder of Mary Phagan and Lynching of Leo Frank by Clayton R. Douglas on August 17, 2015

2015 Centennial of Leo Frank’s Lynching – John de Nugent’s provocative video about Mary Phagan and modern child abusers:
https://trutube.tv/video/31631/KILL-THEM-ALL-VIP-child-molesters-Arrest-Try-Sentence-and-Hang

2013 Centennial of Mary Phagan’s Murder – The Leo Frank Research Library promo-video published on TruTube.TV by John de Nugent.

Please Read: (Please refresh the page if it appears to not load correctly)

1. Video-Promo: Script for John de Nugent’s Promo-Video About the Murder of Mary Phagan and Lynching of Leo Frank
http://johndenugent.us/glory-to-mary-phagan-and-the-white-men-who-avenged-her-2/script-for-glory-to-mary-phagan-video

2. Part One: Glory to Mary Phagan and the White Men Who Avenged Her Honor
http://johndenugent.us/glory-to-mary-phagan-and-the-white-men-who-avenged-her-2

3. Part Two: Conclusion of Glory to Mary Phagan and the White Men Who Avenged Her Honor
http://johndenugent.us/glory-to-mary-phagan-and-the-white-men-who-avenged-her-2/glory-to-mary-phagan-and-the-white-men-who-avenged-her-conclusion

4. Audiobook: 2015 Centennial Reboot of Jeffersonian Publishing Company’s ‘Watson’s Magazine, January, 1915, The Leo Frank Case’ Edited by John de Nugent
http://johndenugent.us/english/100-years-ago-tom-watson-blasted-leo-frank-hebrew-homeys

5. The Jewish Daily Forward Article Analysis: John de Nugent’s Response to the Editorial of The Jewish Daily Forward by Paul Berger
http://johndenugent.us/glory-to-mary-phagan-and-the-white-men-who-avenged-her-2/forward-com-editorial-of-august-21-2013

6. Open Letter to Paul Berger of The Jewish Daily Forward: Open Letter from John de Nugent to Paul Berger of The Jewish Daily Forward
http://johndenugent.us/glory-to-mary-phagan-and-the-white-men-who-avenged-her-2/script-for-glory-to-mary-phagan-vi6eo/open-letter-to-paul-berger-of-the-forward

If any of these articles listed above do not load correctly, please refresh (reload them).

More information: http://www.JohndeNugent.com

by Kevin Alfred Strom

2015 IS THE YEAR of Jewish failure to contain and control the Leo Frank narrative, a narrative they very much want to control in this, the 100th year after Frank’s death. For in the case of Leo Frank we find century-old confirmation of a pattern — a pattern of Jewish sexual license, Jewish racial solidarity even in the case of a Jewish murderer, Jewish corruption of American law and government via money and via media control, and unrelenting use of that media control to distort our history and pervert the truth.

Next month is the 100th anniversary of the carrying out of the sentence of death by hanging imposed by the courts on the Jewish sex killer Leo Max Frank by a group of prominent Georgia men who were outraged by the commutation of his sentence by a corrupt governor, and last month was the 100th anniversary of that commutation. That Governor’s name, which will live forever as an example of subservience to Jewish power and Jewish propaganda, was John Marshall Slaton (pictured above).

Here’s what happened:

In 1913, the Atlanta president of the Jewish B’nai B’rith, sweatshop operator Leo M. Frank, was convicted of strangling to death a 13-year-old White girl in his employ — Mary Phagan — after sexually assaulting her while they were alone on the second floor of the National Pencil Company, of which Frank was the superintendent and part-owner. Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism, networking, and financial and press power came into play almost immediately after Frank’s arrest and indictment.

The case became a national cause celebre for the Jews, with headlines in major newspapers from San Francisco to New York City trumpeting Frank’s “innocence” and the barbarity of the White Southerners who dared to convict him. Fat-headed Whites who believed the fictional newspaper stories of the “persecuted” member of “God’s Chosen” were recruited to help in the crusade, and the equivalent of many millions of dollars was raised in his defense.

With this Jewish money, Frank hired the finest and most expensive team of lawyers ever seen in the state of Georgia, yet he was still held by the Coroner’s Jury — still charged by the Grand Jury — and still convicted at trial. He hired another expensive legal team — and then another, even including the leading Jewish lawyers in the USA — and appealed his conviction to the Georgia Court of Appeals and then to the Supreme Court of the United States. In every case, his conviction was upheld.

With this Jewish money, other things were procured as well: Someone planted a bloody shirt at the home of the factory’s Black night watchman, Newt Lee, at a time when both Lee and Frank were suspects in the killing. Someone paid a long list of witnesses to leave town or change their stories in ways that favored Frank. Someone paid an unscrupulous attorney named Felder to fraudulently present himself as working for the Phagan family and attempt to illegally obtain evidence and documents in the possession of the police. Someone paid a Pinkerton detective named W.D. McWorth — and the Pinkertons were openly in the pay of Frank and the other Jewish owners of the pencil factory — to “discover” a bloody club and what was said to be part of Mary Phagan’s pay envelope near the ground floor elevator where the factory’s Black sweeper, Jim Conley, was keeping watch for Leo Frank that day — but the fake was discovered and McWorth dismissed. Someone paid the Pinkertons’ great rivals — the infamous Burns detective agency — to take over when the Pinkertons refused to “cooperate” as the Jews had hoped, and in particular refused to withhold evidence from the police until Leo Frank’s attorneys had had a look at it.

And, in 1915, when all the appeals had failed and the integrity of the jury’s verdict that Leo Frank was guilty and that Leo Frank should hang had been upheld by every jury, every judge, and every court with jurisdiction over the case, there was only one place left for the Jews to try: the outgoing Governor of Georgia, John Slaton. In addition to their glittering wealth and generous largesse, the pro-Frank forces had another ace up their sleeve with John M. Slaton: He was a leading partner in the partly-Jewish law firm that defended Frank and had been so for many months. Even though he could not practice law while governor during his term of two years, for some reason or other the law firm that was defending Frank — and which doubtless was receiving a huge portion of the money raised in Frank’s defense and would receive even more as “bonuses” for each desired outcome attained — sought out Governor Slaton as a partner.

With Leo Frank’s execution date imminent and all appeals exhausted, and with Governor Slaton leaving office in just days to be replaced by a man without such connections, the time was now or never. One would think that an ethical governor would have nothing to do with, and would not even consider, interfering in the case of a man who was a client of his own law firm, especially when the issue could be handled by the incoming governor, who had no conflict of interest, and who would be in office in less than a week. You would think that a rational governor would know that his political career — and Slaton very much wanted to be become United States Senator from Georgia — would be over for life if he committed such an ethical lapse. It would take some kind of overwhelming consideration for a man in Slaton’s position to interfere in the Frank case. But interfere he did.

On June 21, giving a patently specious string of reasons, he commuted the death sentence of Leo Frank to life in prison. He said his conscience impelled him and that he could not live with himself if there was even the possibility that he would have the blood of an innocent man on his hands. That, if true — though it hardly sounds like the reasoning process of the same man who blithely ignored the commutation requests of several non-Jews while in office — would truly constitute an overwhelming consideration. But you will forgive me when I tell you that the evidence suggests an overwhelming “consideration” of a quite different kind.

Attorney Luther Z. Rosser, lead counsel for Leo Frank, who had argued his case before the jury, paid a very interesting visit to the home of his law partner Governor Slaton just before the commutation decision was made. For reasons which might not seem too obscure, he arrived late at night. For the same reasons, he approached the mansion by a back street, parked several blocks away, and entered the grounds on foot via a dark alley. He did not leave until well after midnight.

I quote from Watson’s The Celebrated Case of Leo Frank:

What Rosser said to Slaton in this clandestine meeting, will never be known; but it was noticed that next day the lamentations of the Jews were replaced by sly grins, and offers to bet ten to one that Slaton would commute!

Read the following, not as evidence of Frank’s guilt, or as proof of Slaton’s hypocrisy and perfidy, but as a side-light on events in Atlanta:

Atlanta, June 22.

Mr. Tom Watson:

What I tell you I know to be true as God is light, and it is this: The Jews all gathered at the home of the Seligs, on Washington Street, where Frank’s wife and father-in-law live, and from 8 till 12 o’clock, they had a regular old-time Belshazzar feast. They drank wine, high balls, whiskey and beer, and smoked and sang, and had music; and there were not less than a hundred and twenty automobiles full of Jews that came there from the time I say to the late hour.

Now, they all knew Slaton had commuted Frank, and were celebrating it.

And I know a policeman who was on the streets yesterday, to make out like controlling the mob, and he told me he passed the jail every night at 12 o’clock for a year, and going on duty, and never saw a light in the office of the Sheriff till Saturday night, and he was surprised to see the Sheriff sitting there like he was waiting for somebody, and suddenly a Jew came running up and tapped on the window, and the Sheriff raised the window and the Jew whispered to him, and the Sheriff smiled, and then the Jew ran off and the Sheriff closed the window. Now, that showed conspiracy, and that Slaton was working with the Jews all the time.

In other words, the Jews knew — some on Friday, and some on Saturday — that Slaton had commuted the sentence.

John Slaton did not announce his commutation order until Sunday.

After you hear my words and read the sources I have provided on the Frank case, I invite you to  watch the NBC television program about John M. Slaton, from their 1964 series Profiles in Courage. I’ll embed the video from that program so you can watch it right here on nationalvanguard.org:

After watching that production, do you recognize John Slaton? — do you recognize the Leo Frank sex killing case? — do you recognize the people of Georgia? No. You cannot. The program — like almost all Establishment works on the Leo Frank case — is a vicious, poisonous cocktail of lies designed to obscure the truth, exonerate and even ennoble a murderer, make the odious and the sleazy into “heroes,” and demonize the real heroes — real heroes like Tom Watson.

Thomas E. Watson’s contemporary series of exposés on the corruption and mendacity of the Leo Frank machine is one of the classics of American muckraking. Watson was an intelligent, cultured, and literate man, author of highly-regarded biographies of Jackson and Jefferson and a history of France. In the NBC episode, he is played by a sweaty, greasy-looking Hollywood “heavy” Michael Constantine, who, as Watson, openly admits his corruption and talks in “cracker” dialect, wearing a heavily rumpled suit without a tie, putting his feet up on Slaton’s desk, and wiping his dripping nose on his sleeve. We get it, Mr. Director, we get it. No such meeting between Watson and Slaton ever took place.

The program is anything but subtle. In the opening scene, another sweaty White man, with a crazed look on his face and a very bad set of teeth, stands on the courthouse roof and screams for the head of Leo Frank to a torch-lit crowd of Whites while the Frank verdict is about to be read. No such rally ever took place — it is an invention of the filmmakers.

Inside the courthouse, Judge Roan, the presiding judge in the case, mutters to an associate that “Frank’s innocence has been proven to a mathematical certainty” — something that he never said.

The noble Slaton is played by Jewish actor Walter Matthau, who is portrayed as a deeply moral man of principle throughout. The screen Watson admits to the screen Slaton that Watson’s newspaper, the Jeffersonian, is “written for the great unwashed,” and that “you bathe too much.”

Almost unbelievably, the program asserts that the Black night watchman and early suspect, Newt Lee, was in the pencil factory building when the murder was committed — and that the factory sweeper Jim Conley, another Black man falsely accused by the pro-Frank forces, confessed to the murder to his own attorney. Needless to say, none of this ever happened.

Jewish screenwriter Don Mankiewicz was the author of this bundle of lies. It was made by Saudek Associates, and aired on Robert Sarnoff’s Jewish-owned NBC. The executive in charge of production was the Jew Bernie Weinraub.

The producers of this program were so sloppy — and so contemptuous of their viewers, who they evidently think will believe even the crudest and most obvious lies — that they even get Leo Max Frank’s name wrong, calling him “Leo A. Frank.”

Thus is history rewritten by liars. Thus is the public fooled into hating those who try to save them, and worshipping those, like John M. Slaton, who have sold them out.

It is satisfying to reflect upon the fact that John M. Slaton, quite contrary to the liars at NBC, was so reviled for his act of evil that he had to flee the state. He did not return to stay for nearly a decade. Tom Watson was elected to the Senate seat that Slaton had coveted, and it was only recently that the Jews were able to force the great writer and statesman’s statue to be removed from the state capitol.

I’ll speak again about the Leo Frank case in three weeks, on the centenary of that moment in US and Georgia history when the leading citizens of that state re-took control of the legal and judicial process and carried out the sentence of the court — the sentence of the judge — and the sentence of the people — on Jewish sex killer Leo Max Frank.

* * *

Source: National Vanguard Radio, American Dissident Voices, July 25, 2015.

[Editor’s Note: Over one hundred years of relentless media demoralization efforts, anti-Southern deracination, “us verses them” agitation, and wildly over-the-top anti-Gentilism by the hyper-ethnocentric and well-organized Jewish community against African-American and European-Americans continues unabated with this latest disgusting outrage: the centennial clemency decision honoring with a prominent sign-post historical marker erected for the 60th Governor of Georgia John Marshall Slaton (1866-1955) on June 17, 2015, for his June 21, 1915 commutation of Leo Frank’s June 22, 1915 scheduled capital punishment by way of hanging. After 20 months of appeals by the leading attorneys of our nation to every level of the United States legal system, on April 19th 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States voted unanimously against Leo Frank, rendering its last and final decision upon the case. With all of his state and federal appeals fully exhausted, Leo Frank submitted a request to the prison paroles committee to recommend gubernatorial clemency for his death sentence to life in prison, but it was rejected. Leo Frank’s last hope was his lead trial attorney’s law partner the outgoing Governor John M. Slaton, who was slated to complete his term of office in the last week of June.

Jewish activists and their fellow travelers rarely mention that after Atlanta B’nai B’rith president Leo Max Frank was arrested (Tuesday morning, April 29, 1913, at 11:30 a.m.) as the prime suspect for the rape-strangulation-mutilation of Mary Phagan (a thirteen-year-old working class christian girl who worked at the National Pencil Company) the Governor-Elect John M. Slaton and his law partner Jewish-American Benjamin Z. Phillips (of the well-known Slaton and Phillips legal team) merged with Luther Zeigler Rosser’s law firm, ‘Rosser and Brandon’ (Jewish-American attorney Morris Brandon). Together they formed Georgia’s supreme juggernaut law group of Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips on May 1st 1913.

Luther Rosser received an unheard-of $15,000 retainer to represent Leo Frank and defend him at his summer murder trial. $40,000 more from New York City and Chicago was raised for Leo Frank’s defense before his trial began – a gargantuan sum by 1913 standards for a murder case. During Leo Frank’s incarceration at Atlanta’s “Tower” — the city jail — a legal defense fund set up by Herbert Haas (another trial attorney representing Leo Frank) on his behalf. The Leo Frank defense fund eventually raised more than $250,000 for his conviction appeals, an astronomical sum of money in the early twentieth century for any kind of legal case.

Atlanta’s ultra-reform Rabbi Dr. David Marx, clandestinely went beyond the state borders of Georgia to arrange meetings of imploration with Jewish activist leadership of New York and Chicago, for the apparent intention of seeking a broader coalition on behalf of Leo Frank. The efforts of Rabbi Marx ignited a conflagration of solidarity amongst Jewry that would incite the whole nation, Jew and Gentile, in righteous indignation.   When two of the most prominent Jewish American media moguls embraced the case as a personal crusade (advertising magnate Albert Lasker and Adolph Ochs owner of the New York times) the affair that had began as an embarrassing local scandal, was artificially engineered to go viral through widespread nationwide newspaper circulation pathways and radio transmissions. The big lie strategy was employed then as it is now, that if Leo Frank’s supposed “wrongful conviction” was repeated by enough people with academic credentials, newspaper columnists, magazine journalists, book authors and radio announcers, then the masses would eventually believe it as indisputable fact. The Leo Frank case transmogrified into an ugly Jewish-American media war against White Gentile Southerners that ensued with stop-at-nothing vicious attacks and biased reports against the people of Georgia (an onslaught that sadly persists to this day more than a century later with the greatest ferocity). The Leo Frank case has become by defacto a mandatory study subject for future generations of Gentiles because it continues to be a major source of Jewish activist agitation by their civil rights groups, historical organizations and media outlets. Thus by force of Jewry’s transmogrification of this pivotal event in American legal history into an anti-Gentile morality tale, and after a century of indefatigable employment of the Big-Lie strategy in the academy and mainstream media, the case of Leo Frank has become one of the many epicenters of the Jewish culture war against Western Civilization.

Dishonor Celebrated June 2015: June 21, 1915, will forever live in United States legal history as a day of infamy, because when else in the annals of American State jurisprudence has a Governor commuted the death sentence of his own law firm’s client to life in prison after every state and federal court ruled against the convict in question? In this unique example, Leo Frank was convicted of murder and his jury unanimously recommended a punishment of “without mercy” (death by hanging) to the presiding judge Leonard Strickland Roan.  If Judge Roan had any doubts about Leo Frank’s guilt, he could have sentenced him to life in prison or given him a new trial if that would serve the cause of justice. Judge Roan turned down Leo Frank’s petition for a new trial on 107 grounds – that’s not a typo!

It was Slaton’s commutation of Leo Frank’s death sentence to life in prison, which specifically inflamed the people of Georgia and directly lead to Frank’s lynching, not anti-Semitism (If anti-Semitism was the reason Leo Frank was hanged, there were thousands of other Jews in the state of Georgia that would have been much easier targets).  In direct retaliation to this obvious political treachery, 1,200 people protested outside the governor’s mansion and the national guard had to be called to save Slaton from vigilante justice.  Looking back at all the treatments and retellings of this epic saga, 20th and 21st century Frankites (pro Leo Frank activists) rarely discuss Governor Slaton’s betrayal of the Constitution and grotesque conflict of interest involving his wealthy law firm (Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips), especially about the fact that it was the impetus for Leo Frank being abducted and hanging less than two months later on August 17, 1915 at former Sheriff William J. Frey’s farm by some of the leading men of Georgia. The claim that Leo Frank was convicted and hanged because of anti-Semitism is an anti-Gentile, century-old racist hatecrime hoax still perpetuated in the Jewish controlled media today with unyielding bigoted ferocity by Jewish activists and their sycophantic allies.

More than one hundred years later, we continue to pursue justice for Mary Phagan.

We demand the posthumous pardon of Leo Frank be revoked or nullified, whatever it takes, for this centenary racist Jewish mockery to be terminated forever. This is Jewish culture war is not over, and if it requires one hundred years of agitation and activism to get this illegal posthumous pardon overturned, then so be it! Until then, this case is not closed, but re-open. We are calling on the people of Georgia, of every county, to get involved in local politics, work your way up from the ground-up, get a law degree and run for office at the beginning or basic levels of politics to get the experience and build trust needed to climb to higher levels. Every generation we must work towards putting Jew-wise people in every position of political office and power from top to bottom. We must not only un-pardon Leo Frank, but keep that as the status quo for every decade and generation to come.

Jewish Controlled Hollywood 

Dear reader we have embedded the 1964 anti-Gentile propaganda film created by Jewish Hollywood activists called, “Profiles in Courage: John M. Slaton,” for your review 50 years later!

See the Vicious Hatred Against Anti-Gentilism by Hollywood released to the public with ‘Profiles in Courage, John Slaton’ 1964:

Also purchase the murder of little Mary Phagan two part made-for-tv miniseries on Amazon.com or ebay.com (don’t buy new, get a used copy, because they are available through interlibrary loan for free) to see how Hollywood again in 1988 defame, slander and smear Southern Gentiles with a disgusting mockery of legal history. Also read Matthew Bernstein’s Screening a Lynching, (don’t buy new, get a used copy, because they are available through interlibrary loan for free)

Below is an article about the June 2015 honoring of the corrupt politician John M. Slaton. Please read the 1,800-page Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court records to learn more about Slaton’s criminal activity in the Frank-Phagan affair, it will blow your mind! No one has articulated the Leo Frank appeals record from 1913-1915 that have finally been released to the public and are available online at www.LeoFrank.org The Leo Frank Research Library and www.Archive.org The Internet Achive. End of editor’s notes.]

A Lesson for Judges in Memory of the Governor Who Granted Clemency to Leo Frank

Katheryn Hayes Tucker, Daily Report

June 18, 2015

A crowd that included a Georgia Supreme Court justice, an assistant attorney general, a superior court judge and a former governor gathered in the sunshine and 92-degree heat Wednesday to commemorate a plaque at the Atlanta History Center.

It wasn’t so much the simple black-and-white sign that brought them there but the memory of John Marshall Slaton, the lawyer-governor who sacrificed his political career 100 years ago to grant clemency to Leo Frank, widely believed to be wrongly convicted of murder because of anti-Semitism. Slaton commuted Frank’s death sentence to life in prison. But that wasn’t the end of the story.

As Georgia Supreme Court Justice David Nahmias put it in his remarks to the gathering, “In the final blot that the case placed on the history of our state, a mob kidnapped Leo Frank, drove him to Marietta, and lynched him.”

Nahmias continued, “It is altogether right that we still celebrate what Governor Slaton did, because we need to remember those who stood tall in defense of the rule of law, to inspire all of us who need to stand tall when the rule of law is again threatened, as it is in one way or another almost every day. We need to fight for equal justice under the law, even if we do not immediately prevail.

“Governor Slaton is, and should be, a particular inspiration to people like me—judges on the courts of Georgia and on the federal courts—the kind of judges who were unable to protect Leo Frank from the unjust ending that the mob demanded.”

Other speakers included former Gov. Roy Barnes, Cobb County Superior Court Chief Judge Steve Schuster, Assistant Attorney General of Georgia Van Pearlberg and Jerry Klinger, president of the Jewish American Society for Historic Preservation. The Georgia Historical Society also supported the project.

The marker stands beside the sidewalk on Slaton Drive near the former governor’s home and between the history center’s Veterans Park on West Paces Ferry Road and the historic Swan House. The inscription includes the governor’s name and lifespan, 1866-1955, followed by this note:

“John Marshall Slaton was born in Meriwether County and graduated from the University of Georgia before practicing law in Atlanta. Slaton served in both houses of the Georgia legislature and two terms as governor (1911-12 and 1913-15). While in office, he modernized Georgia’s tax system and roads. Concerned by the sensationalized atmosphere and circumstantial evidence that led to the notorious 1913 conviction of Jewish businessman Leo Frank in the murder of teenager Mary Phagan, Slaton granted Frank clemency in June 1915. Slaton’s commutation of Frank’s death sentence drew national attention but hostile local backlash resulted in Frank’s lynching in August 1915 and the end of Slaton’s political career. Slaton lived on property adjacent to today’s Atlanta History Center and Slaton Drive (named in his honor). He is buried in Oakland Cemetery.”

References

The 29-page Leo Frank commutation by Governor John M. Slaton http://www.leofrank.org/images/governor-john-slaton-commutation-june-21-1915/

http://www.dailyreportonline.com/

http://atlantajewishtimes.com/2015/04/governor-in-leo-frank-case-to-be-honored/

Jewish Spin and Antigentilism: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=7937575

http://www.jta.org/2015/06/17/news-opinion/united-states/auto-draft-106

http://jewishva.org/node/102831

http://georgiahistory.com/georgia-historical-society-to-dedicate-historical-marker-to-governor-john-marshall-slaton/

Temple Kol Emeth, Rabbi Steven Lebow’s ugly lies: http://www.mdjonline.com/view/full_story/26684769/article-John-Slaton—A-Georgia-profile-in-courage

Profiles in Courage: John Slaton (1964): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0679734/mediaindex

Tribute Announced for Governor Who Commuted Leo Frank’s Death Sentence http://www.dailyreportonline.com/id=1202729308620/Tribute-Announced-for-Governor-Who-Commuted-Leo-Franks-Death-Sentence?slreturn=20150523163106

Further Reading About John Slaton’s Obvious Conflict of Interest:

1. The Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean (1989) New Horizon Press, NJ. pages 287 to 290.

2. The Case of Leo Frank and its Aftermath by Tom Watson Brown, Published at Emory University 1982., page 33.

3. ‘The Frank Case’ by Leonard Dinnerstein page 124 “Some viewed the commutation by [Governor John] Slaton a conflict of interest as Slaton was a law partner of Frank’s lead defense counsel [Luther Rosser].” (the law firm Dinnerstein is referring to is ‘Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips’).

4. The Marietta Daily Journal, Friday, January 20, 1984, Jasper Dorsey “Frank was vigorously defended by eminent counsel, one [Luther Rosser] of whom was a former law partner of the veteran trial judge [Leonard Strickland Roan]. Governor John Slaton who ultimately commuted Frank’s sentence to life, was a law partner of one [of Leo M. Frank’s] defense attorney [Luther Rosser].”

5. Augusta Chronicle-Herald, May 15, 1983, statement by Justice Randall Evans Jr. (see: The Murder of Little Mary Phagan pages 287 to 290)

6. Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court records containing the Leo Frank trial brief of evidence, 1913-14. This record indicates Governor John M. Slaton was committing subordination of perjury at his law office.

