Now get this, suckers: Jews staging new Broadway play, "Parade," about kike murderer, Leo Frank, which murder inspired institution of ADL, no less

Apollonian

Guest Columnist

Neo-Nazis rally outside Broadway preview of ‘Parade,’ about an antisemitic murder​

Link: https://www.jta.org/2023/02/22/unit...preview-of-parade-about-an-antisemitic-murder

BY PHILISSA CRAMER FEBRUARY 22, 2023 8:43 AM

GettyImages-1438344430-2160x1200.jpg

Micaela Diamond and Ben Platt during the opening night curtain call for "Parade" at New York City Center, Nov. 1, 2022. (Bruce Glikas/WireImage/GettyImages)

(JTA) — Members of a neo-Nazi group rallied Tuesday night outside the Broadway theater that is hosting “Parade,” a play about the 1915 lynching of a Jewish man in Georgia.
“It was definitely very ugly and scary, but [also] a wonderful reminder of why we’re telling this particular story, and how special and powerful art and particularly theater can be,” star Ben Platt said in a statement on Instagram after the performance, the first preview in the revival’s Broadway run.
Platt stars as Leo Frank, the Jewish manager of an Atlanta pencil factory who was accused of murdering a girl whose body was found there in 1913. Despite little evidence, Frank was found guilty of killing Mary Phagan, who had worked at the factory, and was sentenced to death. In 1915, when Frank’s sentence was commuted to life in prison, he was kidnapped by an armed mob and lynched. The case spurred both the creation of the Anti-Defamation League, the Jewish civil rights group whose activities include monitoring neo-Nazi activity, and the revival of the Ku Klux Klan white supremacist hate group.
The protesters, who identified with the National Socialist Movement, a neo-Nazi group headquartered in Florida that has a swastika in its logo, carried a poster that accused Frank of being a pedophile, according to videos shared from the incident. That allegation is frequently made by neo-Nazis who reject the consensus that Frank was innocent of the crime. They see the advocacy on his behalf as evidence of Jewish control of the media, a longstanding antisemitic trope.

The “Parade” protesters also distributed antisemitic literature and criticized the ADL, according to videos shared on social media from the scene. One video shared on Twitter suggested that at least some people present jeered the neo-Nazis. The protesters held a white banner with red capital letters reading “Leo frankly was a pedo.”
“Are you really doing the real work of an artist if you aren’t be[ing] protested by Neo Nazis?” a cast member, Prentiss Mouton, posted on Instagram, over a clip of the incident filmed from above. “If I wasn’t proud enough to be a part of this production it was solidified today.”
Platt, who is Jewish, said the incident underscored the need for “Parade” at a time when watchdogs say antisemitism is on the rise in the United States.

“I just think that now is really the moment for this particular piece,” he said. “I just wanted the button on the evening, at least for me personally, to be to celebrate what a beautiful experience it is and what gorgeous work all of my wonderful colleagues did tonight. Not the really ugly actions of a few people who are spreading evil.”
Platt thanked the Bernard Jacobs Theater for keeping cast and audience members “super safe and secure — as you will be, too, when you come see the show.”
“Parade” first played on Broadway in 1998. The musical written by Jason Robert Brown and Albert Uhry won Tony awards for best book and best score. The revival, which officially begins March 16, follows a seven-performance off-Broadway run last year.
 

100 Reasons Leo Frank Is Guilty​

Link: https://theamericanmercury.org/2013/04/100-reasons-proving-leo-frank-is-guilty/

Posted on 26 April, 2013 by Penelope Lee

100 Reasons Leo Frank Is Guilty thumbnail
Proving That Anti-Semitism Had Nothing to Do With His Conviction — and Proving That His Defenders Have Used Frauds and Hoaxes for 100 Years
by Bradford L. Huie
exclusive to The American Mercury
MARY PHAGAN was just thirteen years old. She was a sweatshop laborer for Atlanta, Georgia’s National Pencil Company. Exactly 100 years ago today — Saturday, April 26, 1913 — little Mary (pictured, artist’s depiction) was looking forward to the festivities of Confederate Memorial Day. She dressed gaily and planned to attend the parade. She had just come to collect her $1.20 pay from National Pencil Company superintendent Leo M. Frank at his office when she was attacked by an assailant who struck her down, ripped her undergarments, likely attempted to sexually abuse her, and then strangled her to death. Her body was dumped in the factory basement.
Leo M. Frank
Leo M. Frank
(Listen to the audio book version of this article by pressing the play button below:)
Audio Player [ck site link, above]

Leo Frank, who was the head of Atlanta’s B’nai B’rith, a Jewish fraternal order, was eventually convicted of the murder and sentenced to hang. After a concerted and lavishly financed campaign by the American Jewish community, Frank’s death sentence was commuted to life in prison by an outgoing governor. But he was snatched from his prison cell and hung by a lynching party consisting, in large part, of leading citizens outraged by the commutation order – and none of the lynchers were ever prosecuted or even indicted for their crime. One result of Frank’s trial and death was the founding of the still-powerful Anti-Defamation League.

Video version of this article:
Video Player

Today Leo Frank’s innocence, and his status as a victim of anti-Semitism, are almost taken for granted. But are these current attitudes based on the facts of the case, or are they based on a propaganda campaign that began 100 years ago? Let’s look at the facts.
It has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt that either Leo Frank or National Pencil Company sweeper Jim Conley was the killer of Mary Phagan. Every other person who was in the building at the time has been fully accounted for. Those who believe Frank to be innocent say, without exception, that Jim Conley must have been the killer.
Jim Conley
Jim Conley