7. Steve Oney has said concerning Governor John Slaton’s commutation of his own law firm’s client, Leo Frank “there was a clear and troubling appearance of a conflict of interest”. Governor Slaton was a law partner of Rosser, Frank’s lead defense counsel. (from wikipedia)

Must watch, to see how the Prosecutor Hugh M. Dorsey and Governor John M. Slaton are portrayed by disgusting Hollywood:

The Murder of Little Mary Phagan two Part miniseries NBC 1988. Available on Amazon.com

[Editor’s Note: Over one hundred years of relentless media demoralization efforts, anti-Southern deracination, “us verses them” agitation, and wildly over-the-top anti-Gentilism by the hyper-ethnocentric and well-organized Jewish community against African-American and European-Americans continues unabated with this latest disgusting outrage: the centennial clemency decision honoring with a prominent sign-post historical marker erected for the 60th Governor of Georgia John Marshall Slaton (1866-1955) on June 17, 2015, for his June 21, 1915 commutation of Leo Frank’s June 22, 1915 scheduled capital punishment by way of hanging. After 20 months of appeals by the leading attorneys of our nation to every level of the United States legal system, on April 19th 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States voted unanimously against Leo Frank, rendering its last and final decision upon the case. With all of his state and federal appeals fully exhausted, Leo Frank submitted a request to the prison paroles committee to recommend gubernatorial clemency for his death sentence to life in prison, but it was rejected. Leo Frank’s last hope was his lead trial attorney’s law partner the outgoing Governor John M. Slaton, who was slated to complete his term of office in the last week of June.

Jewish activists and their fellow travelers rarely mention that after Atlanta B’nai B’rith president Leo Max Frank was arrested (Tuesday morning, April 29, 1913, at 11:30 a.m.) as the prime suspect for the rape-strangulation-mutilation of Mary Phagan (a thirteen-year-old working class christian girl who worked at the National Pencil Company) the Governor-Elect John M. Slaton and his law partner Jewish-American Benjamin Z. Phillips (of the well-known Slaton and Phillips legal team) merged with Luther Zeigler Rosser’s law firm, ‘Rosser and Brandon’ (Jewish-American attorney Morris Brandon). Together they formed Georgia’s supreme juggernaut law group of Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips on May 1st 1913.

Luther Rosser received an unheard-of $15,000 retainer to represent Leo Frank and defend him at his summer murder trial. $40,000 more from New York City and Chicago was raised for Leo Frank’s defense before his trial began – a gargantuan sum by 1913 standards for a murder case. During Leo Frank’s incarceration at Atlanta’s “Tower” — the city jail — a legal defense fund set up by Herbert Haas (another trial attorney representing Leo Frank) on his behalf. The Leo Frank defense fund eventually raised more than $250,000 for his conviction appeals, an astronomical sum of money in the early twentieth century for any kind of legal case.

Atlanta’s ultra-reform Rabbi Dr. David Marx, clandestinely went beyond the state borders of Georgia to arrange meetings of imploration with Jewish activist leadership of New York and Chicago, for the apparent intention of seeking a broader coalition on behalf of Leo Frank. The efforts of Rabbi Marx ignited a conflagration of solidarity amongst Jewry that would incite the whole nation, Jew and Gentile, in righteous indignation.   When two of the most prominent Jewish American media moguls embraced the case as a personal crusade (advertising magnate Albert Lasker and Adolph Ochs owner of the New York times) the affair that had began as an embarrassing local scandal, was artificially engineered to go viral through widespread nationwide newspaper circulation pathways and radio transmissions. The big lie strategy was employed then as it is now, that if Leo Frank’s supposed “wrongful conviction” was repeated by enough people with academic credentials, newspaper columnists, magazine journalists, book authors and radio announcers, then the masses would eventually believe it as indisputable fact. The Leo Frank case transmogrified into an ugly Jewish-American media war against White Gentile Southerners that ensued with stop-at-nothing vicious attacks and biased reports against the people of Georgia (an onslaught that sadly persists to this day more than a century later with the greatest ferocity). The Leo Frank case has become by defacto a mandatory study subject for future generations of Gentiles because it continues to be a major source of Jewish activist agitation by their civil rights groups, historical organizations and media outlets. Thus by force of Jewry’s transmogrification of this pivotal event in American legal history into an anti-Gentile morality tale, and after a century of indefatigable employment of the Big-Lie strategy in the academy and mainstream media, the case of Leo Frank has become one of the many epicenters of the Jewish culture war against Western Civilization.

Dishonor Celebrated June 2015: June 21, 1915, will forever live in United States legal history as a day of infamy, because when else in the annals of American State jurisprudence has a Governor commuted the death sentence of his own law firm’s client to life in prison after every state and federal court ruled against the convict in question? In this unique example, Leo Frank was convicted of murder and his jury unanimously recommended a punishment of “without mercy” (death by hanging) to the presiding judge Leonard Strickland Roan.  If Judge Roan had any doubts about Leo Frank’s guilt, he could have sentenced him to life in prison or given him a new trial if that would serve the cause of justice. Judge Roan turned down Leo Frank’s petition for a new trial on 107 grounds – that’s not a typo!

It was Slaton’s commutation of Leo Frank’s death sentence to life in prison, which specifically inflamed the people of Georgia and directly lead to Frank’s lynching, not anti-Semitism (If anti-Semitism was the reason Leo Frank was hanged, there were thousands of other Jews in the state of Georgia that would have been much easier targets).  In direct retaliation to this obvious political treachery, 1,200 people protested outside the governor’s mansion and the national guard had to be called to save Slaton from vigilante justice.  Looking back at all the treatments and retellings of this epic saga, 20th and 21st century Frankites (pro Leo Frank activists) rarely discuss Governor Slaton’s betrayal of the Constitution and grotesque conflict of interest involving his wealthy law firm (Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips), especially about the fact that it was the impetus for Leo Frank being abducted and hanging less than two months later on August 17, 1915 at former Sheriff William J. Frey’s farm by some of the leading men of Georgia. The claim that Leo Frank was convicted and hanged because of anti-Semitism is an anti-Gentile, century-old racist hatecrime hoax still perpetuated in the Jewish controlled media today with unyielding bigoted ferocity by Jewish activists and their sycophantic allies.

More than one hundred years later, we continue to pursue justice for Mary Phagan.

We demand the posthumous pardon of Leo Frank be revoked or nullified, whatever it takes, for this centenary racist Jewish mockery to be terminated forever. This is Jewish culture war is not over, and if it requires one hundred years of agitation and activism to get this illegal posthumous pardon overturned, then so be it! Until then, this case is not closed, but re-open. We are calling on the people of Georgia, of every county, to get involved in local politics, work your way up from the ground-up, get a law degree and run for office at the beginning or basic levels of politics to get the experience and build trust needed to climb to higher levels. Every generation we must work towards putting Jew-wise people in every position of political office and power from top to bottom. We must not only un-pardon Leo Frank, but keep that as the status quo for every decade and generation to come.

Jewish Controlled Hollywood 

Dear reader we have embedded the 1964 anti-Gentile propaganda film created by Jewish Hollywood activists called, “Profiles in Courage: John M. Slaton,” for your review 50 years later!

See the Vicious Hatred Against Anti-Gentilism by Hollywood released to the public with ‘Profiles in Courage, John Slaton’ 1964:

Also purchase the murder of little Mary Phagan two part made-for-tv miniseries on Amazon.com or ebay.com (don’t buy new, get a used copy, because they are available through interlibrary loan for free) to see how Hollywood again in 1988 defame, slander and smear Southern Gentiles with a disgusting mockery of legal history. Also read Matthew Bernstein’s Screening a Lynching, (don’t buy new, get a used copy, because they are available through interlibrary loan for free)

Below is an article about the June 2015 honoring of the corrupt politician John M. Slaton. Please read the 1,800-page Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court records to learn more about Slaton’s criminal activity in the Frank-Phagan affair, it will blow your mind! No one has articulated the Leo Frank appeals record from 1913-1915 that have finally been released to the public and are available online at www.LeoFrank.org The Leo Frank Research Library and www.Archive.org The Internet Achive. End of editor’s notes.]

A Lesson for Judges in Memory of the Governor Who Granted Clemency to Leo Frank

Katheryn Hayes Tucker, Daily Report

June 18, 2015

A crowd that included a Georgia Supreme Court justice, an assistant attorney general, a superior court judge and a former governor gathered in the sunshine and 92-degree heat Wednesday to commemorate a plaque at the Atlanta History Center.

It wasn’t so much the simple black-and-white sign that brought them there but the memory of John Marshall Slaton, the lawyer-governor who sacrificed his political career 100 years ago to grant clemency to Leo Frank, widely believed to be wrongly convicted of murder because of anti-Semitism. Slaton commuted Frank’s death sentence to life in prison. But that wasn’t the end of the story.

As Georgia Supreme Court Justice David Nahmias put it in his remarks to the gathering, “In the final blot that the case placed on the history of our state, a mob kidnapped Leo Frank, drove him to Marietta, and lynched him.”

Nahmias continued, “It is altogether right that we still celebrate what Governor Slaton did, because we need to remember those who stood tall in defense of the rule of law, to inspire all of us who need to stand tall when the rule of law is again threatened, as it is in one way or another almost every day. We need to fight for equal justice under the law, even if we do not immediately prevail.

“Governor Slaton is, and should be, a particular inspiration to people like me—judges on the courts of Georgia and on the federal courts—the kind of judges who were unable to protect Leo Frank from the unjust ending that the mob demanded.”

Other speakers included former Gov. Roy Barnes, Cobb County Superior Court Chief Judge Steve Schuster, Assistant Attorney General of Georgia Van Pearlberg and Jerry Klinger, president of the Jewish American Society for Historic Preservation. The Georgia Historical Society also supported the project.

The marker stands beside the sidewalk on Slaton Drive near the former governor’s home and between the history center’s Veterans Park on West Paces Ferry Road and the historic Swan House. The inscription includes the governor’s name and lifespan, 1866-1955, followed by this note:

“John Marshall Slaton was born in Meriwether County and graduated from the University of Georgia before practicing law in Atlanta. Slaton served in both houses of the Georgia legislature and two terms as governor (1911-12 and 1913-15). While in office, he modernized Georgia’s tax system and roads. Concerned by the sensationalized atmosphere and circumstantial evidence that led to the notorious 1913 conviction of Jewish businessman Leo Frank in the murder of teenager Mary Phagan, Slaton granted Frank clemency in June 1915. Slaton’s commutation of Frank’s death sentence drew national attention but hostile local backlash resulted in Frank’s lynching in August 1915 and the end of Slaton’s political career. Slaton lived on property adjacent to today’s Atlanta History Center and Slaton Drive (named in his honor). He is buried in Oakland Cemetery.”

References

The 29-page Leo Frank commutation by Governor John M. Slaton http://www.leofrank.org/images/governor-john-slaton-commutation-june-21-1915/

http://www.dailyreportonline.com/

http://atlantajewishtimes.com/2015/04/governor-in-leo-frank-case-to-be-honored/

Jewish Spin and Antigentilism: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=7937575

http://www.jta.org/2015/06/17/news-opinion/united-states/auto-draft-106

http://jewishva.org/node/102831

http://georgiahistory.com/georgia-historical-society-to-dedicate-historical-marker-to-governor-john-marshall-slaton/

Temple Kol Emeth, Rabbi Steven Lebow’s ugly lies: http://www.mdjonline.com/view/full_story/26684769/article-John-Slaton—A-Georgia-profile-in-courage

Profiles in Courage: John Slaton (1964): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0679734/mediaindex

Tribute Announced for Governor Who Commuted Leo Frank’s Death Sentence http://www.dailyreportonline.com/id=1202729308620/Tribute-Announced-for-Governor-Who-Commuted-Leo-Franks-Death-Sentence?slreturn=20150523163106

Further Reading:

1. The Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean (1989) New Horizon Press, NJ. pages 287 to 290. https://archive.org/details/TheMurderOfMaryPhaganByLeoFrankIn1913

2. The Case of Leo Frank and its Aftermath by Tom Watson Brown, Published at Emory University 1982., page 33. https://archive.org/details/NotesOnTheCaseOfLeoMaxFrankAndItsAftermath

3. ‘The Frank Case’ by Leonard Dinnerstein page 124 “Some viewed the commutation by [Governor John] Slaton a conflict of interest as Slaton was a law partner of Frank’s lead defense counsel [Luther Rosser].” (the law firm Dinnerstein is referring to is ‘Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips’).

4. The Marietta Daily Journal, Friday, January 20, 1984, Jasper Dorsey “Frank was vigorously defended by eminent counsel, one [Luther Rosser] of whom was a former law partner of the veteran trial judge [Leonard Strickland Roan]. Governor John Slaton who ultimately commuted Frank’s sentence to life, was a law partner of one [of Leo M. Frank’s] defense attorney [Luther Rosser].” (Sometimes the link doesn’t work, please try reloading it).

5. Augusta Chronicle-Herald, May 15, 1983, statement by Justice Randall Evans Jr. (see: The Murder of Little Mary Phagan pages 287 to 290). The original article is not available from the online Augusta Chronicle at the time of this writing.

6. Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court records containing the Leo Frank trial brief of evidence, 1913-14. This record indicates Governor John M. Slaton was committing the heinous crime subordination of perjury at his law office.
https://archive.org/details/leo-frank-georgia-supreme-court-case-records-1913-1914

7. Steve Oney has said concerning Governor John Slaton’s commutation of his own law firm’s client, Leo Frank “there was a clear and troubling appearance of a conflict of interest”. Governor Slaton was a law partner of Rosser, Frank’s lead defense counsel. (source from wikipedia)

Must watch, to see how the Prosecutor Hugh M. Dorsey and Governor John M. Slaton are portrayed by disgusting Jewish dominated Hollywood:

1. The Murder of Little Mary Phagan two Part miniseries NBC 1988 (don’t buy new, get a used copy, because they are available through interlibrary loan for free)

How Jewish Supremacists Falsify History With Anti-Gentile Naratives:

The People v. Leo Frank by Ben Loeterman (2009)

Leo Frank in the Media over the last 100 years:

Matthew Bernstein’s ‘Screening a Lynching’ (don’t buy new, get a used copy, because they are available through interlibrary loan for free)

Quotes About the Leo Frank Posthumous Pardon Efforts:

Article ‘Augusta Chronicle-Herald, May 15, 1983, statement by Justice Randall Evans Jr.’ cited in the Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean.

Quoting “Judge Randall Evans, Jr., from the Augusta Chronicle-Herald dated May 15, 1983.

In here, Judge Randall Evans, Jr., stated the review of the case and discussed Leo Frank’s appeals to the Supreme Court of Georgia:

Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean pp. 287

. . . The Supreme Court consisted of legendary giants — Justice Lumpkin, Justice Beverly Evans, Justice Fish, Justice Atkinson, Justice Hill, and Justice Beck. That court affirmed the conviction, with Justices Fish and Beck dissenting as to the admission of certain

Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean pp. 288

evidence; but on motion for rehearing by Frank, the entire court unanimously refused to grant the motion for rehearing.

Frank then filed an extraordinary motion for a new trial before Superior Court Judge Hill, which was overruled, and this decision was unanimously affirmed by the Supreme Court of Georgia.

On June 6, 1914, Frank filed a motion to set aside the verdict, again before Judge Hill, which motion was denied. And all of the justices concurred in the denial, except Justice Fish, who was absent.

So at this point in time the record shows that two impartial judges of Superior Court in Fulton County, twelve impartial jurors in Fulton County, and six impartial justices of the Supreme Court of Georgia, all held that Leo Frank was legally tried, convicted, and sentenced to be hanged.

Bear in mind, this was not in a rural county of Georgia where influential politicians are sometimes thought to sway juries, but it was in the most populous county in the South where it was not shown or even suggested that Jews are the objects of bias.

Leo Frank’s race was not an issue in the case during the trial.

But the Jewish community of the entire United States sought to shield Frank by saying he was convicted because he was a Jew! Nothing is further from the truth! Money was raised on the streets of New York and elsewhere in the Jewish community for Leo Frank’s defense; the best lawyers were employed, including the top defense lawyer in Georgia, Reuben Arnold, associated with and aided by Rosser and Brandon, Herbert Haas and Leonard Haas. But the evidence was overwhelming — and it is still so today.

It is interesting to note that Gov. John M. Slaton’s term as governor expired on June 21, 1915.

Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean pp. 289

Frank’s final date for execution was set for the next day, June 22, 1915. On his last day in office, Governor Slaton commuted Frank’s sentence to life imprisonment, thereby thwarting and overturning the due process of law as set forth by the Superior Court of Fulton County and the Supreme Court of Georgia. People were so aroused and dumbfounded by this maneuver they went

to the Slaton Mansion. But the Governor called out the National Guard for his protection, and succeeded in escaping. Mobs formed in many other parts of Georgia on learning of the rape of the judicial process by Slaton.

The Jewish community nationwide directed its wrath in large part towards Thomas E. Watson of Thomson, charging that Watson had written incendiary articles in his Jeffersonian, which contributed to Frank’s conviction. They urged that Frank was a victim of racial prejudice and bias towards Jews.

Now comes “newly discovered evidence” which is claimed would have proven Frank innocent. Not so! A year ago the new witness, one Alonzo Mann, was first located, and said that as a young man he saw a Negro with the body of Mary Phagan in the basement of the factory building, and that he had remained silent for around seventy years because he was so young at the time, and he just didn’t know what to do about it. Our State Department of Archives even wrote in one of its publications that this “new evidence” seemed to prove Frank innocent. I wrote the Department of Archives and pointed out that this was not new evidence at all — that during the trial of the case it was plainly proven that Jim Conley took the body to the basement — and the Archives Department replied with an apology and, in effect, said it had goofed. That correspondence is now a part of our Department of Archives.

Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean pp. 290

The suggestion that a governor or Board of Pardons and Paroles may pardon a deceased person is completely ridiculous.

The Constitution of Georgia provides that “the legislative, judicial, and executive powers shall forever remain separate and distinct.” The executive department has no power whatever to reverse, change, or wipe out a decision by the courts, albeit while the prisoner is in life he may be pardoned. But a deceased party can not be a party to legal proceedings (Eubank v. Barber, 115 Ga. App. 217-18). If Leo Frank were still in life, he could apply for pardon, but after death neither he nor any other person may apply for him. As the Supreme Court of Georgia held in Grubb v. Bullock, Governor, 44 Ga. 379: “It [pardon] must be granted the principal upon his application, or be evidenced by ratification of the application by his acceptance of it [the pardon].” Leo Frank’s case was finally terminated absolutely against him by the Supreme Court of Georgia on June 6, 1914. He lived thereafter until August 16, 1915, and never did apply for pardon. It is too late now for any consideration to be given a pardon for Leo Frank. Pardon can only be granted to a person in life, not to a dead person. To illustrate the folly of such proceedings, could someone at this late date apply for a divorce on behalf of Leo Frank?

The blood of a little girl cries out from the ground for justice. I pray the sun will never rise to shine upon that day in Georgia when we shall have so blinded ourselves to the records, to the evidence, to the judgments of the court, and the judgment of the people, as to rub out, change, and reverse the judgment of the courts that has stood for seventy years! God forbid!

End of Quote.

Marietta Daily Journal, Friday January 20th, 1984 by Jasper Dorsey

Page 4A – The Marietta Daily Journal

If Trial Were Today, Frank Would Still Be Found Guilty by Jasper Dorsey, Friday, January 20, 1984.

The Mary Phagan murder case has been in the news for many months since Atlanta lawyers, representing several organizations, applied to the Georgia Board of Pardons an Paroles, requesting a posthumous pardon for Leo Max Frank, the convicted murderer.

The murder took place in Atlanta on Saturday, April 26, 1913. Medical evidence proved Mary Phagan, 13 years old, had been beaten unconscious, bitten, raped in an unnatural way, then strangled by a small cord. Three competitive Atlanta newspapers then — Journal, Georgian an Constitution — gave the murder and trial sensational coverage.

A posthumous pardon is an unprecedented action, especially for someone tried and convicted in 1913. A 70-year-old case cannot really be retried. The petition advanced no significant new evidence. After the trial, efforts of outsiders to re-fight the Civil War was a serious mistake, for it induced feelings of anti-Semitism where none existed. Charges of anti-Semitism and racism raised now, are also counterproductive.

What draws attention is the mob violence after Frank’s death sentence was commuted to life by the governor, and way Frank died. He was lynched. Mob violence and lynching are a disgrace. Lynching is an especially heinous crime. Those actions of 1915 are a disgrace today to our state.

But the trial in 1913 was another matter. Frank was represented by legal giants, had a fair trial, and two years of appeals to the highest state and federal courts said that he did.

Alonzo Mann, then a 14-year-old office boy of two weeks, had been a witness for Frank in 1913. His obviously inspired latter-day testimony, if given full credence would not have changed the trial’s verdict. Only if Frank had dolts for lawyers would they have failed to get the whole story from a 14-year-old before putting him up as a witness.

Frank was vigorously defended by eminent counsel, one of whom was a former law partner of the veteran trial judge [Leonard Strickland Roan].

Governor John Slaton who ultimately commuted Frank’s sentence to life, was a law partner of one defense attorney [Luther Rosser]; Another associate had a cousin on the jury.

There were three motions for new trial before two Superior Court judges, three appeals to the Georgia Supreme Court and two appeals to the U.S. Supreme court; each affirmed the trial court’s decision.

Had there been mob influence or intimidation on the trial judge or jury, the judge or defense counsel would have moved for a change of venue or moved for a mistrial.

The three very competitive Atlanta newspapers of 1913, report no mobs during the trial’s five weeks, according to an expert who researched the newspaper files. Historian Franklin Garrett reports no mobs in his definitive “Atlanta and Environs.”

All jurors signed affidavits that there was no mob influence as did court staff. Even Governor Slaton in his commutation order went to some length to deny that mob influence or anti-Semitism influenced the guilty verdict.

Mob violence began when Frank’s sentence was commuted June 21, 1915. The National Guard had to be called out to protect the Governor, who eventually had to leave the state. Years later he ran for a U.S. Senate seat, failing to carry any of Georgia’s 159 counties. The disgraceful lynching occurred August 17, 1915, an indelible blot on the state’s escutcheon.

There is no way to pardon that terrible event. The Pardons and Paroles Board could consider only the trial. They advised the petitioners that to change the verdict, affirmed many times before the nation’s highest courts, new evidence had to prove Frank’s innocence beyond any doubt. Mann’s new evidence was insignificant if the trial is studied in court records: State vs. Frank, 141 Ga. 243; 142 Ga. 617; 142 Ga. 741; 35 S. Ct. 208.

The evidence there also shows Frank’s religion had nothing to do with his conviction. He would have been convicted had he been a Presbyterian minister. He would also be convicted today.

He had married into a distinguished Atlanta family, whose heartbreak was and still is incalculable. His widow was heroic. Al of his class, Jewish or Gentile, who knew him, had no idea prior to the murder that he was anything like he turned out to be.

-Marietta Daily Journal, Friday, January 20, 1984. Article by Jasper Dorsey.

Please Listen to these five impressive articles about the murder of Little Mary Phagan and Leo Frank case originally published in Watson’s Magazine by future U.S. Senator from Georgia, Tom Watson (1. January, 2. March, 3. August, 4. September and 5. October of 1915) rebooted by Omniphi Media in 2015 — the centennial — into audio-books!

Check Out — Omniphi Media on www.Archive.org The Internet Archive (Click Here WWW), presenting Leo Frank the Jew Pervert https://archive.org/details/4.September1915WatsonsMagazineOfficialRecordLeoFrankCaseJewPervert

The Murder of Little Mary Phagan authored by Mary Phagan Kean (1987) has been transformed independently into an educational audiobook for the Vanguard News Network Learning College by Alex Linder, beginning on June 1st 2015, in memory of the 116th Birthday of Mary Phagan (1899-1913).

Please take the time to analyze and discuss each chapter of this amazing journey.

01. Chapter 1, The Murder of Little Mary Phagan : June 1st, 2015.

02. Chapter 2, The Murder of Little Mary Phagan : June 2nd, 2015.

03. Chapter 3, The Murder of Little Mary Phagan : June 3rd, 2015.

04. Chapter 4, The Murder of Little Mary Phagan : June 4th, 2015.

05. Chapter 5, The Murder of Little Mary Phagan : June 5th, 2015.

06. Chapter 6, The Murder of Little Mary Phagan : June 8th, 2015.

07. Chapter 7, The Murder of Little Mary Phagan : June 8th, 2015.

08. Chapter 8, The Murder of Little Mary Phagan : June 9th, 2015.

09. Chapter 9, 10, 11, The Murder of Little Mary Phagan : June 10th, 2015.

10. Chapter 12, Afterward, The Murder of Little Mary Phagan : June 11th, 2015.

The Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean (1987) Rebooted Into Audiobook by Alex Linder 2015 @ ‘The Internet Archive’: https://archive.org/details/10PhaganTMOLMPCh12AfterwordEND

Female Voice

ALSO: ‘The Murder of Little Mary Phagan’ by Mary Phagan Kean (1987) Rebooted into audiobook 2015 by Margaret Huffstickler

Listen to each chapter of Margaret Huffstickler’s accurate facsimile of TMOLMP: https://archive.org/details/TheMurderOfLittleMaryPhaganByMaryPhaganKean1987

Original Source:

Please go to www.Amazon.com and www.Ebay.com for purchasing a hard copy of this amazing book, The Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean, and read along during these radio programs.

The long lost transcript of the official Coroner Paul V. Donehoo Inquest tribunal testimony at the Mary Phagan Rape-Strangulation-Mutilation Case (April 30, 1913 – May 8th, 1913) has finally been re-discovered and published as “Part 2” of our presentation of Mary Phagan Murder Case!

Find out what has been intentionally suppressed from Hollywood, CA to Broadway, NYC — for more than one hundred years — by Jewish activist academics, publishing houses, theatres, newspaper conglomerates, radio, TV stations and mainstream media moguls across the United States of America and Western World!

Check it out now: http://www.leofrank.org/trial-and-evidence/coroners-inquest/

Below is the transcribed statement Leo Frank made to police at the beginning of the work week following the April 27, 1913 discovery of Mary Phagan’s dead body on that shocking Sunday morning by Newt Lee. The Monday morning, April 28, 1913 interrogation of Leo Frank at Atlanta’s Stationhouse later became State’s Exhibit B at his trial for the murder of Mary Phagan (question and answer portion published in Atlanta Constitution, August 2nd, 1913). Both the Leo Frank defense and Leo Frank prosecution ratified it as being accurate.

Pay very special attention to the time Leo Frank says Mary Phagan had arrived to his second-floor window-front business office.

1. On Sunday morning, April 27, 1913, Leo Frank told Atlanta police officers at his second floor office that Mary Phagan had arrived within his office on Saturday, the day of the murder, around 12:03 p.m.

2. On Monday morning, April 28, 1913, Leo Frank told police Mary Phagan had arrived in his office on Saturday, April 26, 1913, between 12:05 p.m. and 12:10 p.m.

3. At the Coroner’s inquest Leo Frank was sworn under oath and called to testify on Monday, May 5th, 1913 and Thursday, May 8th, 1913, he told the Coroner’s 6-man jury that Mary Phagan had arrived in his office on the day of the murder at 12:10 p.m.

4. At his trial, Leo Frank mounted the witness stand on Monday, August 18, 1913, he told the 12-man jury that Mary Phagan had arrived at his office at 12:12 p.m. to 12:17 p.m.

Question and Answers:

Q. What is your position with the company?
A. I am general superintendent and director of the company.

Q: How long have you held that position?
A: In Atlanta I have held that position since August 10th, 1908, My place of business is at 37-41 South Forsyth Street.

Q: About how many employees have you there?
A: About 107* in that plant?

Q: Male or female?
A: Mixed. I guess there are a few more girls than boys.

Q: On Saturday, April 26, I will get you to state if that was a holiday with your company?
A: Yes, sir, it was a holiday. The factory was shut down.

Several People in Building.

Q: Who was in that building during the day?
A: Well, there were several people who come in during the morning?

Q: Was anyone in the office with you up, to noon?
A: Yes, sir, the office boy [Alonzo Mann] and a stenographer.

Q: What time did they leave?
A: About 12 or a little after.

Q: Have you a day watchman there?
A: Yes, Sir.

Q: Was he on duty at 12 o’clock?
A: No, sir, he left shortly before.

Q: Who came in after the stenographer and the office boy left?
A: This little girl. Mary Phagan, but at the time I didn’t know that was her name. She came in between 12:05 and 12:10, maybe 12:07, to get her pay envelope, her salary.

Frank Pays Mary Phagan:

Q: You paid her?
A: Yes, sir, and she went out of the office.

Q: What office was you in at that time?
A: In the inner office at my desk, the furtherest office to the left from the main office.

Q: Could you see the direction she went in when she left?
A: My impression was she just walked away I didn’t pay any particular attention.

Q: Do you keep the door locked downstairs?
A: I didn’t that morning, because the mail was coming in. I locked it at 1:10 p.m. when I went to dinner.

Q: Was anyone else in that building?
A: Yes, sir, Arthur White and Harry Denham, They were working on machinery, doing repair work, working on the top floor of the building, which is the fourth floor, toward the rear, or about the middle of the building, but a little more to the rear.

Q: What kind of work were they doing?
A: They were tightening up the belts; they are not machinists, one is a foreman in one department and the other is an assistant in another, and Denham was just assisting White, and Mrs. White, the wife of Arthur White, was also in the building. She left about 1 o’clock. I went up there and told them I was going to dinner, and they had to get out and they said they had not finished, and I said, “how long will it take?” and they said until some time in the afternoon, and then I said, “Mrs. White, you will have to go, for I am going to lock these boys in here. ”

Door was Locked:

Q: Can anyone from the inside open those doors?
A: They can open the outside door, but not the inside door, which I locked.

Q: In going in the outside door, is there any way by which anyone could go in the basement from the front?
A: Yes sir, through the trap door.

Q: They would not necessarily have to go up the steps?
A: No, sir, they couldn’t get up there if I was out.

Q: You locked the outer door?
A: Yes, sir, and I locked the inner door.

Q: What time did you get back?
A: At 3 o’clock, maybe two or three minutes before, and I went to the office and took off my coat and then went upstairs to tell those boys I was back, and I couldn’t find them at first, they were back in the dipping room, in the rear, and I said, Are you ready? and they said, We are just read, and I said, all right, ring out when you go down, to let me know when you go out, and they rang out, and Arthur White come in the office and said, Mr. Frank, loan me $2, and I said, What’s the matter? We just paid off, and he said, My wife robbed me, and I gave him $2 and he walked away, and the two of them walked out.

Newt Lee Arrives.

Q: And you locked the doors behind them?
A: I locked the outer door, when I am in there, there is no need of locking the inner door. There was only one person I was looking for to come in, and that was the nightwatchman.

Q: What time did he get there?
A: I saw him twenty minutes to 4 [3:40 p.m]

Q: Had you previously arranged for him to get there?
A: Yes, sir. On Friday night I told him, after he got his money, I gave him the keys and said you had better come around early tomorrow, because I may go to the ball game, and he came early because of that fact. I told him to be there by 4 o’clock and he came 20 minutes to 4. I figured I would leave about 1, and would not come back, but it was so cold I didn’t want to risk catching cold, and I came back to the factory as I usually do. He came in, and he said, Yes, sir, and he had a bag of bananas with him, and he offered me a banana. I didn’t see them, but he offered me one, and I guess he had them. We have told him, once he gets in that building never to go out. I told him he could go out, he got there so early, and I was going to be there. He came back about four minutes to 6, the reason I know that, I was putting the clock slips in, an the clock was right in front of me. I said, I will be reading in a minute, and he went downstairs and I came to the office and put on my coat and hat, and followed him and went out.

Saw Newt and Gantt Talking

Q: Did you see anybody with him as you went out?
A: Yes, sir; talking to him was J.M. Gantt – a man I had fired about two weeks previous.

Q: Did you have any talk with Gantt?
A: Newt told me he wanted to go up to get a pair of shoes he left while he was working there, and Gantt said to me, Newt don’t want me to go up, and he said you can go with me, Mr. Frank, and I said, that’s all right, go with him Newt and I went on home and I got home about 6:25 p.m.

Q: Is there anything else that happened that afternoon?
A: No, sir, that’s all I know.

Q: You don’t know what time Gantt came down after he went up?
A: Oh, no, I saw him go in and I locked the door after him, but I didn’t try them.

Q: Did you ask Newt?
A: Yes, sir, I telephoned him. I tried to telephone him when I got home. He punches the clock at half hour intervals, and the clock and the phone is in the office and didn’t get an answer, and at 7 o’clock I called him and asked him if Gantt got his shoes, and he said yes, he got them and I said is everything all right, and he said yes, and the next thing I know they called me at 7:30 a.m. the next morning.

Did Lee Let People In?

Q: Do you know whether your watchman at any time has been in the habit of letting people in there any time?
A: No, sir.

Q: did you ever have any trouble with any watchman about such as that?
A: No, sir.

Q: Do you know whether any of your employees go there at night?
A: Yes sir, Gantt did when he was working there, he had a key and sometimes he would have some work left over. I never have seen him go but until I go out, I go out and come back, but he has come back before I left, but that is part of his duty.

Q: Did you take a bath yesterday or Saturday night?
A: Yes, sir. Saturday night at home.

Q: Did you change your clothes?
A: Yes sir.

Q: The clothes that you changed are at home?
A: Yes sir, and this is the suit of clothes I was wearing Saturday. After I left the shop I went to Jacobs Pharmacy and bought a box of candy for my wife and got home about 6:25.

Required Reading:

100 Years Ago Today: The Trial of Leo Frank Begins
http://theamericanmercury.org/2013/07/100-years-ago-today-the-trial-of-leo-frank-begins/

Leo Frank Trial Week One
http://theamericanmercury.org/2013/08/the-leo-frank-trial-week-one/

Leo Frank Trial Week Two
http://theamericanmercury.org/2013/08/the-leo-frank-trial-week-two/

One Hundred Years Ago Leo Frank Mounts the Witness Stand
http://theamericanmercury.org/2013/08/100-years-ago-today-leo-frank-takes-the-stand

Leo Frank Trial Week Three
http://theamericanmercury.org/2013/08/the-leo-frank-trial-week-three/

Leo Frank Trial Week Four
http://theamericanmercury.org/2013/09/the-leo-frank-trial-week-four/

Leo Frank Trial Closing Arguments (Frank Hooper for Prosecution, Luther Rosser and Reuben Arnold for Defense)
http://theamericanmercury.org/2013/10/the-leo-frank-trial-closing-arguments-of-hooper-arnold-and-rosser/

Closing Arguments (August 21-23, & 25) of Prosecutor Hugh M. Dorsey at the Leo Frank Trial
http://theamericanmercury.org/2013/12/the-leo-frank-trial-closing-arguments-solicitor-dorsey/

One Hundred Reasons Leo Frank is Guilty of Murdering Mary Phagan (Published April 26, 2013)
http://theamericanmercury.org/2013/04/100-reasons-proving-leo-frank-is-guilty/

Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith: One Hundred Years of Racist Jewish Hate, October 1913 – 2013
http://theamericanmercury.org/2013/10/adl-100-years-of-hate/

Professor Emeritus of Judaic Studies: Leonard Dinnerstein’s Pseudo-history About the Leo Frank Case
http://theamericanmercury.org/2012/10/the-leo-frank-case-a-pseudo-history/

Review of Journalist-Author Steve Oney’s book ‘The Dead Shall Rise’: Who Really Solved the Mary Phagan Murder Case?
http://theamericanmercury.org/2012/10/who-really-solved-the-mary-phagan-murder-case/

Did Leo Frank Confess to the Murder of Mary Phagan?
http://theamericanmercury.org/2012/09/did-leo-frank-confess/

Atlanta Constitution Newspaper (1913 – 1915):
http://archive.org/details/LeoFrankCaseInTheAtlantaConstitutionNewspaper1913To1915

Atlanta Georgian Newspaper (April – August, 1913):
http://archive.org/details/AtlantaGeorgianNewspaperAprilToAugust1913

Atlanta Journal Newspaper (April – August, 1913):
http://archive.org/details/AtlantaJournalApril281913toAugust311913

The following elusive items were added to the Leo Frank Case and Trial Research Library and Archive:2017, Website Completed!

All independently written articles on the web site turned into Audiobooks.

2016, Centennial Publishing:

The case of Pinkerton Detective Agency verses National Pencil Company, February 1916.
http://www.leofrank.org/trial-and-evidence/pinkerton-detective-agency/

Case Related Newspaper Articles All Transcribed so people can search and mine them for keywords!

1,800 page Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court Case Files Transcribed.

2015, Centennial of Leo Frank’s Lynching:

The Coroner’s Inquest Article Updated!

Five Articles by future U.S. Senator Tom Watson for the State of Georgia (1915) Transformed into Audiobook! WoW!

The Murder of Little Mary Phagan Book (1989), Independently Analyzed at the VNN Learning College by Alex Linder.

The first book ever published on the Leo Frank case has been turned into a 6 hour audiobook published on Leo Frank’s 131st birthday, April 17, 2015.
http://www.leofrank.org/extremely-rare-leo-frank-case-book-written-in-1913-transformed-into-audiobook/

Tom Watson published 5 major articles about the Frank-Phagan Affair in his Watson’s Jeffersonian Magazine in January, March, August, September and October 1915 that are at their centennial being converted to audiobooks and published free online.

2013, Centennial of Mary Phagan’s Rape and Strangulation by Leo Frank:

April 26, 2013, the three Competing Atlanta Newspapers are published online in PDF from April to August, 1913:

1. The Atlanta Constitution Newspaper from 1913 to 1915. http://archive.org/details/LeoFrankCaseInTheAtlantaConstitutionNewspaper1913To1915

2. The Atlanta Georgian newspaper covering the Leo Frank Case from April though August, 1913. http://archive.org/details/AtlantaGeorgianNewspaperAprilToAugust1913

3. The Atlanta Journal Newspaper, April, 28, 1913, through till the end of August, 1913, pertaining to the Leo Frank Case: http://archive.org/details/AtlantaJournalApril281913toAugust311913

In these three newspapers be sure to read the testimony during the Coroner’s Inquest and pay special attention to the Leo Frank Trial Transcript, and 4 days of Closing Arguments from July 28, 1913 to August 25th, 1913.

The Alonzo Mann Hoax Involving the Jewish Community Petition for Exoneration & Posthumous Pardon

News articles from the Alonzo “Lonnie” Mann Hoax, were added to: http://www.leofrank.org/images/alonzo-mann-newspaper/. Learn about how Alonzo Mann sold his soul to the Jewish supremacist hate mongers who used it to further their culture and genetic war against Americans and Western Civilization.

http://www.leofrank.org/alonzo-mann/.

Elusive Legal Records Suppressed for One Century Uncovered:

Brief of Evidence July 28, 1913 to August 25, 1913:

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

1914 to 1917, Jeffersonian Newspaper Archive in Image Format Specifically About Leo M. Frank and Related Topics (95% complete)

The Jeffersonian Newspaper, 1914 through 1917 specifically about the Leo Frank Case: http://leofrank.org/images/jeffersonian/

Dr. Edward R. Fields’ Analysis February, 1961:

Dr. Edward R. Fields wrote his take on the case in The Thunderbolt magazine in February 1961. He takes the side against Frank as you will clearly see by reading it. The booklet is clearly biased for the prosecution and is provided here for historical archive reasons. In terms of fact accuracy and logical reasoning it gets 3+ stars out of 5 stars.

Download: Dr. Fields’ Analysis in Adobe PDF format.

Dr. Edward Fields visited Mary Phagan’s grave on April 26, 2013, to commemorate the centennial of her murder. He placed flowers at her grave.

Instauration, June, 1986:

http://www.instaurationonline.com/ The disingenuous romanticizing and idealizing of the Jewish pedophile Leo Frank, written by one of the most prolific writers of the traditionalist American views. See the June 1986 issue.
Download: http://www.leofrank.info/library/instauration-1986-06-june-part-1.pdf

Tom E. Watson Archive (try searching on individual and various keyword combinations: leo frank, “leo frank”, luther rosser, john slaton, mary phagan etc…)

The Tom E. Watson Digital Papers (recommended) at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: http://www.lib.unc.edu/dc/watson/

Testimony of Jim Conley: http://www.leofrank.org/jim-conley-august-4-5-6/

One of the most accurate accounts of the Mary Phagan murder mystery:

‘The Murder of Little Mary Phagan’ by Mary Phagan Kean.

Arguably the most even handed book on the Leo M. Frank Case, the book titled, ‘The Murder of Little Mary Phagan’ was written on behalf of Mary Anne Phagan (1899 to 1913), by her namesake and great-grand-niece, Mary Phagan Kean and published in 1987. The book makes the best attempt of all the books on the subject to provide a fair and balanced overview of what really happened, against the tide of numerous contemporary writers who mostly take the side of Leo Frank and claim he was railroaded, framed and scapegoated in a vast Anti-Jewish conspiracy.

If you are looking for a neutral account of the Leo M. Frank trial and aftermath, without taking sides, you will definitely want to read ‘The Murder of Little Mary Phagan’ by Mary Phagan Kean. The book The Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean available on Amazon.com and Archive.org is 204 pages and 4.7MB.

To read or write reviews of this book, you may also visit Amazon and ‘The Internet Archive‘: ‘The Murder of Little Mary Phagan’ By Mary Phagan Kean

Five booklets, published as articles on the Leo M. Frank Case by Tom Watson.

Tom Watson, populist libertarian politician, writer, activist and seasoned lawyer.

Firebrand Tom Watson, a citizen of the State of Georgia, produced through his ‘Jeffersonian Publishing Company’ a monthly magazine called, ‘Watson’s Magazine’ and a newspaper titled, ‘The Jeffersonian’. Watson often criticized what he perceived as a corrupt and Internationalist Catholic Church, and during the tail end of the Leo Frank court appeals process, he unleashed ferociously sarcastic, devilishly witty and venomously energetic article booklets articulating Leo Frank’s guilt and condemning the Jewish Community and Frank partisans, generally known as Frankites, for waging a successful national media smear campaign against the State of Georgia and precipitating a letter writing campaigns across the northern and western states that resulted in an avalanche of support on behalf of Leo Frank drowning Governor John Marshal Slaton office with over 100,000 letters.

The Primary Southern Perception about the National “Jewish” War Waged Against the State of Georgia in 1914, and 1915.

Watson stepped into the media and social-political arena in 1914, taking very distinct and personal interest in Leo Frank’s case after what was widely perceived and condemned amongst Southerners and particularly the people of Atlanta and Marietta, as a national (and perhaps international because of rallies held in European Cities) media defamation war lead by the well organized and highly racially conscious Jewish community waged against the State of Georgia.

Watson Articulates the Prosecution Position

Tom Watson’s writings on the Leo M. Frank Case tended to exquisitely articulate the prosecution side of the case (arguably better than the state’s prosecution team), including zooming in and expanding on the most damaging evidence presented at the trial. The reaction by Southerners after reading Watson’s five collective works (Watson’s Magazine, Jan, March, August, Sept and October 1915) tended to inflame an already great inferno of rage and indignation felt by the good people of Georgia and the South.

The perception Southerners had, before Watson published his five major works on the Leo Frank case, was they were being hounded by an outsider and National Jewish controlled press. Watson claimed Southerners for the first time experienced the new found power of the united Jewsmedia, which was smearing Georgians as small-minded and hidebound xenophobic cave dwellers, savages that would stop at nothing to quench their blood thirst. Once the commutation order was published by the office of Governor John M. Slaton after June 21st 1915, the people accused their Governor of being a toady manipulated by Jewish and moneybag meddlers, who undermined the Justice System of Georgia.

According to the Jewish Community, Watson Inspired the Lynching of Leo Frank

With strong reason, the Jewish community and many of Frank’s partisans would respond by accusing Watson of stirring up an Anti-Semitic climate of race hatred and inspiring the extra-judicial lynching of Leo Frank. Moreover, after the lynching, Watson continued to publish superb and commanding articulations of the Leo M. Frank trial, which were so well received by the citizens of Georgia, that observers might argue, made it impossible to convict any members of the lynch party, that is if their names had ever be made public at the time. However, it could also be equally argued that even if Watson, had not made comprehensible and definitive articulations of Frank’s guilt in his post lynching publications, that the mood of the people would still have made it impossible to convict Frank’s vigilante assassins. Though it is safe to say that the majority of the public had already made up their minds about Frank’s guilt by the time 1915 rolled around, Watson can be said to have mainly provided articulation of the great masses of Georgia that had full belief in Leo Frank’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Watson poured literary gasoline on that fiery precipitous of rage the people of Georgia experienced witnessing for the first time in any individual U.S. state, the vicious fist of Jewish Media Control seizing power over popular opinion in the United States of America (See: Watson’s Magazine, October, 1915). Since 1913, Jewish media control has slowly transformed the U.S. from a free Western superpower nation into an androgynous Jewish multicultural empire and police state nightmare in terminal decline towards civil war and eventual break-up.

Watson’s Magazine September and October, 1915

Watson offers his best legal analysis on the Leo M. Frank Case in his September and October 1915 issues of Watson’s Magazine. The arguments made against Leo M. Frank published in the September 1915 issue of Watson’s Magazine are possibly or arguably better than the actual arguments given by Prosecutor Hugh M. Dorsey and Mr. Hooper during the final August days of the Leo M. Frank Trial. Those who take the side of the prosecution might also claim there has yet to be a better articulation of Leo Frank’s guilt, than Watson’s August, Sept and Oct of 1915 publications. For the Jewish Community, Watson’s August, September and October 1915 publications would stand as the apogee of Anti-Semitism concerning the Leo Frank Case.

Prosecution Team vs. Tom Watson

For those familiar with the facts and evidence in the Leo M. Frank Case, one should read and review the Argument of Hugh M. Dorsey and Argument of Mr. Hooper comparing them with Watson’s September 1915 “Jew Pervert” booklet / article. Which particular ones tend to provide superior arguments using the murder trial testimony captured in the Brief of Evidence (1913).

Slaton on the Charge of Anti-Semitism

Though taking the side of Leo Frank, Governor John M. Slaton, would tend to corroborate Watson and the concerns of Southerners, by writing in his commutation order, that the charges of race hatred and injustice against the State of Georgia were unfair and that the people making such false accusations never actually read the official record or understood the facts in the Leo M. Frank case.

Ironically

Watson was approached at one unnamed point early in the Mary Phagan murder investigation to join the prosecution team and ironically enough, it is said that Watson was before that, originally approached by an unnamed party who offered him $5,000 to defend Leo M. Frank and join the Frank Legal Defense Team. Watson refused both offers, but his writing in 1914 and 1915, clearly indicates his position on the case. For those who are aficionados of exploring the time-web, it would have been truly fascinating beyond words to have read Watson’s arguments on behalf of Leo Frank had he accepted the five grand and joined the defense team. Watson’s closing arguments would have been equally delicious, if not more so if he had joined the State’s prosecution team.

Read these Five Watson’s Magazine in Order, 1915:

1 Star. The Leo Frank Case By Tom Watson (January 1915) Watson’s Magazine Volume 20 No. 3. See page 139 for the Leo Frank Case. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga. Available for download in Adobe PDF format: January 1915 in Adobe PDF format. Watson introduces the Frank case in this edition. In terms of it’s logical arguments and reasoning it gets 2 to 2.5 out of 5 stars.

2 Stars. The Full Review of the Leo Frank Case By Tom Watson (March 1915) Volume 20. No. 5. See page 235 for ‘A Full Review of the Leo Frank Case’. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga. Available for download in Adobe PDF format: March 1915 in Adobe PDF format. Here Watson goes into much further detail on the Frank case. In terms of it’s logical arguments and reasoning it gets 2.5 to 3 out of 5 stars.

3 Stars. The Celebrated Case of The State of Georgia vs. Leo Frank By Tom Watson (August 1915) Volume 21, No 4. See page 182 for ‘The Celebrated Case of the State of Georgia vs. Leo Frank”. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga. Available for download in Adobe PDF format: August 1915 in Adobe PDF format. Watson calls the Frank trial the “celebrated case.” In terms of it’s logical arguments and reasoning it gets 4 to 4.5 out of 5 stars.

4 Stars. The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, Jew Pervert By Tom Watson (September 1915) Volume 21. No. 5. See page 251 for ‘The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, Jew Pervert’. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga. Available for download in Adobe PDF format: September 1915 in Adobe PDF format. Showing his true colors, Watson dubs Frank a “Jew pervert.” In terms of it’s logical arguments and reasoning it gets 5 out of 5 stars.

5 Stars. The Rich Jews Indict a State! The Whole South Traduced in the Matter of Leo Frank By Tom Watson (October 1915) Volume 21. No. 6. See page 301. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga. Available for download in Adobe PDF format: October 1915. Watson criticizes the “rich Jews” that indict the State of Georgia. In terms of it’s logical arguments and reasoning it gets 4 to 4.5 out of 5 stars.

Read and compare Watson’s August, Sept and Oct 1915 publications on Leo M. Frank.

American State Trials by John D. Lawson

A 1918 Primary Source emerged about the Leo M. Frank case produced by John D. Lawson, it provides an extensively abridged version of the Official Record in the 1913 Leo M. Frank trial. It is worth reading and comparing it directly with the testimony provided within the unabridged 1913 Official Record / Brief of Evidence. You can see what Lawson left out in terms of evidence and testimony, which is very interesting. Be sure to read the closing arguments of Luther Rosser, Reuben Arnold, Mr. Frank Hooper and Hugh M. Dorsey. These closing arguments are rarely given the lengthy and indepth analysis they deserve.