On the 100th anniversary of the inexpressibly tragic death of this sweet and lovely girl, let us examine 100 reasons why the jury that tried him believed (and why we ought to believe, once we see the evidence) that Leo Max Frank strangled Mary Phagan to death — 100 reasons proving that Frank’s supporters have used multiple frauds and hoaxes and have tampered with the evidence on a massive scale — 100 reasons proving that the main idea that Frank’s modern defenders put forth, that Leo Frank was a victim of anti-Semitism, is the greatest hoax of all.
1. Only Leo Frank had the opportunity to be alone with Mary Phagan, and he admits he was alone with her in his office when she came to get her pay — and in fact he was completely alone with her on the second floor. Had Jim Conley been the killer, he would have had to attack her practically right at the entrance to the building where he sat almost all day, where people were constantly coming and going and where several witnesses noticed Conley, with no assurance of even a moment of privacy.
2. Leo Frank had told Newt Lee, the pencil factory’s night watchman, to come earlier than usual, at 4 PM, on the day of the murder. But Frank was extremely nervous when Lee arrived (the killing of Mary Phagan had occurred between three and four hours before and her body was still in the building) and insisted that Lee leave and come back in two hours.
3. When Lee then suggested he could sleep for a couple of hours on the premises — and there was a cot in the basement near the place where Lee would ultimately find the body — Frank refused to let him. Lee could also have slept in the packing room adjacent to Leo Frank’s office. But Frank insisted that Lee had to leave and “have a good time” instead. This violated the corporate rule that once the night watchman entered the building, he could not leave until he handed over the keys to the day watchman. Newt Lee, though strongly suspected at first, was manifestly innocent and had no reason to lie, and had had good relations with Frank and no motive to hurt him.
4. When Lee returned at six, Frank was even more nervous and agitated than two hours earlier, according to Lee. He was so nervous, he could not operate the time clock properly, something he had done hundreds of times before. (Leo Frank officially started to work at the National Pencil Company on Monday morning, August 10, 1908. Twenty-two days later, on September 1, 1908, he was elevated to the position of superintendent of the company, and served in this capacity until he was arrested on Tuesday morning, April 29, 1913.)
Newt Lee
Newt Lee

5. When Leo Frank came out of the building around six, he met not only Lee but John Milton Gantt, a former employee who was a friend of Mary Phagan. Lee says that when Frank saw Gantt, he visibly “jumped back” and appeared very nervous when Gantt asked to go into the building to retrieve some shoes that he had left there. According to E.F. Holloway, J.M. Gantt had known Mary for a long time and was one of the only employees Mary Phagan spoke with at the factory. Gantt was the former paymaster of the firm. Frank had fired him three weeks earlier, allegedly because the payroll was short about $1. Was Gantt’s firing a case of the dragon getting rid of the prince to get the princess? Was Frank jealous of Gantt’s closeness with Mary Phagan? Unlike Frank, Gantt was tall with bright blue eyes and handsome features.
J.M. Gantt
J.M. Gantt

6. After Frank returned home in the evening after the murder, he called Newt Lee on the telephone and asked him if everything was “all right” at the factory, something he had never done before. A few hours later Lee would discover the mutilated body of Mary Phagan in the pencil factory basement.
7. When police finally reached Frank after the body of Mary Phagan had been found, Frank emphatically denied knowing the murdered girl by name, even though he had seen her probably hundreds of times — he had to pass by her work station, where she had worked for a year, every time he inspected the workers’ area on the second floor and every time he went to the bathroom — and he had filled out her pay slip personally on approximately 52 occasions, marking it with her initials “M. P.” Witnesses also testified that Frank had spoken to Mary Phagan on multiple occasions, even getting a little too close for comfort at times, putting his hand on her shoulder and calling her “Mary.”
8. When police accompanied Frank to the factory on the morning after the murder, Frank was so nervous and shaking so badly he could not even perform simple tasks like unlocking a door.
9. Early in the investigation, Leo Frank told police that he knew that J.M. Gantt had been “intimate” with Mary Phagan, immediately making Gantt a suspect. Gantt was arrested and interrogated. But how could Frank have known such a thing about a girl he didn’t even know by name?
10. Also early in the investigation, while both Leo Frank and Newt Lee were being held and some suspicion was still directed at Lee, a bloody shirt was “discovered” in a barrel at Lee’s home. Investigators became suspicious when it was proved that the blood marks on the shirt had been made by wiping it, unworn, in the liquid. The shirt had no trace of body odor and the blood had fully soaked even the armpit area, even though only a small quantity of blood was found at the crime scene. This was the first sign that money was being used to procure illegal acts and interfere in the case in such a way as to direct suspicion away from Leo M. Frank. This became a virtual certainty when Lee was definitely cleared.

A few members of Mary Phagan's family; originally published in the Atlanta Georgian
A few members of Mary Phagan’s family; originally published in the Atlanta Georgian
Mary Phagan and her aunt, Mattie Phagan
Mary Phagan and her aunt, Mattie Phagan

11. Leo Frank claimed that he was in his office continuously from noon to 12:35 on the day of the murder, but a witness friendly to Frank, 14-year-old Monteen Stover, said Frank’s office was totally empty from 12:05 to 12:10 while she waited for him there before giving up and leaving. This was approximately the same time as Mary Phagan’s visit to Frank’s office and the time she was murdered. On Sunday, April 27, 1913, Leo Frank told police that Mary Phagan came into his office at 12:03 PM. The next day, Frank made a deposition to the police, with his lawyers present, in which he said he was alone with Mary Phagan in his office between 12:05 and 12:10. Frank would later change his story again, stating on the stand that Mary Phagan came into his office a full five minutes later than that.
12. Leo Frank contradicted his own testimony when he finally admitted on the stand that he had possibly “unconsciously” gone to the Metal Room bathroom between 12:05 and 12:10 PM on the day of the murder.
Floor plan of the National Pencil Company - click for high resolution
Floor plan of the National Pencil Company – click for high resolution

13. The Metal Room, which Frank finally admitted at trial he might have “unconsciously” visited at the approximate time of the killing (and where no one else except Mary Phagan could be placed by investigators), was the room in which the prosecution said the murder occurred. It was also where investigators had found spots of blood, and some blondish hair twisted on a lathe handle — where there had definitely been no hair the day before. (When R.P. Barret left work on Friday evening at 6:00 PM, he had left a piece of work in his machine that he intended to finish on Monday morning at 6:30 AM. It was then he found the hair — with dried blood on it — on his lathe. How did it get there over the weekend, if the factory was closed for the holiday? Several co-workers testified the hair resembled Mary Phagan’s. Nearby, on the floor adjacent to the Metal Room’s bathroom door, was a five-inch-wide fan-shaped blood stain.)
The Metal Room, where the blood spots and hair were found; and the basement of the National Pencil Company, where Mary Phagan's strangled and dragged body was found.
The Metal Room, where the blood spots and hair were found; and the basement of the National Pencil Company, where Mary Phagan’s strangled and dragged body was found
Artist's representation of the hair found on the lathe handle
Closeup of the artist’s representation of the hair found on the lathe handle