Compare American State Trials Volume X with the Official Brief of Evidence in the 1913 Leo M. Frank trial, both are available here.

A journal of major U.S. court cases, this one included much about Leo Frank. Available for download in Adobe PDF format: American State Trials 1918, Volume X.

The [Leo] Frank Case: The First Neutral Book Published About the Leo M. Frank Case in 1913

A book published shortly after the conviction of Leo M. Frank that goes into some very interesting depths on some subjects. Highly recommended, albeit the fact that this rare original book used for the scan shows the decades of exposure to air and use. Available for download in Adobe PDF format: The Frank Case.

Agrarian Rebel: The Biography of Tom Watson

Tom Watson, writer, lawyer and former U.S. Senator and House of Representatives member from the State of Georgia. Read the 1938 Biography, ‘Tom Watson: Agrarian Rebel’. Available for download in Adobe PDF format: Agrarian Rebel the Biography of Tom Watson from www.Archive.org.

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

Instauration, June, 1986, is an addition to the Leo Frank library and archive. Instauration represents the right winger view on the Leo Frank pardon, which is an opinion shared by many people.

The Jeffersonian Newspaper on Leo M. Frank, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917 (80% complete): http://www.leofrank.org/images/jeffersonian/

Library of Congress “Chronicling America” Leo Frank newspaper Search

Be sure to read the Brief of Evidence, before reviewing these other works for the best understanding of the differing opinions on the Leo M. Frank Case.

Trial Testimony of Jim Conley: http://www.leofrank.org/jim-conley-august-4-5-6/

Required Reading, Leo Frank Documents (in PDF): http://www.leofrank.info/library/

Read the 1,800 Page Georgia Supreme Court Archive on the Leo Frank Case:

Leo Frank Appeals Georgia Supreme Court Complete Record (1,800+ pages). http://archive.org/details/leo-frank-georgia-supreme-court-case-records-1913-1914

Last Updated: April 26, 2013, Word Count 2476

Decoding Anti-Gentilism and Anti-Semitism of the Leo Frank Case, 100 Years of Review

Upon the centennial of Mary Phagan’s rape, strangulation and mutilation long ago on Georgia Confederate Memorial Day, Saturday, April 26, 1913, two pioneering spirits: Carolyn Yeager and Hadding Scott, debunk some of the major themes of anti-Gentile racism, claims of anti-Semitism and racist Jewish hatecrime hoaxes concerning the Leo Frank case. Multigenerational Jewish Academic Dishonesty (JAD) efforts have been relentlessly conducted by the well organized Jewish community beginning in 1913 and continue to this very day. For more than one hundred years, Jews have been publishing scholarly articles claiming Leo Frank is innocent, but using fallacious evidence to support their claims that does not stand up to 21st century scrutiny. Furthermore, the way Jews utilize this fabricated pseudo-history to re-write history is cite each others research until hundreds of Jews have spun this web of lies in peer reviewed journals for generations, thus eventually the quoting-each-others-lies becomes the “scholarly” popular culture orthodoxy. The poisonous Jewish pathological war of lies are then, as now, being used for anti-Gentile attacks against researchers that disagree with their conclusions. The weapon most often employed by Jews in these regards is the anti-Semitism, neo-nazi and national socialist canard. If Gentiles of the planet earth are going to liberate themselves from Jewish control they must seize back control from the occupiers of their own history. This Jewish-American culturewar is ultimately a life and death struggle for Gentiles against their traditional genetic enemies.

“He who controls the present controls the past, and he who controls the past controls the future” –George Orwell, 1984.

Jewish-American Genetic Race War in the Mainstream Media and Popular Culture:

Since 1913, through every kind of outreach and sensory medium available to the mainstream media and popular culture (scholarly articles, newspaper articles, books, movies, music, theater, drama etc..), Jews have been using the Leo Frank case to wage a vicious guilt and shaming culturewar against White Americans in its traditional multifront genetic racewars against Western Civilization. However, the good news is that this monumental and disingenuous centenarian Jewish fraud manufacturing campaign, now spanning more than 100 long years, has finally been deconstructed, thanks to numerous researchers who have worked tirelessly over the past few years to bring the frank truth to everyone about what really happened in 1913. Five years ago (2010) if you did research on the Internet about Mary Phagan, the only sources that would show-up on the search engine results pages go on to web sites alleging anti-Gentile conspiracies of Jewish race prejudice and an unfair trial for Leo Frank. Now in 2015 there is finally some balance for people to read both sides of the case. Take a look at the scholarly articles on The American Mercury about the Leo Frank case to learn what really happened more than 100 years ago. Subversive Jewish organizations like ADL and SPLC are attempting to conflate the articles about the Leo Frank case on The American Mercury with anti-Semitism, National Socialism, Hitlerism and Neo-Nazism.

Gentile Liberation Requires a 100 Year Audit on All Jewish and Pro-Frank Sources About the Case Since 1913

Fight Back and Join our struggle to regain control of our history. The next 100 years must and will be devoted to educating the human race about the innate nature of their Jewish pathological tendencies to compulsively lie and studying how they falsify history by the strategy of quoting and re-quoting each others mendaciously fabricated research, all to create a fake historical consensus over the generations that Leo Frank was innocent, didn’t have a fair trial and anti-Jewish conspiracies were “behind it all”.

We are calling on you to help us do a very deep fact checking audit of all major books written about the Frank-Phagan affair over the last 100 years. Please help us and join our efforts.

We can fight back by giving students and educators access to the primary sources of the Leo Frank Case to fact check the claims about Jewish falsification of their own history and ours (Gentiles). By studying the secondary sources of this case from the last 100 years and comparing them against the primary sources of the case, students will gain a multigenerational education about the collective Jewish genetic algorithm and how it produces high-intelligent, high-functioning, pathological liars and tribal paranoiacs with obsessive-compulsive and fragile egos. Students will study how Jews aggressively transform history to be falsified into an “us verses them” formulation that strokes their infantile racial-narcissism and perpetuate their disingenuous persecution and noble victimhood.

Please download (right mouse click on link if using PC) this excellent program and listen to it: http://leofrank.org/audio/caroyln-yeager-hadding-scott/mary-phagan-leo-frank-international_jew-study-hour.mp3

If you enjoyed this one hour radio program about the murder of Mary Phagan and Leo Frank’s murder case, please visit Carolyn Yeager’s website: http://www.CarolynYeager.Net

An archive of this program is at www.Archive.org The Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/mary-phagan-leo-frank-international_jew-study-hour

The Leo Frank Case, Inside Story of Georgia’s Greatest Murder Mystery

Complete History of the Sensational Crime and Trial, Portraits of Principals

Price 25 cents (Just Kidding: Free!)

Published by the Atlanta Publishing Company, Atlanta, Georgia 1913

01 Title Page – Leo Frank Case 1913 Atlanta Georgia’s Greatest Murder Mystery Complete History of the Sensational Crime and Trial, Portraits of Principals

02 Table of Contents – Leo Frank Case 1913

03 Preface – Leo Frank Case 1913

04 Chronology of the Crime – Leo Frank Case 1913

05 Chapter I – Crime Discovered – Leo Frank Case 1913

06 Chapter II – Police Reach Scene – Leo Frank Case 1913

07 Chapter III – Frank Views Body – Leo Frank Case 1913

08 Chapter IV – Mother Hears of Murder – Leo Frank Case 1913

09 Chapter V – Crime Stirs Atlanta Leo – Leo Frank Case 1913

10 Chapter VI – Leo Frank is Arrested – Leo Frank Case 1913

11 Chapter VII – The Inquest Starts – Leo Frank Case 1913

12 Chapter VIII – Frank’s Story – Leo Frank Case 1913

13 Chapter IX – Dictograph Incident – Leo Frank Case 1913

14 Chapter X – Conley Enters Case – Leo Frank Case 1913

15 Chapter XI – Conley in School – Leo Frank Case 1913

16 Chapter XII – Racial Prejudice Charge – Leo Frank Case 1913

17 Chapter XIII – Plants Charged to Frank – Leo Frank Case 1913

18 Chapter XIV – South’s Greatest Legal Battle – Leo Frank Case 1913

19 Chapter XV – The State’s Chain – Leo Frank Case 1913

20 Chapter XVI – Perversion Charged – Leo Frank Case 1913

21 Chapter XVII – Salacious Stories Admitted – Leo Frank Case 1913

22 Chapter XVIII – Frank’s Alibi – Leo Frank Case 1913

23 Chapter XIX – Attorneys Threatened – Leo Frank Case 1913

24 Chapter XX – Frank’s Own Story – Leo Frank Case 1913

25 Chapter XXI – Lawyers Laud and Denounce Frank – Leo Frank Case 1913

26 Chapter XXII – Fear of Lynching Precedes the Verdict – Leo Frank Case 1913

ALL SIX HOURS embedded here for your listening enjoyment:

Bibliography: Sources and References
The Internet Archive @ www.Archive.org —

The Leo Frank Case, Atlanta Georgia’s Greatest Murder Mystery by Margi H.
https://archive.org/details/LeoFrankCaseAtlantaGeorgiaGreatestMurderMystery1913_201503

https://archive.org/details/dw_griffith_birth_of_a_nation

Booklet Number 2 of 5 from Tom Watson’s Series on the Leo Frank Case in Watson’s Magazine, Jan, March, August, September and October of 1915.

‘A Full Review of the Leo Frank Case’ by Tom Watson published in ‘Watson’s Magazine’, March 1915, transformed into audiobook by Alex Linder of Vanguard News Network and VNNForum Audiobooks (with commentary) http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=225075&page=17

‘A Full Review of the Leo Frank Case’ by Tom Watson Published in Watson’s Magazine, March 1915, transformed into audiobook by Oscar Turner of Omniphi Media (no commentary about text).

‘A Full Review of the Leo Frank Case’ by Tom Watson Published in Watson’s Magazine, March 1915, transformed into audiobook by Vanessa Neubauer of National Vanguard Audiobooks (no commentary about text).
http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/audio-book-tom-watson-a-full-review-of-the-leo-frank-case

‘A Full Review of the Leo Frank Case’ by Tom Watson, published in ‘Watson’s Magazine’, March 1915, transformed into audiobook by John de Nugent, March 2015 (with commentary).

Click to play here: 

Download audio file

One hundred years ago Tom Watson published his second major article of a 5-part evolving and developing Leo Frank Series (This one being part 2 out of 5) in Watson’s Magazine, March 1915.

A Full Review of the Leo Frank Case

Watson’s Magazine, Volume 20 Number 5, March 1915

On the 23rd page of Puck, for the week ending January 16, 1915, there is, in the smallest possible type, in the smallest possible space, at the bottom of the page, the notice of ownership, required by law.

Mankind are informed that Puck is published by a corporation of the same name, Nathan Strauss, Jr., being President, and H. Grant Strauss being Secretary and Treasurer. You are authorized, therefore, to give credit to the Strauss family for the unparalleled campaign of falsehood and defamation which Puck has persistently waged against the State of Georgia, her people, and her courts. Inasmuch as the Strauss family once lived in Georgia, and are loudly professing their ardent devotion to the State of their birth, you may feel especially interested in Puck.

Looking over the pages of this Strauss publication, I find a characteristic thing: on page 22, there is an illustrated advertisement of “Sunny Brook Whiskey” which is recommended as “a delightful beverage, and a wholesome tonic.” To give force to the words of testimonial, there is a picture of an ideally good-looking man, and this smiling Apollo is pointing his index finger at a large bottle of the delightful Sunny Brook fire-water.

On the next page, is a strikingly boxed advertisement of “The Keely Cure Treatment,” with references to such nationally known stew-it-out resorts as Hot Springs, Arkansas; Jacksonville, Florida; and Atlanta, Georgia. The advertisement states that the Keely Cure is “John Barleycorn’s Master,” and that during the last thirty-five years half-a-million victims of the drink appetite have been cured.

Therefore, the Strauss magazine is open to contributions from both sides. Those who don’t want the Keely Cure, are told where to get the liquor; while those who have had too much of the liquor, are told where to get the Keely Cure. In either event, the Strauss family continue to do business, and to add diligent shekels to the family pile.

Puck is one of those magazines which indulges in fun, for the entertainment of the human race. You can nearly always tell what sort of a man it is, by the jokes he carries around with him. In parallel column to the ad. of the Sunny Brook Whiskey, Puck places a delicate little bit of humor, like this:

“We stand behind the goods we sell!”
The silver-throated salesman said.
“No! No!” cried pretty, blushing Nell,
“You see, I want to buy a bed!”

Another bit of refined fun, which is so good that the Strauss family went to the expense of a quarter-page cartoon, represents a portly evangelical bishop, seated in the elegant room of a young mother, who is at the tea-table, close by, pouring “the beverage which cheers but not inebriates.” Her little boy sits on the bishop’s knee, and the kindly gentleman, with one hand on the lad’s plump limb, exclaims, “My! My! What sturdy little legs!” and the boy answers, “O, you ought to see mother’s!” and the mother is in arm’s length of the bishop!

The tone of Puck, and its sense of responsibility to its readers, when discussing matters of the gravest public concern, is shown by its treatment of the profoundly serious and important subject of Prohibition. I quote what Puck says, not to exhibit Richmond Pearson Hobson, or the pros and cons of Congressional legislation on that question, but to exhibit the levity and dishonesty of Puck:

Congress was treated to an excellent vaudeville a few days ago as part of the prohibition propaganda engineered by that earnest young white-ribboner, Richard Pearson Hobson. From all press reports of the session, it must have been an inspiring sight.

Mr. Hobson had placed in the “well” of the House—the big space in front of the clerk’s desk—twenty large lettered placards pointing out the alleged evils of the “liquor curse.” Some of those placards were: “Alcoholic Dogs Had More Feeble and Defective Puppies,” “Destructive Effect of Alcohol on Guinea Pigs,” etc.—New York Tribune.

Puck has long pointed out the terrible effects of alcoholic indulgence among our canine friends. It feels, with Mr. Hobson, a heartfelt pity at the picture of a tipsy terrier going home to a boneless doghouse and a hungry litter. But Mr. Hobson’s flapdoodle did not stop here. He rants:

“The national liquor trust in America opened four different headquarters in Alabama and conducted the major part of the great campaign against me, with their one hundred stenographers and eight hundred men on the salaried payroll. I found out also that Wall Street—and I am not guessing—raised a fund which was sent there to defeat me.”—New York Tribune.

Poor old Wall Street! No sooner is it out of the doldrums of an enforced vacation than it is dragged into action to lead that peerless force of “one hundred stenographers and eight hundred salaried men” against Mr. Hobson. It is a heart-rending picture, this spectacle of impoverished financiers passing ’round the hat to collect a fund to be used in behalf of the Demon Rum. Wall Street reeks with whiskey—if we believed the oratory of Prohibition’s Alabama advocate.

But, to continue:

That whiskey is killing daily more men in the United States than the war is taking away in Europe, was one of the statements emphasized by Mr. Hobson.—New York Tribune.

Is it to be wondered that the cause of Prohibition, championed with such rubbish as this, met with a decisive and well-deserved defeat?

The prominent feature of this number of Puck, is another full-page cartoon, by Hy Mayer, representing Leo Frank, this time, as an innocent prisoner barred from his freedom by the symbolic columns of “Wisdom, Justice, and Moderation,” as they appear on Georgia’s coat of arms. The Strauss accusation is, that the State has falsified her own motto, and converted her temple into a Bastille, through whose bars the innocent Frank is gazing outward for the liberty of which he has been so unlawfully deprived.

A paragraph on another page runs thus:

IN SAFE HANDS AT LAST.

Perhaps the Georgia mob that hooted its way to fame outside the court-room where Frank was being tried for his life will now pack up its carpet-bags and journey to Washington.

The Supreme Court of the United States would doubtless be tremendously overawed by a demonstration of mob violence on the part of an Atlanta delegation.

What are people to do, when mercenary detectives, and newspapers, and Hessians of the pen, hire themselves to push a propaganda of libel and race prejudice, in the determined effort to hide the evidence of Frank’s guilt, nullify the calm decisions of our highest court, and substitute the clamor of Big Money for the stern, impartial mandate of the Law?

In this same issue of the Strauss magazine, is another cartoon, by M. De Zayas, labeled, “ALONE IN HER SHAME!” The subject of odium is the State of Georgia, and she is pictured as being pointed at by the scornful fingers of all the other States.

If this kind of thing could work a mercurial public into hysteria, or hypnotize a governor into blue funk, what rich criminal would ever go to the scaffold? If Big Money can hire Hessians enough to fight Frank’s way out of the consequences of his awful crime, what is it that Big Money cannot do?

In the same Strauss magazine for January 30th, there is a still more insulting and defamatory cartoon. We reproduce it, for the information of our readers. It pictures the State of Georgia as a masked ruffian, with a coil of rope in his hand, trying to seize Leo Frank, and lynch him, without a legal trial. The witnesses to the scene are Uncle Sam, and a touring-car full of the other States in the Union! A guide, with a megaphone, is proclaiming the infamy of Georgia.

In all of the months during which William J. Burns has been working these agencies to create sentiment in favor of Frank, not a page of the essential sworn testimony has been given to the public. On the contrary, the wildest rumors, and the most craftily devised falsehoods, have been put into circulation, in the effort to get a favorable verdict from unthinking editors and readers who are slow to suspect that there is a systematic campaign of willful lies.

Excuse me for speaking plainly, the time has come for it.

Let us begin with Collier’s. This is the weekly paper which has sold books in so many peculiar ways, and made a nation-wide campaign against patent medicines—and then stopped quite suddenly.

It is the paper which editorially accused the white women of the United States of squealing on their negro paramours, and thereby causing them to be lynched—to avoid scandal!

The exact language of Collier’s was—

It is well known that many identifications are mere hysteria, often for crimes that were never committed, and many charges and identifications are founded on something worse than hysterical invention; they are the easiest escape from scandal. Now these are not the things to say, no doubt. They altogether lack chivalry and the aristocratic virtues. But perhaps it is time to put justice and truth above “honor,” whatever that may be.

Thus spoke Collier’s editorially in October 1908.

Is Collier’s the kind of publication which you would select for the championship of Truth?

Is Collier’s the weekly that would go to great expense in the Frank case, for the holy sake of Justice?

C.P. Connolly had been with William J. Burns in the McNamara cases, and Burns took up Connolly in the Frank case, to blow some bugles through the Baltimore Sun, the daily paper of the worthy Abells. After the Abells got through with Connolly, Collier’s picked him up, and translated him to Atlanta. What did he do there? With whom did he talk? How did he try to get at the facts of the Frank case?

He did not go over the record, with the Solicitor who was familiar with it, and who proffered his services to Connolly for that very purpose!

If Connolly came for the truth, why did he not listen to both sides? Why did he not read the record? Or if he read it, why did he so grossly misrepresent it?

Let us examine a few of Connolly’s statements—statements which being accepted as true, have poisoned the minds of honest people throughout the Union, just as they were meant to do!

Connolly says—“Leo M. Frank is a young man of whose intellectual attainments any community might well be proud. Atlanta has been combed to find something against his moral character….but without success.”

There you have a flat, positive assertion that the city of Atlanta was diligently searched for witnesses who would testify against Frank’s moral character, and that none could be found.

What will be your amazement and indignation, when I tell you that numerous white girls and white women went upon the witness stand, and swore against Frank’s moral character?

One after another, those white accusers, braved the public ordeal and testified that Frank was lewd, lascivious, immoral!

Frank’s lawyers sat there in silence, not daring to ask those witnesses for the details upon which they based their terrible testimony.
Why did Frank’s lawyers allow that fearful evidence to have its full effect upon the jury, without asking those white women what it was they knew on Frank?

Suppose you had been accused in this case, and those same witnesses had testified against your character, would you have been afraid to cross-examine them?

Only a man who shrank from what those women could tell on him, would have let them go, without a single word! The State could not ask them for specific facts. The defendant alone had the legal right to ask for those—and the defense was afraid to do it.

Among those white witnesses were, Miss Marie Karst, Miss Nellie Pettis, Miss Maggie Griffin, Miss Carrie Smith, Mrs. C.D. Donegan, Miss Myrtie Cato, Mrs. Estelle Winkle, Mrs. M.E. Wallace, Mrs. H.R. Johnson, Miss Mary Davis.

Another white girl who did not know enough of Frank’s general character for lasciviousness, to swear against it, was offered by the State to prove that she went to work in Frank’s factory, and that Frank made an indecent proposal to her, on the second day!

Frank’s lawyers objected to the evidence, and Judge L.S. Roan ruled it out. But if Connolly was eagerly bent on finding the truth as to Frank’s character, he would certainly have heard of Miss Nellie Wood, who doubtless can tell Connolly at any time the exact language that Frank used in his effort to corrupt her.

When you pause to consider that here were many white witnesses, none of whom could be impeached, who took a solemn oath in open court, and swore to Frank’s immoral character—standing ready to bear the brunt of the cross-examination of the crack lawyer of the Atlanta bar—what do you think of Connolly, when he states that no such witnesses could be found? And what do you think of Burns, who pulled off the jackass stunt of afterwards offering “a reward” for any such witnesses?

With reference to his said offer of the $5,000 reward, this impostor, Burns, said on Feb. 3, in the Kansas City Star, which is (disinterestedly, no doubt) giving so much space to the campaign of slander against the people and courts of Georgia:

“Let me tell you this—no man has a more remarkable past than Frank. I investigated every act of his life prior to the accusation against him. There was not a scratch on it. Then I offered a reward of $5,000 to anyone who could prove the slightest immorality against him. No one, not even the Atlanta police, have attempted to claim it.”

Instead of his flamboyant and empty offer of $5,000, why didn’t Burns quietly take Rev. John E. White, or some other respectable witness, with him, and visit the white ladies who had already publicly testified to Frank’s lewd character?

Those white ladies were right there in Atlanta, while that noisy ass, Burns, was braying to the universe. The record showed him their names. If he wanted to know WHAT THEY COULD TELL ON FRANK, why didn’t he go and ask them?

He knew very well that nobody would claim his reward, for he knew that there wasn’t anybody who was fool enough to believe they could ever see the color of his money.

If he wants to learn the truth about Frank’s double life, he can go to those ladies now!

WHY DOESN’T HE DO IT? He can save his imaginary $5,000, and ascertain the truth, at the same time.

The mendacious scoundrel was quick enough to hunt up Miss Monteen Stover, and use his utmost efforts to scare her into changing her evidence. He went so far as to entrap her, in Samuel Boornstein’s office, where the attempt was made to hold her by force.

Other girl witnesses, in the case were subjected to persecution and threats, by these infamous Burns detectives, who wanted to change their evidence, as they did change the fearful evidence of Frank’s negro cook.

Why was Burns afraid to ask Mrs. Johnson, or Mrs. Winkle, or Mrs. Donegan what it was, that caused them to swear that Leo Frank is a libertine? Miserable faker! He didn’t want the truth.

Do William J. Burns and Luther Rosser mean to say that all these respectable white girls and ladies who swore to Frank’s immoral character, perjured themselves? If so, what motive did they have? And if Rosser was satisfied those ladies were swearing falsely, why didn’t he cross-examine them? Why was he afraid to ask them a single question?

Your common sense tells you why. Rosser feared what would COME OUT!

Another statement made by Connolly is, that the face of the dead girl “was pitted and seamed with indentations and scratches from the cinders, a bank of which stretched along the cellar for a hundred feet or more. There had evidently been a struggle.”

Again, Connolly says—

There were cinders and sawdust in the girl’s nose and mouth, drawn in, in the act of breathing, and under her finger nails. Her face had been rubbed before death into these cinders, evidently in the attempt to smother her cries.

Here the purpose of Connolly was, to make it appear that Mary Phagan had been killed in the basement, after a struggle, during which her mouth had been held down in the cinders, to stifle her screams!

In that event, of course, her tongue, her mouth, her throat, and perhaps her lungs would have shown saw-dust, and cinders.
There is absolutely no evidence in the record to support any such theory.

There was absolutely no evidence of any long “bank of cinders,” in the basement. There was, in fact, no such bank of cinders!

(See evidence of Defendant’s witness, I.U. Kauffman, pages 148, 149, 150. Also, evidence of Dobbs, Starnes, Barrett, &c.)

The evidence of all the witnesses is, that the girl’s tongue protruded from her mouth, and that the heavy twine cord had cut into the tender flesh of her neck, and that the blood-settlings showed the stopped circulation—manifest not only in her purple-black face, but under the blue finger nails.

There was no evidence whatever of cinders, ashes, or saw-dust in her mouth, in her throat, or in her lungs.

There was not a scintilla of evidence that she had met her death in the basement!

(See evidence of Dobbs, Starnes and Barrett.)

The sworn testimony in the record is, that, although the girl’s face was dirty from having been dragged by the heels through the coal-dust and grime, natural to the basement where the furnace was, the negro who first saw her that night, by the glimmer of a smoky lantern, telephoned to the police that it was a white girl. The officers, Anderson and Starnes, so testified!

Sergeant Dobbs swore that the body seemed to have been dragged by the heels, over the dirt and coal-dust, and that the trail led back from the corpse to the elevator. His exact words are, “It began immediately in front of the elevator, at the bottom of the (elevator) shaft.”

The word, “It,” refers to the trail of the dragged body; and the witness swore that the thought the condition of the girl’s face “had been made from the dragging.”

There was the unmistakable sign of the dragged body, as legible as the track of a foot on the soft ground; and the weight of the head and the friction, in dragging and bumping, would naturally cause soilure and abrasions. (The distance was 136 feet.)

W.E. Thomson whose booklet of 32 pages has been generously scattered “from the Potomac to the Rio Grande”—in the evident effort to reach all of his blood-relations who, as he tells us, are dissolutely distributed over the entire region between these two watercourses—W.E. Thomson says, on page 18 of his rambling, incoherent pamphlet.—

“There is not a shadow of doubt that she was murdered in this basement, on this dirty floor. The back door had been forced open by drawing the staple. This door opened out on an alley back of the building. There is every reason for believing that the murderer went out that door.”
Thomson argues that Jim Conley did the work.

But why did Jim Conley have to draw the staple, and leave the building by that door? Conley had the run of the building, was in it that fatal Saturday, was there when the white ladies and girls left, and was gone, in the usual way, when Newt Lee came on duty for the evening, as night watch.

The basement door was not then open. But the crime had already been committed, and the dead body lay there in the gloom. Whose interest would it serve to afterwards draw the staple, and give the door an appearance of having been forced?

When William J. Burns came to Atlanta, last Spring, and began his campaign of thunder and earthquake, he deafeningly shouted to the public at every step he took. His very first whoop was, that a careful examination of the facts in the case showed that the crime had been committed by “a degenerate of the lowest type.” Burns roared the statement, that the guilty man had never been suspected, and was still “at large.”

Burns yelled that this unsuspected criminal of the lowest type was hiding out, somewhere nearer to the North pole than Atlanta; and, with an ear-splitting noise, Burns set out to find that man. Burns said he was “utterly confident” he would find this man—who was expected to wait calmly, until Burns could nab him.

As everybody who read the papers last summer knows, that was precisely the theory upon which Burns started to work. He went on a wild-goose chase, into the Northern States, and was gone for months, working the Frank case. Working it how? Hunting for what?

He didn’t have to go North to find evidence against Jim Conley. Every bit of evidence against Jim was right there, in Atlanta.

Burns has never produced a single witness from the North. Not a scrap of testimony resulted from all his months of labor in the North! What was he doing there?

From day to day, and week to week, he put out interviews in which he declared he was making “the most gratifying progress.”
“Progress,” at what? “Gratifying,” how?

My own idea was, that Burns spent his time chasing around after opulent Hebrews; and that his gratifying progress consisted of relieving the prosperous Children of Israel of their superfluity of ducats. It takes money to stimulate the activities of such a peculiar concern as the Burns Detective Agency.

In one of his many interviews, published in the papers of Cain and Abel, this great detective, Burns, said, “The private detective is one of the most dangerous criminals that we have to contend with.”

I considered that the superbest piece of cool effrontery that a Gentile ever uttered, and a Jew ever printed. You couldn’t beat it, if you sat up of nights, and drank inspiration from the nectar Jupiter sips.

Week after week, Burns pursued the pleasures of the chase, up North, presumably bringing down many a fat Hebrew. He not only got a magnificent “bag” of rich Jews, but, with the unholy appetite of an Egyptian turning the tables on the Chosen People, he spoiled them to such an extent that it was a “battue.”

Having bled these opulent Hebrews of the North until they were pale about the gills, and mangled in their bankbooks, William J. came roaring back Southward, oozing newspaper interviews at every stop of the cars. Burns said he had his “Report” about ready. That Report was going to create a seismitic upheaval. That Report would astound all right-thinking bipeds, and demonstrate what a set of imbeciles were the Atlanta police, the Atlanta detectives, the Pinkerton detectives, the Solicitor-General, the Jury, the Supreme Court, and those prejudiced mortals who had believed Leo Frank to be the murderer of Mary Phagan.

Naturally, the public held its breath, as it waited for the publication of this much-advertised Report. At last, it came, and what was it? To the utter amazement of everybody, it consisted of an argument by Burns on the facts that were already of record. He did not offer a shred of new evidence.

His only attempt at new testimony was the bought affidavit of the Rev. C.B. Ragsdale, who swore that he overheard Conley tell another negro that he had killed a girl at the National Pencil Factory.

So, after all his work in the North, and after all his brag about what he would show in his Report, Burns’ bluff came to the pitiful show down of a bribed witness who was paid to put the crime on the negro.

As Burns said, “the private detective is the most dangerous criminal we have to contend with.” “We” have so found.

Commenting upon the Connolly articles, the Houston, Texas, Chronicle says, editorially:

Collier’s Weekly has espoused Frank’s cause in its usual intense way, and has put the work of analyzing the facts into the hands of a man who does not mince words; and, while one may not be willing to agree with all of its contentions, there is one point on which it hits the bullseye—that of the speech of the solicitor general, or prosecuting attorney.

In what manner had Collier’s hit the bull’s eye?

According to Collier’s, the speech was “venomously partisan,” and the wish is editorially expressed that all lawyers in the United States could read it and let that paper know what they think of it. So presumably it was stenographically reported, and it may safely be assumed that Collier’s quotes correctly. It says the Reuf case, the Rosenthal murder and other crimes in which Jews played a part were dragged into the argument.

Elevating himself to the pinnacle of moral rectitude, the editor of the Chronicle says—

In England, where trials are conducted more nearly along proper lines than they are anywhere else in the world, a crown’s counsel who would make a denunciatory or emotional appeal to a jury would be adjudged in contempt.

With such a speech, and a crowd which had already prejudged the case filling the court house, a fair trial in the meaning of the constitution and the law was impossible.

In England it would have been different, says the Chronicle.

Yes, it would. In England, Leo Frank would have long since gone the way of Dr. Crippin, and suffered for his terrible crime.

But was Dorsey’s speech such a venomous tirade? Was he in contempt of court in his allusions to Reuf and Hummel and Rosenthal? Did Dorsey bring the race issue into the case?

Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey’s speech was stenographically reported. It makes a booklet of 146 pages. On pages 2, 3, and 4, Mr. Dorsey deals with the race issue and deplores the fact that the “defense first mentioned race.”

Mr. Dorsey says, “Not a word emanated from this side, not a word indicating any feeling against…..any human being, black or white, Jew or Gentile.
“But, ah! the first time it was ever brought into this case,—and it was brought in for a purpose, and I have never seen two men manifest more delight or exultation than Messrs, Rosser and Arnold, when they put the question to George Kendley at the eleventh hour.

“A thing which they had expected us to do, and which the State did not do, because we didn’t feel it and it wasn’t in this case.

“I will never forget how they seized it, seized with avidity the suggestion, and you know how they have harped on it ever since.

“Now, mark you, they are the ones that mentioned it, not us; the word never escaped our mouth.”

There sat Frank’s lawyers, two of the most aggressive fighters, men who rose to their feet, again and again, during the course of Dorsey’s speech, to deny his statements, and interject their own, but they did not utter a word of denial when he charged them to their teeth, in open court, with bringing into the case the evidence that Frank is a Jew. Nor did they challenge his statement that they had “laid for” him to do it, and had done it themselves when they saw that he did not mean to give them that string to harp on.

Having made his explanation of how the fact of Frank being a Jew got into the case, Dorsey paid this glowing tribute to the great race from which this degenerate and pervert sprung:

“I say to you here and now, that the race from which that man comes is as good as our race. His ancestors were civilized when ours were cutting each other up and eating human flesh; his race is just as good as ours,—just so good, but no better. I honor the race that has produced D’Israeli,—the greatest Prime Minister that England has ever produced. I honor the race that produced Judah P. Benjamin,—as great a lawyer as ever lived in America or England, because he lived in both places and won renown in both places. I honor the Strauss brothers—Oscar, the diplomat, and the man who went down with his wife by his side on the Titanic. I roomed with one of his race at college; one of his race is my partner. I served with old man Joe Hirsch on the Board of Trustees of the Grady Hospital. I know Rabbi Marx but to honor him, and I know Doctor Sonn, of the Hebrew Orphan’s Home, and I have listened to him with pleasure and pride.

“But, on the other hand, when Becker wished to put to death his bitter enemy, it was men of Frank’s race he selected. Abe Hummel, the lawyer, who went to the penitentiary in New York, and Abe Reuf, who went to the penitentiary in San Francisco, Schwartz, the man accused of stabbing a girl in New York, who committed suicide, and others that I could mention, show that this great people are amendable to the same laws as you and I and the black race. They rise to heights sublime, but they sink to the depths of degradation.”

After Rosser and Arnold had dragged the Jewish name into the case, could Dorsey have handled it more creditably to himself, and to those Jews who believe, with Moses, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that crime must be punished?

Read again what Dorsey actually said as stenographically reported, and remember that Connolly pretended to have read it before he wrote his articles, and then sift your mind and see how much respect you have for a writer who tries to deceive the public in that unscrupulous manner.
C.P. Connolly makes two statements about the law of Georgia.

On Dec. 14, 1915, he stated in Collier’s that, “By a constitutional amendment, adopted in 1906, the Supreme Court of Georgia cannot reverse a case on other than errors of law.”

This remarkable statement he varies somewhat, in his article published Dec. 19, 1915.

Under a constitutional amendment adopted in 1906, the Supreme Court of Georgia is not allowed to reverse any capital case where no error of law has been committed in the trial, no matter how weak the evidence may be, and cannot investigate or pass upon the question of guilt or innocence.

Since the days of Magna Charta, it may be doubted whether any State, set up under English principles, could legally deprive reviewing courts of the right to annul a verdict which has no evidence to support it. In such a case, the question of evidence would become a question of law. Without due process of law, no citizen can be robbed of life, liberty, or property; and, while it is the province of the jury to say what has been proved, on issues of disputed facts, it is for the court to decide whether the record discloses jurisdictional facts.

It necessarily follows that, if a record showed that no crime had been committed, or, if committed, the evidence failed to connect defendant with it, the verdict would have to be set aside, as a matter of law.

The constitutional amendment of 1906, to which Connolly refers, had for its main purpose the creation of a Court of Appeals, as an auxiliary and a relief to the Supreme Court. In doing this, the legislature had to divide appealed cases between the two courts. The new law provided that the Supreme Court should review and decide those civil cases which went up from the Superior Courts, and from the courts of ordinary, (our chancery courts) and “all cases of conviction of a capital felony.”

To the Court of Appeals, was assigned those cases going up from city courts, and all convictions in criminal cases less than a capital felony.

The Supreme Court of Georgia in every open case of motion-for-new-trial, is now constantly passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict; and the Court passed upon that very question, in Frank’s first motion for new trial.

I cannot imagine anything that would cause a more universal wave of protest, than an effort to emasculate our Supreme Court, by robbing it of the time-honored authority to review all the evidence in contested cases; and to decide, in the calm atmosphere of the consulting room,—remote from personalities, passions, and the dust of forensic battle—whether the evidence set out in the record is sufficient to support the verdict.

If Connolly’s idea of the change made in 1906 were correct, it would lead to the preposterous proposition, that the Supreme Court might have before it a case of a man condemned to death for rape, when the evidence showed that there had been no penetration. The Court would have to let the man die, because the judge below had committed no error of law! Would it not be the greatest of errors of law, to allow a citizen to be hanged, when there is no proof of a crime? Would it be “due process of law,” to kill a man, under legal forms, without evidence of his guilt?

Those men who alleged that Connolly is a lawyer, also allege that Burns is a detective. Both statements cut a large, and weird figure, in the realm of cheap, ephemeral fiction. If being a lawyer were a capital offense, and Connolly, were arraigned for the crime, the jury would not only acquit him without leaving the box, but would find a unanimous verdict of “malicious prosecution.”

If being a detective were virulent, confluent small-pox, the wildest advocate of compulsory vaccination would never pester Burns. It is as much as Burns can do, to find an umbrella in a hall hat-rack.

A prodigious noise has been made over the alleged statement of Judge L.S. Roan, who presided at Frank’s trial, that he did not know whether Frank was guilty or innocent. All of that talk is mere bosh. What Judge Roan said was exactly what the law contemplates that he shall say! The law of Georgia, constitutes the trial judge an impartial arbiter, whose duty it is to pass on to the jury, in a legal manner, the evidence upon which the jury are to act as judges.

They are not only the judges of the evidence, but the sole judges of it. The slightest expression of an opinion from the bench, as to what has or has not been proven, works a forfeiture of the entire proceeding.

In no other way, can a defendant be tried constitutionally, by his peers, than by clothing the twelve jurors whom he, in part, selects as his peers, with full power to adjudge the facts.

(I am confident that it is the intention of the law to also make these peers of the accused the full judges of the law, to exactly the same extent that they are absolute judges of the facts; but that is a question not germane to the Frank case.)

Now, if Connolly and Collier’s had taken the pains to examine our law, they would have realized that the legal intendment of Judge Roan’s declaration was no more than this:

“It is not for me to say whether this man is innocent or guilty. That is for the jury. They have said that he is guilty, and I find that the evidence sustains the verdict. Therefore, I refuse to grant the motion for new trial.”

In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, our judges utter some such words as those, in charging the jury, and in passing upon motions for new trial.

I will say further, that a lack of definite opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant at the bar, is an ideal state of mind for the presiding judge.

We are all so human, that if the judge feels certain of the guilt, or innocence of the accused, he will “leg” for one side or the other.
So well is this understood, that the trial judge almost invariably takes pains to say to the jury—

“Gentlemen, the court does not mean to say, or to intimate what has, or has not, been proven. That is peculiarly your province. It is for you to say, under the law as I have given it to you, whether the evidence establishes the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, &c.”

There isn’t a lawyer in Georgia who hasn’t heard that kind of thing, times without number.

If Judge L. S. Roan did, indeed, keep his mind so far above the jury-function in this case, that he did not form an opinion, either way, he maintained that ideal neutrality and impartiality which the Law expects of the perfect judge.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch is another paper that has taken jurisdiction of the Frank case. It employs another famous detective for the defense, a New York person, named George Dougherty. Every detective who favors Frank is a famous detective, a scholar, a gentleman, a deep thinker and a model citizen—just as Frank is.

Those detectives and police officers who testify the other way, are bad men, the scum of the earth, crooks, rapscallions, liars, and pole-cats.

The famous detective, George Dougherty, appears to have studied the case hurriedly. He says—

And the office in which Frank was charged with having committed immoral attacks was in direct line of possible observation from several people already in the building, whose approach Conley would have known nothing of.

George D. is mistaken. Frank and the other man took the women to a place where they were not “in direct line of possible observation,” &c.
The famous detective again says—

Another point: Conley’s statement is that Frank knew in advance that Mary Phagan was to visit the factory that day for the purpose of getting her pay. There is no reasonable cause for believing this to have been true; no other employee went there that day to be paid. If Frank did not know that Mary Phagan was to be there, Conley’s entire story falls. And, as a matter of fact, there seems to be more reason to believe that he did not, than there is to believe that he did.

Now, what will you think of this famous detective, when I tell you that page 26 of the official court record of this case shows, that Monteen Stover swore she went there to get the wages due her, and was at the office of Frank at the fatal half-hour during which he cannot give an account of himself?

George Dougherty does not even know that Frank, in his statement to the jury, stated that Miss Mattie Smith came for her pay envelope, that Saturday morning, and also for the wages due her sister-in-law; and that he gave to the fathers of two boys the pay envelopes for their sons.

This makes five other employees—two in person, and three by proxy—who were there for the wages due them, on the identical day when Mary Phagan went for her pay, and disappeared—the very day when Dougherty asserts, “no other employee went there that day to be paid!”

(See Frank’s statement, page 179.)

Is it any marvel that the public has been bamboozled, and the State of Georgia made the object of condemnation, when famous detectives write such absurdities, and respectable papers publish them?

The State of Georgia has no press agent, no publicity bureau, no regiment of famous detectives, no brigade of journalistic Hessians. The State can only maintain an attitude of dignified endurance, while this mercenary, made-to-order hurricane of fable, misrepresentation and abuse passes over her head.

All she asks of an intelligent, fair-minded public is, to judge her by the official record, as agreed on by the attorneys for both sides. All that she expects from outsiders is, the reasonable presumption that she is not worse than other States, not worse than Missouri which tried the Boodlers of St. Louis, not worse than California which tried the grafters and the dynamiters; not worse than Virginia, which tried and executed McCue, Beattie and Cluverius, on less evidence than there is against Frank.

The New York World, owned by the Pulitzers, said in its report of the case:

May 24—On evidence of Conley, Frank was indicted for murder.

July 28—Trial of Frank began.

Aug. 24—Conley testified Frank entrapped the girl in his office, beat her unconscious, then strangled her.

Aug. 25—Jury found Frank guilty of murder, first degree.

“On evidence of Conley,” Frank was indicted and convicted, according to the Pulitzers. Of course, the general public does not know that Frank could not have been convicted upon the evidence of Conley, a confessed accomplice. The general public—which includes such lawyers as Connolly—cannot be supposed to know that the law does not allow any defendant to be convicted upon the evidence of his accomplice.

In the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (which I believe is also a Pulitzer paper) there are two recent letters by Wm. Preston Hill, M.D. Ph.D., in which the State of Georgia is violently arraigned.

Wm. Preston Hill, M.D. Ph.D., starts out by stating that “anybody who has carefully read the proceedings in the murder trial of Leo Frank must be convinced…the whole trial was a disgraceful display of prejudice and fanatical unfairness….This whole proceeding is a disgrace to the State of Georgia, and will bring on her the just contempt of the whole civilized world.

“Everywhere thoughtful men will judge Georgia to be filled with semi-barbarous fanatical people of low mentality, and strong, ill-controlled passions, a race to be avoided by anybody who cares for liberty, order or justice.”

Then to show what a thoughtful man is Wm. Preston Hill, M.D. Ph.D., and how carefully he has read the record in the case, he proceeds to state that “Frank was convicted on the unsupported evidence of a dissolute negro of bad character” who was contradicted in 22 different instances!

Then Wm. Preston Hill, M.D. Ph.D., gives himself away by advising people to study the case—how?

By an examination of the record that went up to the Supreme Court?

Oh no! Study it by the paid columns of C.P. Connolly, who got his ideas of the case from the rascally and mendacious poseur, William J. Burns.

In the Chicago Sunday Tribune of December 27, 1914, appears a full page article beginning, “Will the State of Georgia send an innocent man to the gallows?”

The writer of the article is Burton Rascoe. The entire article proceeds upon the idea that poor little Mary Phagan was a lewd girl; that she had been immorally intimate with two employees of the factory; that Jim Conley, drunk and hard-up, wanted her pay envelope; that he seized her, to rob her, and that he heard some one calling him, and he killed her.

Mr. Rascoe says that, ordinarily, juries are instructed that they are to assume the defendant is innocent, until he is proven guilty, but that in Frank’s case, it was just the opposite.

Mr. Rascoe says that, during the trial, men stood up in the audience and shouted to the jury: “You’d better hang the Jew. If you don’t, we’ll hang him, and get you too.”

The Chicago Tribune claims to be “the world’s greatest newspaper,” with a circulation of 500,000 for the Sunday edition.

It is therefore reasonable to suppose that at least two million people will get their ideas of the case from this special article, in which the public is told that Judge Roan allowed the audience to intimidate the jury by shouting their threats, to the jury, while the trial was in progress.

Of course, any one, who will stop and think a moment, will realize what an arrant falsehood that is.

Had any such thing occurred, the able, watchful, indefatigable lawyers who have been fighting nearly two years to save Frank’s life, would have immediately moved a mistrial, and got it.

No such incident ever has occurred, in a Georgia court-room.

And no white man in Georgia was ever convicted on the evidence of a negro!

As a specimen of the misrepresentations which are misleading so many good people, take this extract from the article in the Chicago Tribune:

It has been declared by Burns, among others, that the circumstantial evidence warranting the retention of Conley as the suspected slayer was dropped and Conley was led to shoulder the blame upon Frank in somewhat the following manner:

“What do you know about this murder?”

“Nothing.”

“Who do you think did it?”

“I don’t know.”

“How about Frank?”

“Yes. I confess. He’s the one who did it.”

“Sure he was. That’s the fellow we want.”

And forthwith Frank was locked up as a suspect.

In fact, the statements of Mr. Rascoe, like those of C.P. Connolly, are re-hashes from Wm. J. Burns.

Does not the Chicago Tribune know that Burns was expelled from the National Association of Police Chiefs?

Does not the Tribune know that Burns’ confidential man in this Frank case, Lehon, was expelled from the Chicago police force, for blackmailing a woman of the town?

Does not the Tribune know that the detectives bribed Ragsdale and Barber, the preacher and the deacon, to swear this crime onto the negro, Jim Conley?

Does not the Tribune know that the official records in the U.S. Department of Justice disclose the fact that Attorney-General Wickersham, and President Taft set aside some convictions in the Oregon land cases, upon the overwhelming evidence that Burns is a crook, and corruptly obtained those convictions?

As already stated in this Magazine, Conley’s evidence is not at all necessary to the conviction of Frank. Eliminate the negro entirely, and you have a dead case against this lewd young man, who had been pursuing the girl for nearly two months, and who, after setting a trap for her, on Memorial Day, 1913, had to use such violence to overcome her struggle for her virtue, that he killed her; and then had the diabolical cruelty to attack her character, after she was dead.

Mr. L.Z. Rosser telegraphed to a Northern newspaper a long statement in which he says—

Leo M. Frank is an educated, intelligent, normal man of a retiring, home making, home loving nature. He has lived a clean, honest, busy, unostentatious life, known by few outside of his own people. In the absence of the testimony of the negro, Jim Conley, a verdict of acquittal would have been inevitable.

If Mr. Rosser believed that Leo Frank was the pure young man and model husband, why did he sit silent while so many white girls and ladies swore to Frank’s lascivious character?

Do you suppose that any power on earth could have produced twenty white women of Atlanta who would have sworn that Dr. John E. White’s character is lascivious? Or that Judge Beverly Evans’ character is lascivious? Or that Governor Slaton’s character is lascivious?

The ex-lawyer from Montana—C.P. Connolly—says in Collier’s:

The State contended that Frank murdered Mary Phagan on the second floor of the pencil factory. There was found four corpuscles of “blood”–a mere iota–on the second floor. The girl was brutally handled and bled freely, not only from the wound in her head, but from other parts of her body.

“Four corpuscles of blood—a mere iota—on the second floor.”

That is what Connolly says. But what says the official record?

On page 26, Mr. R. P. Barrett, the machinist for Frank’s factory, testifies, that on Monday morning, early, he discovered the blood spots, which were not there the Friday before! He says—

“The spot was about 4 or 5 inches in diameter, and little spots behind these in the rear—6 or 8 in number. It was blood.”
Here we have one of Frank’s responsible employees swearing positively to a five-inch splotch of blood, with 6 or 8 smaller spots leading up to the main spot, as large as the lid of the average dinner-pail; and Connolly tells the public that “four corpuscles, a mere iota,” were all that were found!

When a man makes public statements of that kind, after having gone to Atlanta ostensibly to study the record, is he honestly trying to inform the public, or is he dishonestly trying to deceive it?

Mell Stanford swore, “These blood spots, were right in front of the ladies’ dressing room,” where Conley said he dropped the body of the girl, after Frank called on him for help.

Mrs. George Jefferson, also a worker in Frank’s place, swore that they found the blood splotch, “as big as a fan.”

Mrs. Jefferson had been working there five years. She knew paint spots when she saw them, and told of the maroon red, and red lime, and bright red, but she added, in answer to Frank’s attorney, “That spot I saw was not one of those three paints.”

She swore that the spot was not there Friday, April 25th. They found it Monday morning at about 6 or 7 o’clock. “We saw blood on the second floor, in front of the girl’s dressing room. It was about as big as a fan.”

The foreman of the metal room, Lemmie Quinn, also testified to seeing the blood spots, Monday morning. Quinn was Frank’s own witness.

J.N. Starnes, police officer, testified (page 10 of the official record) that he saw the “splotches of blood.” “I should judge the area of these spots to be a foot and a half.”

Capt. Starnes saw the splotches of blood on Monday morning, April 28th, opposite the girl’s dressing room; and they looked as if some white substance had been swept over them, in the effort to hide them.

Herbert Schiff, Leo Frank’s assistant superintendent, also swore to the blood spots. He saw them Monday morning.

These witnesses were unimpeachable. Five of them worked under Frank, and were his trusted and experienced employees. They were corroborated by the doctors who examined the chips cut out of the floor. Those blood-stained chips are exhibits “E.,” in the official record!