14. In his initial statement to authorities, Leo Frank stated that after Mary Phagan picked up her pay in his office, “She went out through the outer office and I heard her talking with another girl.” This “other girl” never existed. Every person known to be in the building was extensively investigated and interviewed, and no girl spoke to Mary Phagan nor met her at that time. Monteen Stover was the only other girl there, and she saw only an empty office. Stover was friendly with Leo Frank, and in fact was a positive character witness for him. She had no reason to lie. But Leo Frank evidently did. (Atlanta Georgian, April 28, 1913)
15. In an interview shortly after the discovery of the murder, Leo Frank stated “I have been in the habit of calling up the night watchman to keep a check on him, and at 7 o’clock called Newt.” But Newt Lee, who had no motive to hurt his boss (in fact quite the opposite) firmly maintained that in his three weeks of working as the factory’s night watchman, Frank had never before made such a call. (Atlanta Georgian, April 28, 1913)
Three-dimensional diagram of the National Pencil Company headquarters in the Venable building
Three-dimensional diagram of the National Pencil Company headquarters in the Venable building
16. A few days later, Frank told the press, referring to the National Pencil Company factory where the murder took place, “I deeply regret the carelessness shown by the police department in not making a complete investigation as to finger prints and other evidence before a great throng of people were allowed to enter the place.” But it was Frank himself, as factory superintendent, who had total control over access to the factory and crime scene — who was fully aware that evidence might thereby be destroyed — and who allowed it to happen. (Atlanta Georgian, April 29, 1913)
17. Although Leo Frank made a public show of support for Newt Lee, stating Lee was not guilty of the murder, behind the scenes he was saying quite different things. In its issue of April 29, 1913, the Atlanta Georgian published an article titled “Suspicion Lifts from Frank,” in which it was stated that the police were increasingly of the opinion that Newt Lee was the murderer, and that “additional clews furnished by the head of the pencil factory [Frank] were responsible for closing the net around the negro watchman.” The discovery that the bloody shirt found at Lee’s home was planted, along with other factors such as Lee’s unshakable testimony, would soon change their views, however.
18. One of the “clews” provided by Frank was his claim that Newt Lee had not punched the company’s time clock properly, evidently missing several of his rounds and giving him time to kill Mary Phagan and return home to hide the bloody shirt. But that directly contradicted Frank’s initial statement the morning after the murder that Lee’s time slip was complete and proper in every way. Why the change? The attempt to frame Lee would eventually crumble, especially after it was discovered that Mary Phagan died shortly after noon, four hours before Newt Lee’s first arrival at the factory.
19. Almost immediately after the murder, pro-Frank partisans with the National Pencil Company hired the Pinkerton detective agency to investigate the crime. But even the Pinkertons, being paid by Frank’s supporters, eventually were forced to come to the conclusion that Frank was the guilty man. (The Pinkertons were hired by Sigmund Montag of the National Company at the behest of Leo Frank, with the understanding that they were to “ferret out the murderer, no matter who he was.” After Leo Frank was convicted, Harry Scott and the Pinkertons were stiffed out of an investigation bill totaling some $1300 for their investigative work that had indeed helped to “ferret out the murderer, no matter who he was.” The Pinkertons had to sue to win their wages and expenses in court, but were never able to fully collect. Mary Phagan’s mother also took the National Pencil Company to court for wrongful death, and the case settled out of court. She also was never able to fully collect the settlement. These are some of the unwritten injustices of the Leo Frank case, in which hard-working and incorruptible detectives were stiffed out of their money for being incorruptible, and a mother was cheated of her daughter’s life and then cheated out of her rightful settlement as well.) (Atlanta Georgian, May 26, 1913, “Pinkerton Man says Frank Is Guilty – Pencil Factory Owners Told Him Not to Shield Superintendent, Scott Declares”)
20. That is not to say that were not factions within the Pinkertons, though. One faction was not averse to planting false evidence. A Pinkerton agent named W.D. McWorth — three weeks after the entire factory had been meticulously examined by police and Pinkerton men — miraculously “discovered” a bloody club, a piece of cord like that used to strangle Mary Phagan, and an alleged piece of Mary Phagan’s pay envelope on the first floor of the factory, near where the factory’s Black sweeper, Jim Conley, had been sitting on the fatal day. This was the beginning of the attempt to place guilt for the killing on Conley, an effort which still continues 100 years later. The “discovery” was so obviously and patently false that it was greeted with disbelief by almost everyone, and McWorth was pulled off the investigation and eventually discharged by the Pinkerton agency.
W.D. McWorth
W.D. McWorth

21. It also came out that McWorth had made his “finds” while chief Pinkerton investigator Harry Scott was out of town. Most interestingly, and contrary to Scott’s direct orders, McWorth’s “discoveries” were reported immediately to Frank’s defense team, but not at all to the police. A year later, McWorth surfaced once more, now as a Burns agency operative, a firm which was by then openly working in the interests of Frank. One must ask: Who would pay for such obstruction of justice? — and why? (Frey, The Silent and the Damned, page 46; Indianapolis Star, May 28, 1914; The Frank Case, Atlanta Publishing Co., p. 65)
City Detective Black, left; and Pinkerton investigator Harry Scott, right
City Detective Black, left; and Pinkerton investigator Harry Scott, right

22. Jim Conley told police two obviously false narratives before finally breaking down and admitting that he was an accessory to Leo Frank in moving of the body of Mary Phagan and in authoring, at Frank’s direction, the “death notes” found near the body in the basement. These notes, ostensibly from Mary Phagan but written in semi-literate Southern black dialect, seemed to point to the night watchman as the killer. To a rapt audience of investigators and factory officials, Conley re-enacted his and Frank’s conversations and movements on the day of the killing. Investigators, and even some observers who were very skeptical at first, felt that Conley’s detailed narrative had the ring of truth.
23. At trial, the leading — and most expensive — criminal defense lawyers in the state of Georgia could not trip up Jim Conley or shake him from his story.
24. Conley stated that Leo Frank sometimes employed him to watch the entrance to the factory while Frank “chatted” with teenage girl employees upstairs. Conley said that Frank admitted that he had accidentally killed Mary Phagan when she resisted his advances, and sought his help in the hiding of the body and in writing the black-dialect “death notes” that attempted to throw suspicion on the night watchman. Conley said he was supposed to come back later to burn Mary Phagan’s body in return for $200, but fell asleep and did not return.
25. Blood spots were found exactly where Conley said that Mary Phagan’s lifeless body was found by him in the second floor metal room.
26. Hair that looked like Mary Phagan’s was found on a Metal Room lathe immediately next to where Conley said he found her body, where she had apparently fallen after her altercation with Leo Frank.

Rare diagram/photograph showing rear of the National Pencil Company building and insets detailing where blood, hair, and body of Mary Phagan were found (click for a large, high-resolution version)

27. Blood spots were found exactly where Conley says he dropped Mary Phagan’s body while trying to move it. Conley could not have known this. If he was making up his story, this is a coincidence too fantastic to be accepted.
28. A piece of Mary Phagan’s lacy underwear was looped around her neck, apparently in a clumsy attempt to hide the deeply indented marks of the rope which was used to strangle her. No murderer could possibly believe that detectives would be fooled for an instant by such a deception. But a murderer who needed another man’s help for a few minutes in disposing of a body might indeed believe it would serve to briefly conceal the real nature of the crime from his assistant, perhaps being mistaken for a lace collar.
Mary Phagan autopsy photograph
Mary Phagan autopsy photograph

29. If Conley was the killer — and it had to be Conley or Frank — he moved the body of Mary Phagan by himself. The lacy loop around Mary Phagan’s neck would serve absolutely no purpose in such a scenario.
30. The dragging marks on the basement floor, leading to where Mary Phagan’s body was dumped near the furnace, began at the elevator — exactly matching Jim Conley’s version of events.
31. Much has been made of Conley’s admission that he defecated in the elevator shaft on Saturday morning, and the idea that, because the detectives crushed the feces for the first time when they rode down in the elevator the next day, Conley’s story that he and Frank used the elevator to bring Mary Phagan’s body to the basement on Saturday afternoon could not be true — thus bringing Conley’s entire story into question. But how could anyone determine with certainty that the “crushing” was the “first crushing”? And nowhere in the voluminous records of the case — including Governor Slaton’s commutation order in which he details his supposed tests of the elevator — can we find evidence that anyone made even the most elementary inquiry into whether or not the bottom surface of the elevator car was uniformly flat.
32. Furthermore, the so-called “shit in the shaft” theory of Frank’s innocence also breaks down when we consider the fact that detectives inspected the floor of the elevator shaft before riding down in the elevator, and found in it Mary Phagan’s parasol and a large quantity of trash and debris. Detective R.M. Lassiter stated at the inquest into Mary Phagan’s death, in answer to the question “Is the bottom of the elevator shaft of concrete or wood, or what?” that “I don’t know. It was full of trash and I couldn’t see.” There was so much trash there, the investigator couldn’t even tell what the floor of the shaft was made of! There may well have been enough trash, and arranged in such a way, to have prevented the crushing of the waste material when Frank and Conley used the elevator to transport Mary Phagan’s body to the basement. In digging through this trash, detectives could easily have moved it enough to permit the crushing of the feces the next time the elevator was run down.
33. The defense’s theory of Conley’s guilt involves Conley alone bringing Mary Phagan’s body to the basement down the scuttle hole ladder, not the elevator. But Lassiter was insistent that the dragging marks did not begin at the ladder, stating at the inquest: “No, sir; the dragging signs went past the foot of the ladder. I saw them between the elevator and the ladder.” Why would Conley pointlessly drag the body backwards toward the elevator, when his goal was the furnace? Why were there no signs of his turning around if he had done so? If Mary Phagan’s body could leave dragging marks on the irregular and dirty surface of the basement, why were there no marks of a heavy body being dumped down the scuttle hole as the defense alleged Conley to have done? Why did Mary Phagan’s body not have the multiple bruises it would have to have incurred from being hurled 14 feet down the scuttle hole to the basement floor below?
34. Leo Frank changed the time at which he said Mary Phagan came to collect her pay. He initially said that it was 12:03, then said that it might have been “12:05 to 12:10, maybe 12:07.” But at the inquest he moved his estimates a full five minutes later: “Q: What time did she come in? A: I don’t know exactly; it was 12:10 or 12:15. Q: How do you fix the time that she came in as 12:10 or 12:15? A: Because the other people left at 12 and I judged it to be ten or fifteen minutes later when she came in.” He seems to have no solid basis for his new estimate, so why change it by five minutes, or at all?
35. Pinkerton detective Harry Scott, who was employed by Leo Frank to investigate the murder, testified that he was asked by Frank’s defense team to withhold from the police any evidence his agency might find until after giving it to Frank’s lawyers. Scott refused.
36. Newt Lee, who was proved absolutely innocent, and who never tried to implicate anyone including Leo Frank, says Frank reacted with horror when Lee suggested that Mary Phagan might have been killed during the day, and not at night as was commonly believed early in the investigation. The daytime was exactly when Frank was at the factory, and Lee wasn’t. Here Detective Harry Scott testifies as to part of the conversation that ensued when Leo Frank and Newt Lee were purposely brought together: “Q: What did Lee say? A: Lee says that Frank didn’t want to talk about the murder. Lee says he told Frank he knew the murder was committed in daytime, and Frank hung his head and said ‘Let’s don’t talk about that!'” (Atlanta Georgian, May 8, 1913, “Lee Repeats His Private Conversation With Frank”)
37. When Newt Lee was questioned at the inquest about this arranged conversation, he confirms that Frank didn’t want to continue the conversation when Lee stated that the killing couldn’t possibly have happened during his evening and nighttime watch: “Q: Tell the jury of your conversation with Frank in private. A: I was in the room and he came in. I said, Mr. Frank, it is mighty hard to be sitting here handcuffed. He said he thought I was innocent, and I said I didn’t know anything except finding the body. ‘Yes,’ Mr. Frank said, ‘and you keep that up we will both go to hell!’ I told him that if she had been killed in the basement I would have known it, and he said, ‘Don’t let’s talk about that — let that go!'” (Atlanta Georgian, May 8, 1913, “Lee Repeats His Private Conversation With Frank”)
38. Former County Policeman Boots Rogers, who drove the officers to Frank’s home and then took them all, including Frank, back to the factory on the morning of April 27, said Frank was so nervous that he was hoarse — even before being told of the murder. (Atlanta Georgian, May 8, 1913, “Rogers Tells What Police Found at the Factory”)
Boots Rogers
Boots Rogers