Yet, C.P. Connolly, sent down to Georgia to make an examination into actual facts, ignores the uncontradicted evidence, and tells the great American public, that on the second floor, where the State contends the crime was committed, there were found “four corpuscles of blood,” only “a mere iota.”

Upon consulting an approved Encyclopedia and Dictionary, which was constructed for the use of just such semi-barbarians as we Georgians, I find that the word “corpuscle” is synonymous with the word “atom.” Further research in the same Encyclopedia, leads me to the knowledge, that an atom is such a very small thing that it cannot be made any smaller. It is, you may say, the Ultima Thule of smallness. The point of a cambric needle is a large sphere of action, compared to a corpuscle. The live animals that live in the water, and sweet milk, which you and I daily drink, are whales, buffaloes, and Montana lawyers, compared to a corpuscle. The germs, microbes, and malignant bacteria, that swim around invisibly in so many harmless-looking liquids, are behemoths, dragons and Burns detectives, compared to a corpuscle.

The smallest conceivable thing—invisible to the naked eye—is what Connolly says they found, on that second floor; and they not only found one of these infinitely invisible things, but four!

I want to deal nicely with Connolly, and therefore I will say that, as a lawyer and a journalist, I consider him a fairly good specimen of a corpuscle. What he is, as a teller and seller of “The Truth about the Frank case,” I fear to say freely, lest the best Government the world ever saw arrest me again, for publishing disagreeable veracities.

Pardon me for taking your time with one more exposure of the impudent falsehoods that are being published about the evidence on which Frank was convicted. In his elaborate article in the Kansas City Star, A.B. Macdonald says—

The ashes and cinders were breathed before she died in the cellar, while she was fighting off Conley. In his drunken desperation lest she be heard and he be discovered he ripped a piece from her underskirt and tried to gag her with it. It was not strong enough. Then he grabbed the cord.

The testimony proved that cords like that were in the cellar. He tied it tightly around her neck. It was proved at the trial that a piece of the strip of underskirt was beneath the cord, and beneath the strip of skirt were cinders. That proves beyond doubt that both were put on in the cellar.

Having strangled her to death and eternal silence the negro had leisure to carry her back and hide her body at (fig. 12) where it was dark as midnight.

Then he sat down to write the notes. Against the wall opposite the boiler was a small, rude table with paper and pencil. Scattered around in the trash that came down from the floors above to be burned were sheets and pads of paper exactly like those upon which the notes were written.
The pad from which one of the notes was torn was found by the body by Police Sergeant L.S. Dobbs, who so testified.

Here we have a graphic, gruesome picture of a fight between the girl and the negro, down in the cellar. He overcomes her, and in her death struggles, she breathes her nose, mouth and lungs full of ashes and cinders. The negro tears off a strip from her clothing, and binds it round her neck. “It was not strong enough. Then he grabbed the cord.”

In the next line, Macdonald tells you that the strip of clothing was so strong that it remained underneath the cord, and that, beneath this strip, were cinders. “That proves beyond a doubt that they were both put on in the cellar.”

It is sufficient to say that the evidence of Newt Lee, of Sergeant L.S. Dobbs, officer J.N. Starnes, and both the examining physicians, (Doctors Hurt and Harris) totally negatives the statement of Macdonald about the cinders under the girl’s nails, the cinders packed into her face, and the cinders breathed into her nose, mouth and lungs. There was nothing of the kind. Macdonald made all that up, himself, aided by Connolly’s imagination and Burns’ imbecility.

(See official record, pages 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and evidence of the doctors as per Index.)

But let me ask you to fix your attention on the specific statement of Macdonald, that the cord pressed down upon the strip of clothing, one being under the other, and that the cinders were under this inner choke-strip. Now, turn to page 48 of the official record, and see what Dr. Harris testified. He swore that she came to her death from “this cord” which had been tied tight around her neck. He did not say a word about any strip of clothing around her neck, under the cord, nor a word about any cinders, ashes or dust, under the cord—not one word!

Turn to page 46, and read the testimony of Dr. J.W. Hurt. He said, “There was a cord round her neck, and this cord was imbedded into the skin.” Not a word about any strip of cloth under the cord! Not a word about cinders, ashes, or dust under the cord, or on her neck.

Sergeant Dobbs after saying that “the cord was around her neck, sunk into her flesh,” added that “she also had a piece of her underclothing around her neck.” “The cord was pulled tight and had cut into the flesh and tied just as tight as could be. The underclothing around her neck was not tight!”

Sergeant Dobbs, swearing that the cord had cut into the flesh, shows that there was no cushion of cloth to keep it from doing that very thing. Not a word did he say about cinders under her nails, under the cord, under the strip of underclothing, or in her nose, mouth and lungs.

In other words, the official record shows Macdonald’s version of the evidence to be a reckless fabrication!

Can you picture to yourself, in the sane recess of your own mind, a Southern negro, raping and killing a white girl, and then dragging her body back to a place “where it was dark as midnight;” and then, after all his terrific struggle with his victim, hunting around in the trash to find a pencil and some pads—two different colors—and seating himself, leisurely, at “a small rude table near the boiler,” to scribble a few lines of information to mankind as to how he came to commit the crime?

Can you picture to yourself a common Georgia nigger, killing a white woman in that way, and then seating himself near her corpse, deep down in a dark cellar, to indulge in literary composition?

Jim Conley, you see, had not only murdered the girl down there below the surface, but was writing notes close to where the dead body lay, with the intention of carrying the notes out there to where “it was as dark as midnight,” to lay them by the dead girl’s head.

Then, he meant to get so scared that he would violently break out of the basement door, into the alley, rather than walk out, as usual, up stairs.
Macdonald doesn’t know much about Southern niggers, but he understands us white folks. Just tell us any old ludicrous yarn, and keep on telling it in the papers; and, if nobody denies it, we will all believe it.

There was not a scratch on the nose of the dead girl, and yet all these reckless writers tell the public she was held face downward by her murderer, and that her face was ground into the cinders, to smother her screams. How could the nose escape bruises in such a frightful process, and how could she fail to have cinders and coal-dust in her mouth and nose? There were none!

In the Philadelphia Public Ledger, there is a copyrighted article by Waldo G. Morse, whose legend runs, “Councillor, American Academy of Jurisprudence.” Councillor Morse begins on the Frank case, by asking a question, and quoting himself in reply—

May a mob and a Court scare away your lawyers, a sheriff lock you away from the jury which convicts you, and may the sheriff then hold and hang you? Yes, say the Georgia Courts and so also says the United States District Judge in Georgia. Says the Supreme Court of the United States: “We will hear arguments as to that, and in the meantime we will defer the hanging.”

The fancy picture of a Georgia mob, putting Rube Arnold, Luther Rosser, the Haas brothers, and the governor’s own law firm to ignominious flight, and of the sheriff ruthlessly locking Frank away from the jury—and all this being done with the hearty approval of Judges Roan and Hill, the State Supreme Court, and Federal-judge William Newman—is certainly a novel picture to adorn the classic walls of the American Academy of Jurisprudence.
Councillor Morse proceeds as follows—

This is no mere question of a single life, but one for every man. Shall you be put on trial for your life or your liberty and shall timid or careless lawyers lose or dishonest lawyers barter away your rights?

We wish for the honor of the bar and the dignity of the Court that the lawyers had stood their ground and had braved the mob and that their client had joined in the defiance, inquiring from every juror, face to face, whether the verdict of guilty was the verdict of that individual juror. Such is due process of law.

Was Rosser “timid,” in Frank’s case? I would like to see Rosser, when one of his timid spells gets hold of him.

Were Rosser and Arnold and the Haas brothers not only timid, but “careless?” Councillor Morse, spokesman for the American Academy of Jurisprudence (whatever that is) accuses these Georgia lawyers of cowardice, or culpable negligence, in their defense of Leo Frank!

What? Is nobody to be spared? Shall no guilty Georgian escape? Must the propagandists of this Frank literature slaughter his own lawyers? Is it a misdemeanor, per se, to be Georgian?

“For the honor of the bar.” Waldo Morse wishes that Rosser and Arnold, and Haas, and the governor’s law firm, “had stood their ground.” Then, they did not stand their ground, and they dishonored the bar.

That’s terrible. Surely it is a cruel thing to stand Luther Rosser up before the universe, in this tremendous manner, and arraign him for professional cowardice. What say you, Luther? Are you guilty, or not guilty?

But Waldo Morse relentlessly continues—

Might not the result have been different? Jurors have been known to change their verdict when facing the accused. We hope that the Court may declare that no man and no State can leave the issue of life as a bagatelle to be played for, arranged about and jeopardized by Court and counsel in the absence of the man who may suffer.

So, you see, Frank’s lawyers are accused, in a copyrighted indictment, of playing with their client’s life, “as a bagatelle;” and of jeopardizing that life, with a levity which showed an utter lack of a due sense of professional responsibility.

That’s mighty rough on Rosser, and Arnold, and Haas, and Governor Slaton’s law firm.

What will be your opinion of Councillor Morse, when I tell you that Frank’s lawyers did demand a poll of the jury, and each member was asked whether the verdict was his verdict, and each juror answered that it was.

And each juror, months afterwards, made written affidavit to the same effect, utterly repudiating the charges of mob intimidation.
Councillor Morse proceeds—

Shall a man charged with an infamous crime be faced by a jury of 12 men, each one ready to announce their verdict of his guilt? May he ask each man of the 12 whether the verdict be his? Yes, has answered the common law for centuries. The accused may not even waive or abandon this right.

That’s absurd. The accused may waive or abandon “this right,” and nearly every other. There are Courts in which the accused is constantly waiving and abandoning his Constitutional right to be indicted by a grand jury, and tried by a petit jury. In almost every case, the accused waives his legal right to actual arraignment, oral pleading, and a copy of the indictment. Almost invariably, he waives the useless and perfunctory right of polling the jury. If he likes, he can go to trial with eleven jurors, or less, and he may waive a legal disqualification of a juror. In fact, the accused, who can waive and abandon his right to the jury itself, can of course, waive any lesser right. This may not be good law in the American Academy of Jurisprudence, but it is good law among good lawyers.

Councillor Morse says that “for centuries” it has been the common-law right of the accused to ask each juror “whether the verdict be his.” This cock-sure statement of what the English common-law has been “for centuries,” would have had considerable weight, had the Councillor cited some authorities.

It was in 1765, that Sir William Blackstone published the first volume of his Commentaries; and at that time, the accused, in a capital case, did not even have the right to be defended by a lawyer. At that time, there were upwards of 116 violations of law, punishable by death, some of these capital offenses being petty larcenies, and others, trivial trespasses. In all those terrible cases, the accused was denied a lawyer, at common law; and these fearful conditions were not materially changed, until Sir Samuel Romilly began, his noble work of law reform, in 1808. At that time, it was death to pick a pocket, death to cut a tree in a park, death to filch from a bleachfield, death to steal a letter, death to kill a rabbit, death to pilfer five shilling’s worth of stuff out of a store, death to forge a writing, death to steal a pig or a lamb, death to return home from transportation, death to write one’s name on London bridge. Sir Samuel was not able to accomplish a great deal, before his suicide in 1818; but another great lawyer, Sir James Mackintosh, took up the work, Lord Brougham assisting. It was not until near the middle of the last century, that the Draconian code was stripped of most of its horrors, and the prisoner’s counsel was allowed to address the jury. (See McCarthy’s Epochs of Reform, pages 144 and 145. Mackenzie’s The 19th Century, pages 124 and 125.) Therefore, when any Councillor for an American Academy of Jurisprudence glibly writes about what have been the common-law rights of the accused “for centuries,” he makes himself ridiculous.

As a general rule, a prisoner may waive any legal privilege; and whatever he may waive, his attorney may waive; and this waiver can be made after the trial and will relate back to the time when he was entitled to the privilege. This waiver may be expressed, or it may be implied; it may be in words, and it may be in conduct.

In Blackstone’s Commentaries, nothing is said on the point of the prisoner’s presence, when the verdict comes in. Unquestionably, it is the better practice for him to be in court. But if his attorneys are present, and they demand a poll of the jury, expressly waiving the presence of their client, they have done for the accused all that he could do for himself, were he in court—for the prisoner is not allowed to ask the jurors any questions. The judge does that. Hence, Frank lost nothing whatever by his absence; and when he failed to make that point, as he stood in court to be sentenced and was asked by the judge, “What have you to say why sentence should not be pronounced on you?” he ratified the waiver his lawyers had made. He continued that ratification, for a whole year.

Not until after two motions for new trial had been filed, did Frank raise the point about his absence at the time the verdict came in; and, if he is set free on that point, the world will suspect that Rosser and Arnold, laid a trap for the judge.

Does it seem good law to Councillor Morse, that a man whose guilt is made manifest by the official record, should be turned loose, to go scot free, on a technical point, which involves the repudiation of his own lawyers, and the retraction of his own ratification which had lasted a year? Is there no such thing as a waiver by one’s attorneys and a ratification by one’s prolonged acquiescence?

Now before going into close reasoning on the established facts in the case, allow me to call your attention to this point:

Whoever wrote those notes that were found beside the body seems to say that she had been sexually used. “Play with me.” “Said he would love me.” “Laid down.” “Play like night witch did it,” but that long tall black negro “did (it) by hisself.”

Those words are inconsistent with a crime whose main purpose was murder. Uppermost in the mind of the man who dictated those notes, was quite another idea. Consistent with that idea, and not with murder alone, are the words “Play with me, said he would love me, laid down,” (with me) “and play like the night witch did it.”

All have claimed that the words “night witch” meant “night watch.” It may not be so. For the present, I only ask you to consider that the State’s theory all along, has been that Leo Frank was after this girl, to enjoy her sexually, and that the murder was a crime incident to her resistance.
The girl worked for Frank, and he knew her well. He had sought to push his attentions on her. She had repulsed him. She had told her friend George Epps that she was afraid of him, on account of the way he had acted toward her.

He had refused, on Friday afternoon, to let Helen Ferguson have Mary’s pay-envelope, containing the pitiful sum of one dollar and twenty cents. He thus made it necessary for Mary to come in person for it, which she was sure to do, next day, since the universal Saturday custom is, to pay for things bought during the preceding week and buy things, for the next.

Why did not Frank give Mary’s pay envelope to Helen, when Helen asked for it, on Friday? It had been the habit of Helen to get Mary’s envelope, and Frank could hardly have been ignorant of the fact.

Did he refuse to let Helen have Mary’s pay, because it was not good business?

That hypothesis falls, when we examine Frank’s own statement to the jury. On page 179 of the record, he tells the jury that Mattie Smith came for her pay-envelope on Saturday morning, the 26th of April, and she asked for that of her sister-in-law, also, “and I went to the safe….and got out the package…and gave her the required two envelopes.”

Therefore, Frank himself was in the habit of letting one employee have another’s pay envelope. On that same morning, he gave the pay-envelopes of two of the boys to their fathers, Graham and Burdette. (Page 181.)

Why did Frank make an exception of Mary Phagan, this one time? Why did he discriminate against her, and only her, that week-end?
Be the answer what it may, the girl, all diked out in her cheap little finery for Memorial Day, comes with her smart fresh lavender dress, the flowers on her hat, the ribbons on her dress, her gay parasol, and her best stockings and silk garters—comes into the heart of the great city, about noon, goes immediately to Frank’s office for her one dollar and twenty cents, is traced by evidence, which Frank dared not deny, into his office—and, is never more seen alive.

Is there any reasonable person, on the face of God’s earth, who wouldn’t say Frank must account for that girl?

When a mountain of evidence piled up, on the fact of the girl’s going to him, he then admitted that she did go to him, somewhere around 12 o’clock that day.

He says that a little girl whom he afterwards learned to be Mary Phagan, came to him for her pay-envelope.

He pretended not to know that a girl of her name worked for him, until he consulted the pay-roll! He went through the motion of looking at the pay-roll for the purpose of ascertaining whether such a human being worked in his place! After having found her name on the list, he then admitted that a girl named Mary Phagan had been working there.

What sort of impression does this make on you, in view of the fact that four white witnesses swore they had seen Frank talk to her, and that, in doing so, he called her “Mary?”

Why did Frank, when her dead body was found in the basement, feign not to know her, and say that he would have to consult the pay-roll?
The girl, dressed up for a Holiday, was in Frank’s office, at about the noon hour of that fatal day—and those two were alone!
Frank is driven to that dreadful admission. Inexorable proofs left him no option.

By his own confession, he is alone with the girl, the last time any mortal eye sees her alive!

She is in the flush of youthful bloom. She is nearly fourteen years old, buxom, and rather large for her age. She has rosy cheeks, bright blue eyes, and golden hair. She is well-made, in perfect health, as tempting a morsel as ever heated depraved appetite. Did Leo Frank desire to possess the girl? Was he the kind of married man who runs after fresh little girls? Had he given evidence, in that very factory, of his lascivious character?

The white ladies and girls whose names have already been given, swore that Frank was just that kind of a man; and neither Frank nor his battalion of lawyers have ever dared to ask those white women to go into details, and tell why they swore he was depraved!

Does it make no impression on your mind, when you consider that tremendous fact?

We start out, then, with a depraved young married man whose conduct, in that very place, is proved to have been lascivious. Did he desire Mary Phagan? Had he “tried” her? Did he want to “try” her, again?

One white girl swore that she had seen Frank with this hand on Mary’s shoulder and his face almost in hers, talking to her. One white boy swore that he had seen Mary shrinking away from Frank’s suspicious advances. Another white boy swore that Mary said she was suspicious and afraid of Frank. Another white girl swore she heard him calling her “Mary,” in close conversation.

How many witnesses are necessary to prove that the licentious young Jew lusted after this Gentile girl?

The record gives you four.

(See the evidence of Ruth Robinson, J.M. Gantt, Dewey Howell and W.E. Turner.)

Why, then, did she continue to work there?

She needed the money, and felt strong in her virtue: she never dreamed of violence.

She kept on working, as many poor girls do, who cannot help themselves. Freedom to choose, is not the luxury of the poor.

But let us pass on. The fatal day comes, and Mary comes, and then her light goes out—the pretty little girl who had dressed up for the Holiday and gone out, radiant with youth and health and beauty, to enjoy it, as other young girls all over the South were doing. She goes into Frank’s own private office, and that’s the last of her.

What became of her? Tell us, Luther Rosser! Tell us, Herbert Haas! Tell us, Nathan Strauss! Tell us, Adolph Ochs! Tell us, Rabbi Marx! Tell us, William Randolph Hearst!

What became of our girl?

YOUR MAN, FRANK, HAD HER LAST: WHAT DID HE DO WITH HER?

So far as I can discover, the only theory advanced by the defenders of Leo Frank, is hung upon Jim Conley. They claim that Jim darted out upon Mary as she stepped aside on the first floor, cut her scalp with a blow, rendered her unconscious, pushed her through the scuttle-hole, and then went down after her, tied the cord around her neck, choked her to death, hid the body, wrote the notes, and broke out by the basement door.

If the defense has any other theory than this, I have been unable to find it. And they must have a theory, for the girl was killed, in the factory, immediately after she left Frank’s private office. There is the undeniable fact of the murdered girl, and no matter what may be the “jungle fury” of the Atlanta “mob,” and of the “semi-barbarians” of Georgia, these mobs and barbarians did not kill the girl.

Either the Cornell graduate did it, or Jim Conley did it.

Did Jim Conley do it? If so, how, and why? What was his motive, and what was his method?

The defense claims that he struck her the blow, splitting the scalp, on the first floor, where he worked, immediately after she left Frank’s office on the second floor.

They claim that the negro then dragged the unconscious body to the scuttle-hole, and flung her down that ladder.

What sort of hole is it? All the evidence concurs in its being a small opening in the floor, with a trap-door over it, and only large enough to admit one person at a time. (It is two-feet square.)

Reaching from the opening of this hole, down to the floor of the basement, is a ladder, with open rungs.

Now, when Jim Conley hit the girl in the head, and split her scalp, they claim he pushed her through the trap-door, so that she would fall into the basement below.

But how could the limp and bleeding body fall down that ladder, striking rung after rung, on its way down, without leaving bloodmarks on the ladder, and without the face and head of poor dying Mary being all bunged up, broken and cut open, by the repeated beatings against the “rounds” of the ladder?

How could that bleeding head have lain at the foot of the ladder, without leaving an accusing puddle of blood? How could that bleeding body, still alive, have been choked to death in the cellar, leaving no blood on the basement floor, none on the ladder, none at the trap-door, none on the table where they claim the notes were written, and none on the pads and the notes?

Not a particle of the testimony points suspicion toward the negro, before the crime. He lived with a kept negro woman, as so many of his race do; but he had never been accused of any offense more grave than the police common-place, “Disorderly.” (His fines range from $1.75 to $15.00.)
He was at the factory on the day of the crime, and Mrs. Arthur White saw him sitting quietly on the first floor, where it was his business to be. After the crime, there was never any evidence discovered against him. He lied as to his doings at the time of the crime, but all of these were consistent with the plan of Frank and Conley to shield each other. Frank was just as careful to keep suspicion from settling on the negro, as the negro was to keep it from settling on Frank.

You would naturally suppose that the white man, reasoning swiftly, would have realized that the crime lay between himself and the negro; and that, as he knew himself to be innocent, he knew the negro must be guilty.

Any white man, under those circumstances, would at once have seen, that only himself or the negro could have done the deed, since no others had the opportunity.

Hence, the white man, being conscious of innocence, and bold in it, would have said to the police, to the detectives, to the world—
“No other man could have done this thing, except Jim Conley or myself; and, since I did not do it, Jim Conley did. I demand that you arrest him, at once, and let me face him!”

Did Frank do that? Did the Cornell graduate break out into a fury of injured innocence, point to Conley as the criminal, and go to him and question him, as to his actions, that fatal day?

No, indeed. Frank never once hinted Conley’s guilt. Frank never once asked to be allowed to face Conley. Frank hung his head when he talked to Newt Lee; trembled and shook and swallowed and drew deep breaths, and kept shuffling his legs and couldn’t sit still; walked nervously to the windows and wrung his hands a dozen times within a few minutes; insinuated that J.M. Gantt might have committed the crime; and suggested that Newt Lee’s house ought to be searched; but never a single time threw suspicion on Jim Conley, or suggested that Jim’s house ought to be searched.
Did the negro want to rob somebody in the factory? Could he have chosen a worse place? Could he have chosen a poorer victim, and one more likely to make a stout fight?

Mary had not worked that week, except a small fraction of the time, and Jim knew it. Therefore he knew that her pay-envelope held less than that of any of the girls!

Did Jim Conley want to assault some woman in the factory? Could he have chosen a worse time and place, if he did it on the first floor at the front, where white people were coming and going; and where his boss, Mr. Frank, might come down stairs any minute, on his way to his noon meal?
No negro that ever lived would attempt to outrage a white woman, almost in the presence of a white man.

Between the hour of 12:05 and 12:10 Monteen Stover walked up the stairs from the first floor to Frank’s office on the second, and she walked right
through his outer office into his inner office—and Frank was not there!

She waited 5 minutes, and left. She saw nobody. She did not see Conley, and she did not see Frank.

Where were they? And where was Mary Phagan?

It is useless to talk about street-car schedules, about the variations in clocks, about the condition of cabbage in the stomach, and about the menstrual blood, and all that sort of secondary matter.

The vital point is this—

Where was Mary, and where was Frank, and where was Conley, during the 25 minutes, before Mrs. White saw both Frank, and Conley?
Above all, where was Frank when Monteen Stover went through both his offices, the inner as well as the outer, and couldn’t find him?
She wanted to find him, for she needed her money. She wanted to find him, for she lingered 5 minutes.

Where was Frank, while Monteen was in his office, and was waiting for him?

THAT’S THE POINT IN THE CASE: all else is subordinate.

Rosser and Arnold are splendid lawyers; no one doubts that. They were employed on account of their pre-eminent rank at the bar. I have been with them in great cases, and I know that whatever it is possible to do in a forensic battle, they are able to do.

Do you suppose for one moment that Rosser and Arnold did not see the terrible significance of Monteen’s evidence?

They saw it clearly. And they made frantic efforts to get away from it. How?

First, they put up Lemmie Quinn, another employee of Frank, to testify that he had gone to Frank’s office, at 12:20, that Saturday, and found Frank there.

But Lemmie Quinn’s evidence recoiled on Frank, hurting the case badly. Why? Because two white ladies, whom the Defendant put up, as his witnesses, swore positively that they were in the factory just before noon, and that after they left Frank, they went to a café, where they found Lemmie Quinn; and he told them he had just been up to the office to see Frank.

Mrs. Freeman, one of the ladies, swore that as she was leaving the factory, she looked at Frank’s own clock, and it was a quarter to twelve.
Mrs. Freeman testified that as she passed on up the stairs in the factory building, she saw Frank talking to two men in his office. One of these men was no doubt Lemmie Quinn. At any rate, after she had talked to the lady on the fourth floor (Mrs. White) and had come down to Frank’s office to use his telephone, the men were gone; and when she met Quinn at the café, he told her that he had just been up to Frank’s office. Hence the testimony of Mrs. Emma Clarke Freeman, and Miss Corinthia Hall, smashed the attempted alibi. And of course the abortive attempt at the alibi, hurt the case terribly.