39. Rogers also states that he personally inspected Newt Lee’s time slip — the one that Leo Frank at first said had no misses, but later claimed the reverse. The Atlanta Georgian on May 8 reported what Rogers saw: “Rogers said he looked at the slip and the first punch was at 6:30 and last at 2:30. There were no misses, he said.” Frank, unfortunately, was allowed to take the slip and put it in his desk. Later a slip with several punches missing would turn up. How can this be reconciled with the behavior of an innocent man?
40. The curious series of events surrounding Lee’s time slip is totally inconsistent with theory of a police “frame-up” of Leo Frank. At the time these events occurred, suspicion was strongly directed at Lee, and not at Frank.
41. When Leo Frank accompanied the officers to the police station later on during the day after the murder, Rogers stated that Leo Frank was literally so nervous that his hands were visibly shaking.
42. Factory Foreman Lemmie Quinn would eventually testify for the defense that Leo Frank was calmly sitting in his office at 12:20, a few minutes after the murder probably occurred. As to whether this visit really happened, there is some question. Quinn says he came to visit Schiff, Frank’s personal assistant, who wasn’t there — was he even expected to be there on a Saturday and holiday? — and stayed only two minutes or so talking to Frank in the office. Frank at first said there was no such visit, and only remembered it days later when Quinn “refreshed his memory.”
43. As reported by the Atlanta Georgian, City detective John Black said even Quinn initially denied that there was such a visit! “Q: What did Mr. Quinn say to you about his trip to the factory Saturday? A: Mr. Quinn said he was not at the factory on the day of the murder. Q: How many times did he say it? A: Two or three times. I heard him tell Detective Starnes that he had not been there.” (Atlanta Georgian, May 8, 1913, “Black Testifies Quinn Denied Visiting Factory”)
44. Several young women and girls testified at the inquest that Frank had made improper advances toward them, in one instance touching a girl’s breast and in another appearing to offer money for compliance with his desires. The Atlanta Georgian reported: “Girls and women were called to the stand to testify that they had been employed at the factory or had had occasion to go there, and that Frank had attempted familiarities with them. Nellie Pettis, of 9 Oliver Street, declared that Frank had made improper advances to her. She was asked if she had ever been employed at the pencil factory. No, she answered. Q: Do you know Leo Frank? A: I have seen him once or twice. Q: When and where did you see him? A: In his office at the factory whenever I went to draw my sister-in-law’s pay. Q: What did he say to you that might have been improper on any of these visits? A: He didn’t exactly say — he made gestures. I went to get sister’s pay about four weeks ago and when I went into the office of Mr. Frank I asked for her. He told me I couldn’t see her unless ‘I saw him first.’ I told him I didn’t want to ‘see him.’ He pulled a box from his desk. It had a lot of money in it. He looked at it significantly and then looked at me. When he looked at me, he winked. As he winked he said: ‘How about it?’ I instantly told him I was a nice girl. Here the witness stopped her statement. Coroner Donehoo asked her sharply: ‘Didn’t you say anything else?’ ‘Yes, I did! I told him to go to h–l! and walked out of his office.'” (Atlanta Georgian, May 9, 1913, “Phagan Case to be Rushed to Grand Jury by Dorsey”)
45. In the same article, another young girl testified to Frank’s pattern of improper familiarities: “Nellie Wood, a young girl, testified as follows: Q: Do you know Leo Frank? A: I worked for him two days. Q: Did you observe any misconduct on his part? A: Well, his actions didn’t suit me. He’d come around and put his hands on me when such conduct was entirely uncalled for. Q: Is that all he did? A: No. He asked me one day to come into his office, saying that he wanted to talk to me. He tried to close the door but I wouldn’t let him. He got too familiar by getting so close to me. He also put his hands on me. Q: Where did he put his hands? He barely touched my breast. He was subtle in his approaches, and tried to pretend that he was joking. But I was too wary for such as that. Q: Did he try further familiarities? A: Yes.”
46. In May, around the time of disgraced Pinkerton detective McWorth’s attempt to plant fake evidence — which caused McWorth’s dismissal from the Pinkerton agency — attorney Thomas Felder made his loud but mysterious appearance. “Colonel” Felder, as he was known, was soliciting donations to bring yet another private detective agency into the case — Pinkerton’s great rival, the William Burns agency. Felder claimed to be representing neighbors, friends, and family members of Mary Phagan. But Mary Phagan’s stepfather, J.W. Coleman, was so angered by this misrepresentation that he made an affidavit denying there was any connection between him and Felder. It was widely believed that Felder and Burns were secretly retained by Frank supporters. The most logical interpretation of these events is that, having largely failed in getting the Pinkerton agency to perform corrupt acts on behalf of Frank, Frank’s supporters decided to covertly bring another, and hopefully more “cooperative,” agency into the case. Felder and his “unselfish” efforts were their cover. Felder’s representations were seen as deception by many, which led more and more people to question Frank’s innocence. (Atlanta Georgian, May 15, 1913, “Burns Investigator Will Probe Slaying”)
Colonel Thomas Felder
“Colonel” Thomas Felder

47. Felder’s efforts collapsed when A.S. Colyar, a secret agent of the police, used a dictograph to secretly record Felder offering to pay $1,000 for the original Coleman affidavit and for copies of the confidential police files on the Mary Phagan case. C.W. Tobie, the Burns detective brought into the case by Felder, was reportedly present. Colyar stated that after this meeting “I left the Piedmont Hotel at 10:55 a.m. and Tobie went from thence to Felder’s office, as he informed me, to meet a committee of citizens, among whom were Mr. Hirsch, Mr. Myers, Mr. Greenstein and several other prominent Jews in this city.” (Atlanta Georgian, May 21, 1913, “T.B. Felder Repudiates Report of Activity for Frank”)
48. Felder then lashed out wildly, vehemently denied working for Frank’s friends, and declared that he thought Frank guilty. He even made the bizarre claim, impossible for anyone to believe, that the police were shielding Frank. It was observed of Felder that “when one’s reputation is near zero, one might want to attach oneself to the side one wants to harm in an effort to drag them down as you fall.” (Atlanta Georgian, May 21, 1913, “T.B. Felder Repudiates Report of Activity for Frank”)
49. Interestingly, C.W. Tobie, the Burns man, also made a statement shortly afterward — when his firm initially withdrew from the case — that he had come to believe in Frank’s guilt also: “It is being insinuated by certain forces that we are striving to shield Frank. That is absurd. From what I developed in my investigation I am convinced that Frank is the guilty man.” (Atlanta Constitution, May 27, 1913, “Burns Agency Quits the Phagan case”)
50. As his efforts crashed to Earth, Felder made this statement to an Atlanta Constitution reporter: “Is it not passing strange that the city detective department, whose wages are paid by the taxpayers of this city, should ‘hob-nob’ daily with the Pinkerton Detective Agency, an agency confessedly employed in this investigation to work in behalf of Leo Frank; that they would take this agency into their daily and hourly conference and repose in it their confidence, and co-operate with it in every way possible, and withhold their co-operation from W.J. Burns and his able assistants, who are engaged by the public and for the public in ferreting out this crime.” But what Felder failed to mention was that the Pinkertons’ main agent in Atlanta, Harry Scott, had proved that he could not be corrupted by the National Pencil Company’s money, so it is reasonable to conclude that the well-heeled pro-Frank forces would search elsewhere for help. The famous William Burns agency was really the only logical choice. To think that Felder and “Mary Phagan’s neighbors” were selflessly employing Burns is naive in the extreme: It means that Frank’s wealthy friends would just sit on their money and stick with the not at all helpful Pinkertons, who had just fired the only agent who tried to “help” Frank. (Atlanta Constitution, May 25, 1913, “Thomas Felder Brands the Charges of Bribery Diabolical Conspiracy”)
51. Colyar, the man who exposed Felder, also stated that Frank’s friends were spreading money around to get witnesses to leave town or make false affidavits. The Atlanta Georgian commented on Felder’s antics as he exited the stage: “It is regarded as certain that Felder is eliminated entirely from the Phagan case. It had been believed that he really was in the employ of the Frank defense up to the time that he began to bombard the public with statements against Frank and went on record in saying he believed in the guilt of Frank.” (Atlanta Georgian, May 26, 1913, “Lay Bribery Effort to Frank’s Friends”)
52. When Jim Conley finally admitted he wrote the death notes found near Mary Phagan’s body, Leo Frank’s reaction was powerful: “Leo M. Frank was confronted in his cell by the startling confession of the negro sweeper, James Connally [sic]. ‘What have you to say to this?’ demanded a Georgian reporter. Frank, as soon as he had gained the import of what the negro had told, jumped back in his cell and refused to say a word. His hands moved nervously and his face twitched as though he were on the verge of a breakdown, but he absolutely declined to deny the truth of the negro’s statement or make any sort of comment upon it. His only answer to the repeated questions that were shot at him was a negative shaking of the head, or the simple, ‘I have nothing to say.'” (Atlanta Georgian, May 26, 1913, “Negro Sweeper Says He Wrote Phagan Notes”)
The mysterious death notes - click for high resolution
The mysterious death notes – click for high resolution

-----------------------------------------------[END OF PART ONE; SEE BELOW FOR PART 2]-------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------[HERE'S PART 2 TO ABOVE]----------------------------------------------------------------

53. When Jim Conley re-enacted, step by step, the sequence of events as he experienced them on the day of the murder, including the exact positions in which the body was found and detailing his assisting Leo Frank in moving Mary Phagan’s body and writing the death notes, Harry Scott of the Pinkerton Detective Agency stated: “‘There is not a doubt but that the negro is telling the truth and it would be foolish to doubt it. The negro couldn’t go through the actions like he did unless he had done this just like he said,’ said Harry Scott. ‘We believe that we have at last gotten to the bottom of the Phagan mystery.’ (Atlanta Georgian, May 29, 1913 Extra, “Conley Re-enacts in Plant Part He Says He Took in Slaying”)
The last section of Jim Conley's startling affidavit
The last section of Jim Conley’s startling affidavit
Conley's story diagrammed in the Atlanta Georgian - click for high resolution
Conley’s story diagrammed in the Atlanta Georgian – click for high resolution

54. In early June, Felder’s name popped up in the press again. This time he was claiming that his nemesis A.S. Colyar had in his possession an affidavit from Jim Conley confessing to the murder of Mary Phagan, and that Colyar was withholding it from the police. The police immediately “sweated” Conley to see if there was any truth in this, but Conley vigorously denied the entire story, and stated that he had never even met Colyar. Chief of Police Lanford said this confirmed his belief that Felder had been secretly working for Frank all along: “‘I attribute this report to Colonel Felder’s work,’ said the chief. ‘It merely shows again that Felder is in league with the defense of Frank; that the attorney is trying to muddy the waters of this investigation to shield Frank and throw the blame on another. This first became noticeable when Felder endeavored to secure the release of Conley. His ulterior motive, I am sure, was the protection of Frank. He had been informed that the negro had this damaging evidence against Frank, and Felder did all in his power to secure the negro’s release. He declared that it was a shame that the police should hold Conley, an innocent negro. He protested strenuously against it. Yet not one time did Felder attempt to secure the release of Newt Lee or Gordon Bailey on the same grounds, even though both of these negroes had been held longer than Conley. This to me is significant of Felder’s ulterior motive in getting Conley away from the police.'” Are such underhanded shenanigans on the part of Frank’s team the actions of a truly innocent man? (Atlanta Georgian, June 6, 1913, “Conley, Grilled by Police Again, Denies Confessing Killing”)
55. Much is made by Frank partisans of Georgia Governor Slaton’s 1915 decision to commute Frank’s sentence from death by hanging to life imprisonment. But when Slaton issued his commutation order, he specifically stated that he was sustaining Frank’s conviction and the guilty verdict of the judge and jury: “In my judgement, by granting a commutation in this case, I am sustaining the jury, the judge, and the appellate tribunals, and at the same time am discharging that duty which is placed on me by the Constitution of the State.” He also added, of Jim Conley’s testimony that Frank had admitted to killing Mary Phagan and enlisted Conley’s help in moving the body: “It is hard to conceive that any man’s power of fabrication of minute details could reach that which Conley showed, unless it be the truth.”
56. On May 8, 1913. the Coroner’s Inquest jury, a panel of six sworn men, voted with the Coroner seven to zero to bind Leo Frank over to the grand jury on the charge of murder after hearing the testimony of 160 witnesses.
57. On May 24, 1913, after hearing evidence from prosecutor Hugh Dorsey and his witnesses, the grand jury charged Leo M. Frank with the murder of Mary Phagan. Four Jews were on the grand jury of 21 persons. Although only twelve votes were needed, the vote was unanimous against Frank. An historian specializing in the history of anti-Semitism, Albert Lindemann, denies that prejudice against Jews was a factor and states that the jurors “were persuaded by the concrete evidence that Dorsey presented.” And this indictment was handed down even without hearing any of Jim Conley’s testimony, which had not yet come out. (Lindemann, The Jew Accused: Three Anti-Semitic Affairs, Cambridge, 1993, p. 251)
58. On August 25, 1913, after more than 29 days of the longest and most costly trial in Southern history up to that time, and after two of South’s most talented and expensive attorneys and a veritable army of detectives and agents in their employ gave their all in defense of Leo M. Frank, and after four hours of jury deliberation, Frank was unanimously convicted of the murder of Mary Phagan by a vote of twelve to zero.
The jurors in the Leo Frank case
The jurors in the Leo Frank case
Luther Rosser and Reuben Arnold headed Frank's defense team,
Luther Rosser and Reuben Arnold headed Frank’s defense team.