Let me do Mr. Quinn the justice to say, that he merely estimated the time of day, by the time it would have taken him to walk from his home; and that he admitted he had stopped on the way, at Wolfsheimers, for 10 or 15 minutes—all of which is obvious guess-work. He frankly admitted that when he met Mrs. Freeman and Miss Hall at the Busy Bee Café, he told them he had just been up to Frank’s office.

Secondly, the able lawyers for the defense endeavored to meet Monteen Stover’s evidence by the statement of Frank himself. This statement is so extraordinary, that I will quote the words from the record:

“Now, gentlemen, to the best of my recollection, from the time the whistle blew for twelve o’clock until after a quarter to one when I went up stairs and spoke to Arthur White and Harry Denham, to the best of my recollection, I did not stir out of the inner office, but it is possible that to answer a call of nature or to urinate I may have gone to the toilet. Those are things that a man does unconsciously and cannot tell how many times nor when he does it.”

Here then was the second of the two desperate, but futile, attempts to account for the whereabouts of Frank, at the fatal period of time when he and Mary are both missing.

Pray notice this: Frank’s first statement made a few hours after Mary’s corpse was found, made no mention of Lemmie Quinn’s coming to the office after Hattie Hall left. The effort to sandwich Quinn between Hattie Hall and Mrs. White, was a bungle, and an afterthought. It showed he felt he must try to fill in that interval and the failure showed his inability to do it. Hence he is left totally unaccounted for, during the half-hour when the crime was committed.

Frank’s final statement—the one he made to the jury—hurt him another way: he said he was continuously in his inner office, after Hattie Hall left, whereas Mrs. Arthur White on her unexpected return to the factory surprised him in his outer office where he was standing before the safe with his back to the door. He jumped when she spoke to him, and he turned round as he answered.

He did not explain what he was doing at the safe at that time 12:35, and the State’s theory is, that he had been putting Mary’s mesh bag and pay-envelope in the safe.

The only material thing about it is, that he was out of his inner office at 12:35, and not continuously in it up to nearly 1 o’clock, as he declared he was. And he had never even attempted to explain why he was at the safe at that time.

The fact that Conley may have been missing too, is secondary, and more doubtful. Monteen did not come there to look for him. Her mind was not on Jim Conley.

Monteen’s mind was on her money and the man who had it. She went there to find Frank. She says—“I went through the first office into the second office. I went to get my money. I went in Mr. Frank’s office. He was not there.

I stayed there 5 minutes, and left at 10 minutes after 12.”

Mrs. Freeman and Miss Hall had already been there; Lemmie Quinn had already been there; and these visitors, having gone up to Frank, came down again. Next comes pretty Mary Phagan, and she goes up to Frank, and Frank receives her in his private office; and when Monteen comes up into that same office, in her noiseless tennis shoes, at 5 minutes after twelve, neither Mary nor Frank were to be heard or seen. O! where were they, THEN?
To the end of time, and the crack of doom, that question will ring in the ears and the souls of right-feeling people.

Frank says he may have unconsciously gone to the toilet. Then he has unconsciously PUT HIS FEET IN THE MURDERER’S TRACKS!

The notes make Mary Phagan go to the same place, at the same time; and the blood spots and the hair on the lathe show that she died there!

On page 185 of the official record, Frank says—

“To the best of my knowledge, it must have been 10 or 15 minutes after Miss Hall left my office, when this little girl, whom I afterwards found to be Mary Phagan, entered my office and asked for her pay envelope. I asked for her number and she told me; I went to the cash box and took her envelope out and handed it to her, identifying the envelope by the number.

“She left my office and apparently had gotten as far as the door from my office leading to the outer office, when she evidently stopped, and asked me if the metal had arrived, and I told her no. She continued her way out, &c.”

Note his studied effort to make appear that he did not even lift his eyes and look at this rosy, plump and most attractive maid. He does not even know that she stopped at his inner office door, when she spoke to him. She evidently stopped, apparently at the door; he does not know for certain; he was not looking at her to see. She spoke to him, and he to her, but he does not know positively that she stopped, nor positively where she was, at the time. He did not recognize her at all. She gave him her number, and he found an envelope to match the number, and he gave it to the little girl, whom he afterwards found to be Mary Phagan! “Found,” how? By looking at the pay-roll, and seeing that Mary’s name corresponded with the number that was on the pay envelope!

Let me pause here long enough to remind you that J.M. Gantt, Dewey Howell, W.E. Turner and Miss Ruth Robinson, all swore positively that Frank did

know Mary Phagan, personally, by sight and by name.

But what follows after Mary leaves Frank’s office?

He says—“She had hardly left the plant 5 minutes when Lemmie Quinn came in.”

But Miss Corinthia Hall, and Mrs. Emma Clarke Freeman, and Quinn himself, made it plain that Quinn had already been there and gone, before they arrived.

When did they arrive? And when did they leave?

They came at 11:35 and left at 11:45! They were Frank’s own witnesses, and they demolished the Lemmie Quinn alibi and Frank’s own statement!

What can be said in answer to that? Nothing. It is one of those providential mishaps in a case of circumstantial evidence, that makes the cold chills run up the back of the lawyer for the defense.

I know, for I have had them run up my back; I know them, of old.

See if you get the full force of the point. Remember that Frank’s lawyers put up Mrs. Freeman and Miss Hall, to account for Frank at the fatal period when he seemed to be missing. Evidently, they were expected to account for Frank up to Lemmie Quinn’s arrival, and after that, Lemmie was to do the rest. But Mrs. Freeman and Miss Hall not only arrived too soon, but got there after Lemmie! When they left at 11:45, by the clock in Frank’s office, they went to the café, and who should be there but Lemmie, and Lemmie, in the innocence of his heart, said he had just been up to Frank’s office.

Mary Phagan, as all the evidence shows, was at that time on her way to the fatal trap!

The evidence of Frank’s three witnesses, Miss Hall, Mrs. Freeman and Lemmie Quinn, proves that he told the jury a deliberate falsehood when he said that Quinn was with him, after Mary Phagan left.

That’s the crisis of the case!

Desperately he tries to show where he was, after the girl came; and, desperately, he says that Quinn came after Mary left, and that Quinn knows he was there in his office, after Mary had departed.

Ah no! The great God would not let that lie to prosper!

Mrs. Freeman, Miss Hall, and Quinn put themselves in and out—there and away, come and gone, before Mary came—and where does that leave Frank?

The plank he grabbed at, he missed. The straw he caught at, sunk with him. When Lemmie Quinn fails him, he sinks into that fearful unknown of the half hour when the unexpected Monteen Stover softly comes into the outer office, goes right on into Frank’s inner office, seeking her money, and cannot find Frank!

The place is silent; the place is deserted; she waits five minutes, hears nothing, and sees nobody. Then she leaves.

Where were you, Leo Frank?

And where was our little girl?

Desperately, he says he may have gone to the closet.

Fatefully, the notes say Mary went to the closet.

Fatally, her golden hair leaves some of its golden strands on the metal lever, where her head struck, as Frank hit her; and her blood splotched the floor at the dressing room, where Conley dropped her.

What broke the hymen? What tore the inner tissues?

What caused the dilated blood vessels?

What laceration stained the drawers with her vaginal blood?

How came the outer vagina bloody?

Who split her drawers all the way up?

Who did the violence to the [private] parts that Dr. Harris swore to?

The blow that bruised and blackened, but did not break the skin, was in front, over the eye, which was much swollen when the corpse was found. The blow that cut the scalp to the bone and caused unconsciousness, was on the back of the head.

Who struck her with his fist in the face, and knocked her down, so that, in falling, the crank handle of the machine cut the scalp and tore out some of her hair?

How did anybody get a chance to hit her in the back of the head, and not throw her on her face? Would a negro go for a cord with which to choke a white woman he had assaulted? Would a negro have remained with the body, or cared what became of it, and taken the awful risks of getting it down two floors to the basement? Would a negro have lingered by the corpse to write a note on yellow paper, and another note on white paper? Would a negro have loafed there to compose notes at all? What negro ever did such a thing, after such a crime?

Place in front of you a square piece of blank paper, longer than it is broad; an old envelope will do. This square piece of paper, longer than it is broad, will represent the floor of the building—the second floor, upon which Mary Phagan was done to death.

Draw a line through the middle of the square, from top to bottom, cutting the long square into two lesser squares. These will sufficiently represent the two large rooms into which the second floor was divided by a partition. Mark a place in the center of the partition, for the door which opens one room into the other.
Where was Frank’s office?

It was at the upper right-hand corner of the room, to your right, as the square lies lengthwise before you.

Mark off a small square at that corner, for Frank’s office.

Mark off a small square, in the left hand corner of the second room, and run a line through it, to divide this small closet, into two divisions.

One of these small divisions was the water-closet of the men; the other, of the women! You cannot crumple a piece of paper in the one, without being heard in the other!

We naturally turn to Frank, and we naturally ask him—

What did Mary do, after you gave her the pay-envelope? Where did she go?

He cannot answer.

But thereupon we take it up, another way, and we ask him this question—

Where were YOU after Mary left? Did you stay in your office? Did you go anywhere, and do anything?
Now, follow the facts closely:

Frank’s own detective, Harry Scott, in his energetic efforts to find the criminal, pinned Frank down, as to where he was, after 12 o’clock.

Frank told Harry Scott, in the hearing of John Black, that he was continuously in his office, during the 45 minutes AFTER MARY HAD COME AND GONE.
The white lady, Mrs. Arthur White, returned at 12:35, and found Frank in his office, standing before the iron safe. He jumped nervously, when he heard her.

Now, then: Monteen Stover went to Frank’s office, after Mary had gone away from it, AND BEFORE MRS. WHITE CAME BACK, AT 12:35.
Where was Frank, then?

Right there, in that fateful half-hour, lies the crime.

Who is the criminal?

If Frank had been in his office, Monteen would, of course, have seen him when she went to it—and he would have seen her.
He did not see her, and therefore did not know that she had been there, until after he had told Harry Scott, positively and repeatedly, that he was in his office, THEN.

It was afterwards, when the unimpeachable Monteen told what she knew, that Frank saw how he had boxed himself up.

Then it was, that such a persistent and desperate effort was made to get Monteen’s evidence out of the way.

Then it was, that Burns in person tried first to persuade, and then to bulldoze her.

(Why don’t some of Frank’s paid champions dwell on that ugly phase of his case?)

The enormous weight which Frank’s lawyers and detectives (Burns and Lehon) attached to Monteen’s evidence, is the best proof that Monteen’s evidence clinches the guilt of Frank. When Frank told Scott and Black that he was in his office, continuously, after Mary left, he knew the vital necessity of accounting for his whereabouts, at that particular time.

He knew it, even then!

His definite, positive placing of himself, during that particular half-hour, shows that he knew it.

BUT HOW CAME HE TO KNOW IT?

If some one else made away with the girl, he did not THEN know when the deed was done.

If he was as innocent as you and I, he did not then know, any better than you and I then did, the vast materiality of his whereabouts, at any one half-hour of that fatal day.

How came he, at that time, to be so extremely careful to account for himself, for that special half-hour, and why did he lie about it?

He does not deny what he told Scott and Black; he does not accuse Monteen of a perjury for which she had no motive; he stated to the jury that he might have gone to the water-closet, on a call of nature, which he curiously said is an act that a person does “without being conscious of it.”

If Frank told Scott and Black a deliberate falsehood as to his whereabouts, that is a powerful circumstance against him.

If he was actually out of his office, just after Mary left, that, also, is a powerful circumstance against him, provided he cannot tell where he was.

If, in giving the only possible account of himself, he puts himself at the water-closet, then the crime gets right up to him, provided Mary was ravished and killed, in that same room.

Now, where was Mary ravished and killed?

The blood-marks and the hair say, in that same room!

And the notes say, in that same room!

The blood-marks tell where she was; and if Frank went out of his office, to go to the closet, he went right there!

The notes make Mary say that she went to the closet, “to make water,” and, if she did, she went right there.

If a negro seized her, raped her and killed her, he had to be right where Frank says he was, when absent from his office.

But if Frank was in his office, and Monteen is a liar without motive, how could a negro come up from the lower floor (where Mrs. White saw him,) and commit the crime, without Frank hearing, or seeing a single thing to excite his suspicion?

Where is the negro who would go that close to a white man’s office, when he knew the white man was there, to commit such a fiendish crime upon a white girl? And how did the negro, by himself, get the body from the second floor, down to the basement?

Mary’s body was found on the night of Saturday the 26th. It appeared to have been dead a long time. “The body was cold and stiff.” The notes were lying close by.

Newt Lee went on duty for the night, as usual, that Saturday night, and it was he who found the body on that night, at about 3 o’clock.

Therefore, you have a clear case of murder, on Saturday, sometime after the noon hour, and before Newt Lee came on duty as night-watchman, at 6 o’clock.

Conley was not back in the building that day, after 1 o’clock. Frank was. The record shows this.

The circumstances conclusively prove that somebody did the deed, during the half-hour following Mary’s coming to Frank’s office.

Frank admits that he is the last white person with whom she was ever seen. The blood and the notes say she was assaulted on Frank’s floor, near the closets, which she and Frank both used.

The notes make her go to the closet, to answer a call of nature, immediately after she left Frank!

She did not go up stairs; she had no work to do in the factory, that day; and if she went to the toilet at all, she went there from Frank’s office.

She never again appeared down stairs; or out of doors.

If she had gone up stairs, Mrs. White and others would have known it. If she had gone down stairs, both Frank and Conley would know it.
Yet at 12:35, Mrs. White saw Frank, but did not see the girl.

She had disappeared, during the very time that Frank disappears; and when Frank gets back into his office, at 12:35, that little girl is out there near the toilet, in the next room, choking to death.

It was Frank who was close to her; it was the negro who was down stairs.

No wonder Frank “jumped,” when Mrs. White came up, behind, and spoke.

No wonder he hurried Mrs. White out of the building, hesitated to allow J.M. Gantt to go in for his shoes, and refused to let Newt Lee enter.
By all the evidence, Frank and Jim were the only living mortals in that part of the house, at that time. Mary undoubtedly was there, at the time, by Frank’s own line of defence.

There was one short sentence Capt. J.N. Starnes’ re-direct examination, that did not rivet my special attention at first. That sentence was—
“Hands folded across the breast.”

That simple statement came back, again and again, knocking at the door, as if it were saying, “Explain me!”

How did it happen that a girl who had been raped or murdered—or both—was found with her hands folded over her breast?

How could a girl who had been knocked in the head, on the first floor, and tumbled down into the basement, through a scuttle-hole, and over a ladder, as Defendant claims, have her hands resting quietly on her bosom?

Frank’s theory represents Jim as attacking Mary on the first floor, finishing her in the basement below, then writing the notes, breaking the door, and speeding away.

That theory does not account for those folded hands.

A girl knocked on the head, into unconsciousness, and then choked to death with a cord, does not fold her own hands across her bosom. O no!

In the agony of death, her arms will be spread out. And if, hours later, those arms are found across her bosom, the little hands meeting over the pulseless heart, be sure that somebody who remembers intuitively how the dead should be treated, has put those agonized hands together!

There were the indisputable and undisputed facts: a bloody corpse, with a wound in the head, torn underclothing, privates bloody, a tight cord sunk into the soft flesh of the neck, the face blackened and scratched by dragging across a bare floor of cinders and grit, and yet when turned over and found “cold and stiff,” the testimony curtly adds—

“Hands folded across the breast.”

How did that happen? Who folded those little hands across the heart which beat no more?

In vain, I searched the evidence. Nowhere was there an explanation. In fact, nobody had seemed to be struck by that brief, clear statement of Capt.
Starnes, which everybody conceded to be strictly true:

“Hands folded across the breast.”

Mind you, when she was found in the basement, she was lying on her face, not directly on her stomach, but so much so that they had to “turn her over,” to see her face, and wipe the dust and dirt off, for the purpose of recognition. (See official record, pages 7, 8 and 9.)

Lying on her face! Had to turn her over, and “the body was cold and stiff.” But the frozen hands—where were they? “Folded across the breast.”
Then, they had become rigid in that position! They had not come off the bosom, even when the body was turned over! They had remained across the breast, while the body was being dragged.

Dr. Westmoreland and Dr. Harris would probably agree, for at least one time, and both would say, as competent experts, that those hands, (to remain fixed under those circumstances,) had been placed across the girl’s bosom, before the stiffness set in.
Death froze them there!

You may read every line of the evidence on both sides, as I did, and you will not find any explanation of those folded hands—hands folded as no murdered woman’s were ever found before, except where somebody, not the murderer, instinctively followed universal custom, and folded them!
Can you escape that conclusion? No, you can’t. At least, I couldn’t, and I have been reading and trying murder cases, nearly all my life.

Then, as a last resort, in my efforts to satisfy myself about that unparalleled circumstance of the folded hands, I decided to turn to Jim Conley’s evidence, saying to myself, as I did so, “If that ignorant nigger explains that fact, whose importance he cannot possibly have known, it will be a marvelous thing.” So I turned to Conley’s evidence, searching for that one thing. On page 55, I found it. Here it is:

“She was dead when I got back there, and I came back and told Mr. Frank, and he said ‘Sh-sh!’….The girl was lying flat on her back and her hands were out, this way. I put both of her hands down, easy, and rolled her up in the cloth….I looked back a little way and saw her hat and piece of ribbon and her slippers, and I taken them and put them all in the cloth.”

The girl was lying flat on her back, hands out this way—and he illustrated. “I put both of her hands down.” Then, they were not only out, but up—as if the pitiful little victim had been pushing something, or somebody, off!

Those dead hands are fearful accusers of the white men who now say that Mary Phagan did not value her virtue.

Only the other day, there was issued by the Neale Publishing Company, a new book of war experiences, written by a Philadelphia surgeon, Dr. John H. Brinton; and he relates some vivid incidents showing the rapid action of the rigor mortis—the “instantaneous rigor,” following mortal wounds received in battle. He made a special study of the dead, on the field which the North calls Antietam. (Our name for it is, Sharpsburg.)

On page 207, Dr. Brinton speaks of the cornfield and sunken road, so famous to the literature of the War; and he says, “Dead bodies were everywhere…..Many of these were in extraordinary attitudes, some with their arms raised rigidly in the air….

I also noticed the body of a Southern soldier….The body was in a semi-erect posture….One arm, extended, was stretched forward…..His musket with ramrod halfway down, had dropped from his hand.”

This Southern soldier had been lying in the road, had half risen to load and shoot, had been shot while driving the ramrod home, and the gun had dropped; but the soldier himself remained, face to the foe, half-erect, with “one arm extended, and stretched forward.”

Brave Southern soldier! Death itself could not rob him of the proofs of his unfailing heroism.

Brave Southern girl! Death itself would not rob Mary Phagan of the proofs, that she fought for her innocence to the very last.

Shame upon those white men who desecrate the murdered child’s grave, and who add to the torture of the mother that lost her, by saying Mary was an unclean little wanton.

Jim Conley had no motive to describe her hands as being uplifted; and he, an ignorant negro, could not have realized the stupendous psychological significance of it.

Providence was against Frank in this case. The stars in their courses fought against him, as they fought against Sisera. His lawyers must have felt it.

Providence was against him, in the time of Monteen Stover’s unexpected visit to his office.

Providence was against him, in the unexpected return of Mrs. White.

Providence was against him, in the fatal break-down of his alibi.

Providence was against him, in the apparently trivial fact that Newt Lee’s call of nature, Saturday night, did not occur on any of the floors above the basement—all of which had closets—but occurred in the basement, where the closet was close to the dead girl.

Providence was against him, in the fact that Barrett worked that crank handle, the last thing on Friday evening, and was thus able to credibly swear that it had no woman’s hair on it, then.

Providence was against him, in that Stanford swept the whole floor Friday, and was thus able to credibly swear that there was no blood on it, then.

Providence was against him, when he was forced into explaining his absence from his office by unwittingly putting himself at the place of that woman’s hair and those fresh blood spots.

Providence was against him, when that cold and stiff girl was found in the basement, with “hands folded across the breast,” for that fact—apparently little—imperiously demands explanation!

And when you start out to hunt for the explanation which you know must exist, you search every nook and cranny in the case without finding it, until you read a line or two which the negro did not understand the meaning of—and which, so far as I can learn—has never been the subject of comment, on either side.

It happened to flash across me, that I had recently read something similar, in the book which Walter Neale had sent me for review; and then I saw the meaning of Mary’s hands being in such a position upward, that Jim had to put them “down.”

No negro could have invented that. No negro could have known the importance of that. Apparently, the lawyers did not pay any attention to it. Am I mistaken in doing so? Am I wrong in saying that this little fact absolutely establishes the truth of the State’s theory?

How, else, do you account for the hands folded across her breast, so rigidly that when her body had been dragged, and then turned over, the rigid posture of the hands was maintained, by the frozen muscles?

To save your life, you cannot explain it, except by saying that somebody, almost immediately after the girl’s death, put her hands in that position. She didn’t do it.

Who was that somebody?

Not the man who killed her, you may be dead sure.

But the nigger says, he did it.

Then you may stake your life on the proposition, that the nigger didn’t kill her.

Negroes who assault and murder white women, don’t loiter to fold hands, write notes, and pick up hats, ribbons and slippers.

Negroes who assault and murder white women, have never failed to hit the outer rim of the sky-line, just as quick as their heels can do it.

But as it was the nigger who put down the girl’s hands, and folded them across her breast, soon after her life went out, who did kill her?

THE ONLY OTHER POSSIBLE MAN, IS FRANK.

Was it Frank, and not the nigger, who was “lascivious,” at that factory? Twelve white women swore, “Yes.”

Was it Frank, and not the nigger, who had been after this little girl. Three white witnesses swear, “Yes.”

How many more witnesses do you want, than fifteen white ones?

And yet the Burnses, and Connollys, and Pulitzers, and Abells, and Ochses, and Thomsons and Rossers are still telling the outside world that the virtuous Frank was convicted on race prejudice, and the evidence of one besotted negro!

Was any State ever so maligned, as Georgia has been?

Let me call your attention to another little thing in the negro’s evidence which there was no need to “make up.” It is his statement that he wrote, at Frank’s dictation, four notes before Frank was satisfied. Why say four, when only two were found? The negro in testifying at the trial, knew that only two notes were found, yet he swore to writing four.

At least, I so understand his words, which were—

“He taken his pencil to fix up some notes….and he sat down and I sat down at the table and Mr. Frank dictated the notes to me. Whatever it was, it didn’t seem to suit him, and he told me to turn over, and write again, and I turned the paper and wrote again, and when I had done that, he told me to turn over and write again, and I turned over and I wrote on the next page, and he looked at that, and kinder liked it, and he said that was all right. Then he reached over and got another piece of paper, a green piece, and told me what to write. He took it and laid it in his desk.”

If that doesn’t make four notes, I don’t understand the language in the record; and if it means four, when only two were found and introduced into the case, it shows, at least, that the negro was not making up a tale to fit the known facts.

The negro said another thing that he could not have “made up,” because he does not even yet realize the meaning of it. The lawyers made no allusions to it. Jim said—“When I heard him whistle (the signal Frank had often used when he had lewd women with him) I went…on up the steps. Mr. Frank was standing up there at the top of the steps, and shivering and trembling, and rubbing his hands like this—.

He had a little rope in his hands—a long wide piece of cord. His eyes were large and they looked right funny…..

He asked me, “Did you see that little girl who passed up here a while ago?”

Jim told him he had seen two go up, and only one come down.

Mind you, Frank had not heard Monteen Stover, whose tennis shoes made no noise; and Frank knew nothing of her visit at all. When he asked Jim if he had seen that little girl, Frank meant, “Did you see the Phagan girl?”

Frank’s purpose was, to learn whether Jim had seen the little girl, who was then lying out there in the metal room, with a piece of that cord around her neck. If the negro had answered, “No, I didn’t see any girl,” Frank would never have said another word to him about her. It was only after he found out that Jim had seen her go up, but not come down, that he had to take Jim into his confidence one more time.

Much has been said about the improbability of Frank making a confidante out of a negro of low character. Does an immoral white man make a confidante out of a negro of high character? Will a respectable negro act as go-between, procurer, or watch-out man, for a white hypocrite who is one thing to his Rabbi and his Bnai Brith, and quite a different thing to the cyprians of the town?

Suppose I can show you from the official record that Frank’s lawyers knew that the murder was committed on Frank’s floor, back there where the blood and hair were found, won’t you be practically certain that they also knew Frank to be guilty?

Come along with me, and see if I don’t prove it to you:

Leo Frank employed Harry Scott, a detective, to ferret out the criminal, and Scott went into the case with great vigor. In fact, he soon showed altogether too much vigor to suit Frank, and Herbert Haas. Herbert became alarmed—why? And Herbert told Scott to first report to him, Herbert, whatever he might discover, before letting any one else know. Herbert Haas was chairman of the Frank Finance Committee, and he was one of the lawyers for the defense.