59. The trial judge, Leonard Strickland Roan, had the power to set aside the guilty verdict of Leo Frank if he believed that the defendant had not received a fair trial. He did not do so, effectively making the vote 13 to zero.
60. Judge Roan also had the power to sentence Frank to the lesser sentence of life imprisonment, even though the jury had not recommended mercy. On August 26, 1913, Judge Roan affirmed the verdict of guilt, and sentenced Leo Frank to death by hanging.
Judge Leonard Strickland Roan
Judge Leonard Strickland Roan

61. On October 31, 1913, the court rejected a request for a new trial by the Leo Frank defense team, and re-sentenced Frank to die. The sentence handed down by Judge Benjamin H Hill was set to be carried out on Frank’s 30th birthday, April 17, 1914.
62. Supported by a huge fundraising campaign launched by the American Jewish community, and supported by a public relations campaign carried out by innumerable newspapers and publishing companies nationwide, Leo Frank continued to mount a prodigious defense even after his conviction, employing some of the most prominent lawyers in the United States. From August 27, 1913, to April 22, 1915 they filed a long series of appeals to every possible level of the United States court system, beginning with an application to the Georgia Superior Court. That court rejected Frank’s appeal as groundless.
63. The next appeal by Frank’s “dream team” of world-renowned attorneys was to the Georgia Supreme Court. It was rejected.
64. A second appeal was then made by Frank’s lawyers to the Georgia Supreme Court, which was also rejected as groundless.
65. The next appeal by Frank’s phalanx of attorneys was to the United States Federal District Court, which also found Frank’s arguments unpersuasive and turned down the appeal, affirming that the guilty verdict of the jury should stand.
66. Next, the Frank legal team appealed to the highest court in the land, the United States Supreme Court, which rejected Frank’s arguments and turned down his appeal.
67. Finally, Frank’s army of counselors made a second appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court — which was also rejected, allowing Leo Frank’s original guilty verdict and sentence of death for the murder by strangulation of Mary Phagan to stand. Every single level of the United States legal system — after carefully and meticulously reviewing the trial testimony and evidence — voted in majority decisions to reject all of Leo Frank’s appeals, and to preserve the unanimous verdict of guilt given to Frank by Judge Leonard Strickland Roan and by the twelve-man jury at his trial, and to affirm the fairness of the legal process which began with Frank’s binding over and indictment by the seven-man coroner’s jury and 21-man grand jury.
68. It is preposterous to claim that these men, and all these institutions, North and South — the coroner’s jury, the grand jury, the trial jury, and the judges of the trial court, the Georgia Superior Court, the Georgia Supreme Court, the U.S. Federal District Court, and the United States Supreme Court — were motivated by anti-Semitism in reaching their conclusions.
69. Even in deciding to commute Frank’s sentence to life imprisonment, Governor John Slaton explicitly affirmed Frank’s guilty verdict. He explained that only the jury was the proper judge of the meaning of the evidence and the veracity of the witnesses placed before it. He said in the commutation order itself: “Many newspapers and non-residents have declared that Frank was convicted without any evidence to sustain the verdict. In large measure, those giving expression to this utterance have not read the evidence and are not acquainted with the facts. The same may be said regarding many of those who are demanding his execution. In my judgement, no one has a right to an opinion who is not acquainted with the evidence in the case, and it must be conceded that those who saw the witnesses and beheld their demeanor upon the stand are in the best position as a general rule to reach the truth.”
70. In May of 1915, the Georgia State Prison Board voted two to one against a clemency petition — which, even if successful, would not have changed the guilty verdict of Leo M. Frank.
71. In 1982 Alonzo Mann, who in 1913 at 13 years old had been the office boy for the National Pencil Company, made a sensation in the press by denying the sworn testimony he had made at the Leo Frank trial, and stating his belief that Jim Conley was the real killer of Mary Phagan. In 1913, Mann had testified that he left the office on the day of the murder at 11:30 AM. In 1982, he changed the time and told a quite different story, as follows:
Mann said that he left the factory at noon, half an hour later than in his testimony. It was Confederate Memorial Day and a parade and other festivities were scheduled. Mann was to meet his mother, he says, but could not find her and “returned to work” shortly after noon. When he entered the building, he says, he saw Jim Conley carrying the limp body of a girl on the first floor: “He wheeled on me and in a voice that was low but threatening he said ‘If you ever mention this I’ll kill you.'”
Mann claims he then left the building and ran home, telling his mother what he’d seen. Mann says that his parents advised him to keep silent to avoid publicity. And he did keep silent for many, many years. (Jim Conley is reported to have died in 1957 — another report says 1962 — and presumably his death threat did not survive his demise.)
There are several problems with Mann’s story. First, if true, it proves only that at some point Conley was carrying Phagan’s body by himself, without Frank’s help. Conley already admits this — though he says that he found the body too heavy for himself alone while still on the second floor, and that the elevator brought them directly to the basement. So Mann’s story really doesn’t address anything except two minor details of Conley’s testimony, neither of which are determinative of guilt. (Mann was poor, suffering with a heart condition, and facing considerable medical expenses when he “went public” with his claims.)
72. Why would a 13-year-old Alonzo Mann “return to work” on a holiday if he didn’t have to? And why “return to work” if he apparently wasn’t even scheduled to do so? Were office boys permitted to make their own hours in 1913? When other workers — such as Mary Phagan, for example — hadn’t sufficient supplies in their department, they were immediately laid off until the supplies came in. Surely such economy would dictate that office boys would only come in when authorized and asked to do so.
Alonzo Mann in 1913
Alonzo Mann in 1913