Scott did not like to be shut off from the police, and confined to a Herbert Haas investigation, and so he remonstrated with the Chairman of the Finance Committee.

But before Scott was fired, he had drawn from Frank two material statements. One was, his alleged continuous presence in his office after Hattie Hall left; and the other was, his answer to Mary Phagan, when she asked him if the metal had come.

Frank told Scott that when Mary asked him whether the metal had come, he replied, “I don’t know.” At that time, Frank was not aware of the fact that Monteen Stover could prove that he was absent from his office when Mary was being murdered.

What did Mary’s question about the metal prove? That her mind was on her work. She had lost nearly the whole week, because the supply of metal had run out. They were expecting more. If it had come, she could go back to work in that metal room, next Monday. Therefore, when she asked Frank, “Has the metal come?” her thoughts were on her work and she was eager to know whether she could return on Monday to resume it. “Has the metal come?” Equivalent to, “Will there be any work for me next week? Must I lose another week, or can I come back Monday?”

This was the meaning of the question. What was the meaning of Frank’s answer?

If he said, “I don’t know,” the girl would naturally suggest, or he would, that they go back there, to that metal room, and see.

Can you escape this conclusion? If he didn’t know whether the metal was there or not, the only way to tell for certain, was to go and look. If he was doubtful, the girl would want to go and look to see if it was there, for the girl wanted to resume her work.

Now, if that answer, “I don’t know,” were allowed to stand, Rosser realized, quick as lightning, that it led to the inevitable conclusion that the girl went back to the metal room to see about it, and was assaulted there!

Consequently, Frank not only changed his answer of, “I don’t know,” into a positive, “No;” but Rosser went at Scott, hammer and tongs, to badger him into saying that he may have been mistaken, and that Frank may have said, “No,” instead of, “I don’t know.”

But the point is this: If Rosser had not felt certain that the blood and the hair proves that Mary was killed on Frank’s floor, near Frank’s closet, and at about the time Frank puts himself at the closet, what would Rosser have cared whether Mary went to the metal room, or not?

If Jim Conley killed Mary on the first floor, or in the basement, it did not at all matter whether she went to the metal room, either with Frank, or by herself.

The strenuous effort of Rosser to escape from that answer of “I don’t know,” proves what he knows. He knows very well that the girl was killed on the second floor. Otherwise, you cannot understand why Frank was made to change his statement, and why such herculean strength was used to get a change out of Harry Scott.

The difference between “No,” and “I don’t know,” is a difference between tweedledum and tweedledee, unless Mary was murdered on Frank’s floor.

Rosser knew, just as you must now see, that if Frank told the girl, “I don’t know,” he might just as well have admitted that he and Mary went back there together, where the blood and hair were found.

The answer of, “I don’t know,”—suggesting as it did, an inspection of the room, to see about the metal—is the only plausible way to account for the girl’s being back there, unless indeed the notes speak the truth about her going to the closet.

(See Harry Scott’s evidence in record.)

Rosser’s desperate struggle to get away from the “I don’t know,” is wonderfully illuminating as to what was in Rosser’s mind. If he had placed the slightest reliance on the theory that the negro killed the girl, he would not have cared a button whether Frank went with Mary to see about the metal. If Rosser had not been absolutely certain that the girl was attacked and killed, back there, he would not have struggled so hard to keep her and Frank away from there. If Rosser had believed for a moment that Mary went on down stairs, after she left Frank, and was killed by the negro down stairs, he wouldn’t have wasted a breath over that question of whether Frank said, “No,” or said, “I don’t know.”

If the girl was killed down stairs, it would not have hurt Frank’s case in the least, if he had boldly admitted that, after telling Mary, “I don’t know,” he had gone back there with her to see. It is to be presumed that he, as well as she, wanted the work to go on; and therefore he, also, would be interested in the matter, with a view to her return on Monday.

Suppose he had said, “Yes, Mary came to my office, got her money, and we went back to the metal rom to see if the expected metal had come; and, after that, she went on down stairs, and I went back into my office, and saw no more of her.”

Where would have been the danger of his saying that? She was with him in the office; he admits that, after the evidence forces him to it; but why not go a little farther, and admit that he and she went to the metal room, before she left his floor?

Ask Rosser to tell you the answer to that question. Ask your own intelligence! What danger, was to be dreaded, in allowing Frank to say that he and Mary went to the metal room, even for one single minute?

If she was killed on the first floor—no matter who did it—there was no danger in letting Frank admit that he went to the metal room with her.

If she was killed in the basement—no matter who did it—there was no danger in the admission that she and Frank went to the metal room.

But Rosser’s desperate drive, to remove the very idea of her going to the metal room with Frank, proves the immense importance he attached to it. He could not allow it, he dared not allow it! Mary and Frank must not for an instant be allowed in the metal room, during that fatal half-hour!

WHY NOT?

Is there any possible answer, but the one? And that is—Mary’s tress of golden-brown hair is hanging out there in that room, on the crank of Barrett’s machine; and Mary’s life-blood is out there, on that recently swept floor!

Rosser said in his heart, “I dare not let Frank go there!”

When you test the theory that Conley alone did the deed, you have no evidence to rest it on. Jim never bothered those white girls, did not act like a negro who had committed the unpardonable crime on a white woman, did not try to lay suspicion on anybody, and went about his work as usual, on Monday and Tuesday.

There is absolutely no evidence against the negro, upon which the State could have made the shadow of a case.

When you test in your mind the hypothesis that Frank and Jim both committed the crime, you make some slight headway, for Jim and Frank shielded each other, until Frank was jailed. But this is not enough to implicate both, in the actual crime. It is enough to prove a common guilty knowledge of the crime, but it does not shut out the idea of Conley’s being accessory to the fact, after the deed was done.

It is only when you test in your mind the theory that Frank alone committed the crime, that all proved circumstances harmonize, and interlink to make the chain.

Twelve white girls swore that Frank had a lascivious character; and they learned what he was, inside this very factory.

One of his own witnesses, a white girl, swore to this immoral conduct, inside this very factory.

Conley mentioned the names of the white women and the white man who came into this very factory, to engage in vice with Frank, and one of these persons corroborated Conley on the witness stand.

White witnesses swore that Frank had been after little Mary, ever since March, inside this very factory.

Frank laid a trap for Mary, by forcing her to come back inside this very factory, when he might have sent her money by Helen Ferguson.

Mary walks into the trap inside that factory, and it closes on her.

God in Heaven! was guilt ever plainer, and more deliberately diabolical?

And are we to be dictated to by mass-meetings in Chicago, and by circular letters from New York and New England, when this awful crime stares us in the face?

Nothing corroborates Frank when he says that Conley alone committed the crime; and every undisputed fact is against that hypothesis.

Everything corroborates Conley, when he says that Frank did it, and he himself became mixed up in it, afterwards.

And if there is one feature of the case more convincing than another it is, that Frank was at least as careful to shield Conley from suspicion, AT FIRST, as Conley was, to shield Frank.

Until Frank himself was arrested, he tried to set the dogs on Lee and Gantt, BUT NEVER ONCE ON JIM CONLEY!

At first, Frank and Conley both acted like a pair who held a guilty secret between themselves.

Ah, it is a heartrending case. Big Money may muzzle most of the papers, hire the best legal talent, and bring remote popular pressure to bear upon our governor, but all the money in the world cannot destroy the facts, nor answer the arguments based on those facts.

Let me refer to the negro’s explanation of how it happened—my reference being confined strictly to facts where there is abundant corroboration.

Jim says he heard steps of two persons going back to the metal room; and Frank himself, states that Mary inquired about whether the metal had come, which would give her more work next week. What more natural than that Frank, when the girl asked, “Has the metal come?” should say, “Let’s go back there and see?”

What more natural than that she should go? And what more in keeping with Frank’s proved character, and his proved desire for this girl, than that he should make indecent advances to her, back there, where no one is in sight or hearing?

Jim says Frank called him by their agreed signal of stamping on the floor, and whistling, and that when he went up, Frank, looking wild and excited, told him, in substance, that he had tried the girl, that she had refused, that he had struck her, and he guessed he had hit her too hard; she had fallen, and in falling had hit something; she was unconscious.

Jim says he went back there where the girl lay, at the lathe, where her hair was found in the handle; and she was lying motionless with the cord around her neck. “The cloth was also tied around her neck, and part of it was under her head like to catch blood.”

All the witnesses swore to the strip of cloth; and the hair on the metal handle of the lathe was as fully identified as Mary’s, as hair could be under those circumstances. Frank’s own witness, Magnolia Kennedy testified that the hair looked like Mary’s; and Miss Magnolia was herself the only other girl there whose hair was at all like the golden brown of Mary Phagan’s.

Frank’s own machinist found the hair on the metal handle, and swore positively it was not there when he quit using that very machine—handle and all—Friday night, before the Saturday of the crime.

Mr. Barrett, the machinist, found the hair on the handle when he went back to the machine Monday morning. He was not at the factory Saturday. No one is shown to have been in that room Saturday. How did that long, golden-brown, woman’s hair get on that metal crank, where Barrett found it?

No girl or woman could be produced who pretended she was in the metal room on Saturday. No girl or woman could be found who could explain about the hair. Why not? Half-a-dozen of Frank’s own employees, several of them his own witnesses, swore to finding the hair, soon Monday morning; and they swore that it was not there Friday.

Why couldn’t it be accounted for?

The only answer is, Mary in falling, after Frank struck her and gave her that bruise on the eye, hit the metal handle, and it ripped her scalp and tore out some of her hair.

In no other way under the sun can that hair on the machine be explained.

Then the blood on the floor at the dressing room, some 23 feet from where the girl fell: whose blood?

All the witnesses say it was not there Friday when they quit work. Mell Stanford had swept the whole 2nd floor, and tidied up, generally; and he swore positively the blood spots were not there Friday. Barrett swore they were not there Friday. But the blood spots were there early Monday morning, seen by numbers of the employees, and denied by none. Schiff, the assistant superintendent, admitted it, Quinn admitted it, the men saw it, the women saw it, chips were cut out of the floor, and the doctors saw it.

Whose was it?

Not there Friday evening, right there Monday morning, whose was it?

If not Mary’s blood, produce your explanation! If not Mary, somebody else bled there. Who bled there, between Friday and Monday, if not Mary Phagan?

The question can not be answered, save in one way. You know quite well that if money or skill, or hard work, could have accounted for those guilty stains on that floor, the man or the woman who bled there would have been produced.

Conley says he dropped the girl on the floor, and that the blood spattered where those spots were found. Take that explanation, or go without one, for I assure you the court record offers no other. Frank in his own statement could only offer the explanation that Duffy or Gilbert when injured in the metal room, months before, might have bled there. Gilbert went on the stand and swore to his cut finger, but said none of the blood had dropped anywhere near those spots.

The futile effort to account for the blood, only deepens the significance of the fact that it was there, and adds fearful weight to the evidence of R.P. Barrett and Mell Stanford, that it was not there on Friday.

Jim says he and Frank carried the body down, in the elevator, to the basement. He says they had wrapped her up in a cloth which was taken off in the basement. He said that Frank made him promise to return to the plant, that afternoon, to help him dispose of the body, but he did not go back.

I have on purpose left out everything but the barest outline. Conley did go home and did not return, whereas Frank was back—we don’t know exactly when—and sent Newt Lee away at 4, when Newt wanted to go in and sleep.

A white man, whose character is not assailed, swears that he wanted permission to go into the factory at 6 o’clock, and that Frank not only first tried to dodge back out of sight into the gloom of the building, but lied to him about the sweeping out of the shoes, and then sent a negro to watch him.

Then the negro who was a trusted night-watchman—and whom Frank detailed to watch Gantt—swears that when he went down into the basement at 7 o’clock in the course of his regular rounds of the big building, less than an hour after Frank had gone, the light that had always been kept burning brightly there, by Frank’s own orders, had been turned down. “It was burning just as low as you could turn it, like a lightning bug. I left it Saturday morning burning bright.”

Who turned that light down?

Who went into that basement, after Newt went off duty early Saturday morning? Who was there during Saturday? What was the motive, in turning the light down and leaving it so? The motive was, to prevent Newt from seeing that corpse.

Not a single employee of the plant said that he or she had been in the basement that day. The light could not turn itself down. It was not a case of gas burning dim and low, for it burned brightly again when turned up.

Somebody turned down the light—who?

Over the telephone came the inquiry to Newt—“How is everything?” That was an hour or so after Frank had left. He had never done that before. He does not even claim that he had. But he explains it by saying he wanted to know whether Gantt had gone! What danger did he apprehend from Gantt?

Why was Gantt on Frank’s nerves? Newt swears that Frank did not mention Gantt, but simply asked. “How is everything?”

Was it not the jangling nerves and haunting suspicions, whose question really meant, “Have you found anything? Have you seen the dead girl? Is the murder out?”

Minola McKnight’s repudiated affidavit is in this terrible record, and in those statements which she verified and swore to in the presence of Mr. George Gordon, her attorney, she tells of that night of horror at Frank’s home.

You will probably suspect that if Newt Lee had not had occasion to go to the closet in the basement that night, Mary Phagan’s body never would have been found, for the going to the closet took him close to the corpse, and he saw it!

Frank did not intend for the corpse to be found; and he meant to creep back into the basement next day, and bury that girl in the dirt floor!

That door worked on a slide. It did not open, as door shutters usually do. It was locked and it was barred, usually. On Saturday night, Newt looked that way, and it was closed. He did not notice the bar, or the staple. On Sunday morning, the door was subjected to close examination. The witnesses say the staple had been drawn, and the bar taken down. But the door was completely closed!

Would a frightened, fleeing negro rapist and murderer, have pried out the staple, lifted off the bar, and then carefully, from the outside, pushed the door to, on the slide?

Why should Jim Conley break the basement door, when he could walk out, in front, on the first floor where he was sitting when Mrs. White saw him?

And why should any frightened and fleeing negro, too scared to walk out of the unlocked doors, break that door, and then carefully close it?

To me, it looks like a careful plan for somebody, to go in, without being seen. To me, it looks as if somebody, who had the run of the plant, came down there, pried out the staple, and lifted the bar, without opening the door at all. The opening was to be from the outside, next day.

Jim Conley could have unlocked that door easier than he could draw the staple. He could have lifted the bar and gone out, without violence, easier than he could go out by a burglarious breaking.

It wasn’t a question of going out; it was a question of coming in!

Do you say that Frank could have left the door unlocked, with the bar merely lifted off? The answer to that is, had he done so, he would have had to involve persons who had the keys!

To unlock from the inside, there must be an unlocker, on the inside.

Now, if Frank had unlocked the door, as well as removed the bar, the crime would have come home, right then, to one of the men who toted the keys. And a narrowing circle would have brought that search right up to him and Conley—for all the others could easily account for themselves at the exact half-hour of the crime.

Frank’s defenders claim that Conley broke open the basement door to get out.

What will you think of their sincerity and honesty, when I tell you page 21 of the agreed record shows that the negro was sitting near the front door, up stairs on the 1st floor, at about 1 o’clock, when Mrs. J.A. White passed him and went out at the front door?

What hindered the negro from walking out of the front door? The crime had been committed; the corpse was in the basement; and there was Jim sitting between the upper stairway and regular entrance door.

What need for him to squeeze through that scuttle hole, return to the basement, and break out the back way, in the alley? All he or Frank had to do, to get out, was to do what Mrs. White did—walk out. But if somebody wanted to come back around the back way, and glide into the basement unseen, then a sliding door, left in such a manner that it could be pushed back, from the outside, was necessary.

Another queer thing is, that Jim said that they left the corpse on the floor in front of the elevator, but that he flung the ribbon, hat and slippers into the trash-heap near the furnace, where Frank wanted body and all burnt that afternoon.

Now, when the body was found, it had been dragged from the elevator back to near the basement door, the ribbon, slippers and hat were at the same place, and only two notes—a white one and a yellow one—were lying near the girl’s head. Did Frank, who is a small man, drag that body away from the elevator? Did he gather up all her things and lay them by her? Did he select two of the notes, and destroy the other two? Did the other two notes go with her mesh bag and pay-envelope?

It is certainly a peculiar detail that Newt Lee, when an accident took him to the toilet near the corpse, saw the leg, first. In being dragged by the feet, and on the side face, at least one of the legs would be exposed.

Nobody but Frank and Conley are entrapped by that providential clockwork of the fatal half-hour.

Conley admits himself caught, and is being punished for it.

But it catches Frank, also; and where two criminals are involved in a crime against a white girl, the white man is the more apt to be the leader, the principal, especially in a case like this where ten white women swore to Frank’s lewd character, and three white witnesses swore that he had been after this very girl.

What is a demonstration of any man’s guilt, on circumstantial evidence? It is that degree of moral certainty which arises from the evident fact that, under those circumstances, no one else could have committed the crime.

Given a murder, and a state of facts which excludes everybody except the accused, and the accused is the guilty man, necessarily.
When it is admitted that somebody committed a crime, and the testimony shows that nobody but the Defendant could have done it, human Reason is satisfied, and so is the Law.

Let your mind rest upon one other very significant fact.

The ignorant negro who is accused of the crime, stood, a terrific cross-examination, lasting eight hours. The strongest criminal lawyer of the Atlanta bar wore himself out on Jim Conley, without damaging Jim’s evidence in the least.

On the contrary, the educated white man who is accused of the crime made a statement covering 45 large pages of closely printed matter, and refused to offer to answer one single question!

His defenders paint him as a man of intellectual gifts of which any community should be proud, as a man of spotless morals, as a man who is unjustly accused, foully convicted, and eager for vindication.

Why, then, did he shrink from a cross-examination? Why did he fear an ordeal through which the illiterate negro triumphantly passed?
In its tenderness to the accused, our law will not permit an examination of the defendant, unless he voluntarily consents. So just was the horror of our ancestors against that system of torture to compel confessions which popery had introduced into Europe, that they swung the pendulum back to the other extreme, and screened the prisoner from any question, whatever.

It is an unwise thing to give to the guilty an immunity from answering fair questions, for no innocent man could ever be hurt by it. But leaving all that out, a defendant can say—and often does say—“Ask me any fair question, and I will answer it.” Such an offer always makes a most favorable impression. The jury and the public at once begin to feel confident of the innocence of an accused, when he shows confidence in it himself.

Here was a college graduate, an intellectually superior man, environed by a terrible array of suspicious circumstances, with the whole republic looking on at his trial, with a mother and father intensely agitated, and the Hebrews of the Union, profoundly concerned.

What a magnificent opportunity for an innocent man to rise before the court and country, panoplied in the armor of conscious rectitude, and say to the State of Georgia—

“I have nothing to conceal. There are no guilty secrets in my soul. The more carefully you open my book of life, the more clearly will my innocence be seen. If I have not spoken to your satisfaction, and given a full account of myself, ask me about it! Put your questions. I am not afraid. No answer of mine can uncover a guilt that does not exist. Therefore I do not fear your questions: ask them!”

Wouldn’t that have been the attitude and the feeling of Nathan Strauss, for instance, had he been in Frank’s place?

What, then, is the net result of all this evidence, direct and circumstantial? It is this:

Leo Frank was a lecherous hypocrite, a moral pervert; a model, to Rabbi Marx, but a rake—and something more—to women would allow it;
He wanted this little girl, and the opportunity came on Saturday, April 26th, 1913;

She goes into his possession, and is found in his possession—but when she goes in, she is alive and well, and when found, she is cold and stiff, with the dried blood matted in her golden hair, and a tightly tied cord cutting into her soft neck.

Alive and dead, she is that day in Frank’s possession, and he cannot trace her out of it! To say that the negro shared that possession with him, may be true, but it does not help Frank.

At most, that gives him an accomplice, and the negro is even now being punished for that!

Mary goes into Frank’s house alive; she is soon afterwards found there, dead, cold and stiff; no mortals had the opportunity to assault and kill her, save Frank and Conley.

Say that the negro did the deed without the white man, and you cannot travel at all; no evidence whatever supports the theory.

Say that the white man did it, and then called for the negro’s help in getting rid of the body—and all the evidence harmonizes, facts link into facts, to make the iron chain of conviction.

On the great Knapp case, the fame of Daniel Webster, as a criminal lawyer, mainly rests; and in that case of circumstantial evidence the verdict of “Guilty” had no stronger support than was given to the verdict against Frank. In the Knapp case, the prosecution aided the State of Massachusetts by employing the greatest lawyer and forensic orator the American bar could boast. In the Frank case, the young Solicitor stood alone, and fought the strongest team of attorneys that money could enlist. Against Frank’s dozens of lawyers, detectives, press-agents, &c., the State of Georgia has arrayed nobody, save her regular officers of the Law.

In the Knapp case, Mr. Webster indignantly answered the friends of the defendant, who claimed that a popular clamor had been excited against the accused. He turned upon these too-zealous champions of the prisoner and exclaimed—

“Much has been said, on this occasion, of the excitement which has existed, and still exists, and of the extraordinary methods taken to discover and punish the guilty. No doubt there has been, and is, much excitement, and strange indeed were it, had it been otherwise. Should not all the peaceable and well-disposed naturally feel concerned, and naturally exert themselves to bring to punishment the authors of this secret assassination? Was it a thing to be slept upon or forgotten? Did you, gentlemen, sleep quite as quietly in your beds after this murder as before?

Was it not a case for rewards, for meetings, for committees, for the united efforts of all the good, to find out a band of murderous conspirators, of midnight ruffians, and to bring them to the bar of justice and law? If this be excitement, is it an unnatural or an improper excitement?

“It is said that even a vigilance committee was appointed….They are said to have been laboring for months against the prisoner.

“Gentlemen, what must we do in such a case? Are people to be dumb and still, through fear of overdoing? Is it come to this, that an effort cannot be made, a hand cannot be lifted, to discover the guilty, without its being said, there is a combination to overwhelm innocence?

“Has the community lost all moral sense? Certainly a community that would not be roused to action, upon an occasion such as this was, a community which should not deny sleep to their eyes, and slumber to their eye-lids, till they had exhausted all the means of discovery and detection, must, indeed, be lost to all moral sense, and would scarcely deserve protection from the laws.”

Thus thundered Daniel Webster, rebuking those men of New England who blamed the people of Massachusetts for being aroused over the murder of an old man.

Great God! What would Webster have said to those New York preachers, and those Northern papers, who are so fiercely misrepresenting and denouncing the people of Georgia, for being aroused over the murder of a little girl?

Nobly expounding the purpose of the penal law, Mr. Webster said—

“The criminal law is not founded on a principle of vengeance. The humanity of the law regrets every pain it causes, every hour of restraint it imposes, and more deeply still, every life it forfeits. But it uses evil as the means of preventing greater evil. It seeks to deter from crime, by the example of punishment. This is its true, and only true main object. It forfeits the life of the murderer, that other murders may not be committed. When the guilty, therefore, are not punished, the law has, so far, failed of its purpose; the safety of the innocent is, so far, endangered. Every unpunished murder takes away something from the security of every man’s life.”

In pressing the case on Leo Frank, the State of Georgia has been free from any hostility toward a Jew; the State has sternly prosecuted him because he is a murderer.

In pressing the case against Leo Frank, we have felt none of the fury of prejudice and race hatred; we have demanded his punishment as a protection to other innocent Mary Phagans, as well as a vindication of the law, to strike terror into other Leo Franks.

We respectfully ask the other States of the Union to usurp no further jurisdiction over us than a high court of review would have—and that would be to examine the official record, as agreed upon by the attorneys on both sides, and judge us by that record.

If the sworn testimony supports the verdict of the jury, quit abusing us. If that sworn testimony not only sustains the evidence, but rendered any other verdict humanly impossible, quit talking about the semi-barbarians of Georgia, accusing them of Jew baiting, mob methods and jungle fury.

Unless Frank is entitled to immunity because he is a Jew, let the lightnings of Sinai strike him!

A married man, he was false to his young and buxom wife. A member of the Synagogue, he was false to the creed of his church. An educated Hebrew of splendid connections, he was false to the higher standards of his race. A citizen of Georgia, he was false to her Society, a canker and a pest. Subject to her laws, he broke them repeatedly, with shameless effrontery, in his place of business; and when one Gentile girl whom he lusted after persisted in repulsing him, he laid in wait for her, assaulted her, killed her, leaving her blood and her corpse in his place of business.

O my lords and gentlemen, what must we do to be saved from such men as these? Every race has them. Every State has them. Every nation has them.

Please God, I have written an argument that will vindicate our State, justify her courts, defy refutation, and stand unshaken to the end of time. That my work has been done voluntarily and without reward, or the remotest hope thereof, will not lessen its merit.

References and Sources:

Images of Tom Watson’s Leo Frank article from Watson Magazine, March 1915
http://www.leofrank.org/images/watsons-magazine-march-1915

The Author of Black-Jewish Relations (2000) by Jeffrey Paul Melnick