73. If Alonzo Mann had such a definite appointment to meet his mother in town — so definite as to cause him to return to work after just a few minutes when he failed to immediately find her — why, then, was she waiting at home just a few minutes after that?
74. Why would white parents, like Alonzo Mann’s, in the racially conscious and segregated Atlanta, Georgia of 1913, tell their white son not to tell the police about a guilty black murderer, when the result of not telling the police would ultimately result in an innocent, clean cut, white man, Leo Frank — the man who gave their son a highly prized job — going to gallows as an innocent man?
75. And why would Alonzo Mann’s parents then allow their 13-year-old son to report to work at the huge and cavernous National Pencil Company factory on Monday morning, April 28, 1913 — two days after he was threatened with death by a murderer carrying a dead or dying white girl on his shoulder — knowing that the murderer would still be there, and knowing that there were many dark and secluded places in said factory where their son might come to harm? Jim Conley reported back to work that Monday, as did Alonzo Mann and the approximately 170 other employees, who were naturally expected to be back at work after the holiday weekend. Jim Conley was not arrested until the first day of May.
76. If Alonzo Mann really walked in on Jim Conley carrying Mary Phagan’s body a few minutes after noon, and then turned around and left the building, why didn’t he see Monteen Stover?
77. If Jim Conley really attacked Mary Phagan at the foot of the stairs as Alonzo Mann suggests, why didn’t Leo Frank hear her scream or any sounds of a struggle? He was only 40 feet away.
78. Several witnesses — for both the prosecution and the defense — testified that they saw Jim Conley sitting, doing nothing, in the dark recesses of the lobby of the National Pencil Company on the morning of the murder. Does this fit the contention of the prosecution that Frank requested Conley’s presence on that day, as he had on others, so Conley could be a lookout while Frank was “chatting” with a teenage girl? Or does it make more sense to believe that Conley really believed he could get away with loafing on company property without permission all morning? Did black janitors in 1913 also have the right to make their own working hours, even on a holiday when there would have been little call for their services — and then, after showing up for “work,” not work at all?
79. Does it really make sense that the somewhat literate and fairly intelligent Jim Conley, a black man in the extremely race-conscious and white-dominated Atlanta of 1913, where lynch law often reigned supreme, actually thought he could get away with attacking and killing a white girl just a few feet away from the unlocked front door of the factory where he worked, in the highest-traffic area of the building? And does it make sense that he would do so for $1.20 — Mary Phagan’s entire pay — as the defense alleged? If Conley was plotting to rob someone, does it make sense that he would choose such a place to do so — or choose from a pool of potential victims considerably poorer than he was?
80. The fatal Saturday was a holiday. Jim Conley had been paid his $6.05 salary the evening before. By his standards, he had plenty of money — and it would have been very hard to drink it down very much on Friday, at a nickel a pint in those days. Conley was a man who liked his beer and billiards, and the town was wide open for that kind of fun all day. Why was he there at the factory, then? He certainly wouldn’t have wanted to be there, doing apparently nothing for hours on end. He also ran the risk of being disciplined if he was loafing there without permission. He was manifestly not sweeping, his ostensible job, on that day — he was just sitting, watching. The only reasonable explanation is that his boss, Leo Frank, had asked him to be there for that very purpose.
81. The relationship of Leo Frank and the National Pencil Company to Jim Conley was a strange one. Why was Jim Conley’s sweeper’s salary much higher — $6.05 versus $4.05 — than the average of the white employees, many of whom were skilled machine operators? Could it be that Conley served a very important but secret purpose for Leo Frank, exactly as the prosecution alleged? Could he have had knowledge that could potentially hurt Leo Frank, justifying Frank granting him special privileges?
82. According to a female National Pencil Company employee, Jim Conley was once caught “sprinkling” (urinating) on the pencils, surely a very serious offense. But Conley was never fired. (Trial Testimony of Herbert George Schiff, Brief of Evidence, Leo Frank Trial, August, 1913) Again, could it be that James Conley served a very important but secret purpose for Leo Frank, and could he have possessed knowledge that could damage Frank?
83. According to fellow employee Gordon Bailey (Leo Frank trial, Brief of Evidence, August, 1913) Jim Conley was not always required to punch the time clock. Why would the “Negro sweeper,” as they called him, surely the lowest-ranking employee in the pencil factory hierarchy, be given such an unprecedented privilege by Leo M. Frank? Why was Jim Conley the only person out of the 170 factory employees who didn’t have to punch the time clock — unless Jim Conley was more than meets the eye?
84. In 1983, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (ADL), along with other Jewish groups, spearheaded a campaign to get the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles to issue a posthumous pardon to Leo Frank, basing their case largely on the 1982 statement of Alonzo Mann. The Board found that Mann’s statement added no new evidence to the case. They also noted that Governor Slaton in his 1915 commutation decision had already considered that the elevator may not have been used to move Mary Phagan’s body, but nevertheless he upheld Frank’s conviction. The ADL’s petition was denied and Leo Frank’s guilty verdict was affirmed.
85. The ADL and other Jewish groups filed again in 1986 for Leo Frank to be pardoned by the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles. This time the Jewish groups claimed that, because the state of Georgia had failed to prevent the lynching of Leo Frank after his sentence was commuted by Governor Slaton, Leo Frank’s rights had been violated and he should be pardoned on that basis alone. A great deal of pressure was applied to the Board via sensational stories, editorials, and even fictionalized accounts in the media. With this far more limited claim — that Frank was not protected from lynching as he ought to have been — the Board was compelled to agree. But the Board would not and did not exonerate Leo Frank of his guilt for the strangulation death of Mary Anne Phagan on April 26, 1913. His conviction for her murder still stands.
86. Lucille Selig Frank, Leo Frank’s wife, is known as a fiercely loyal spouse who passionately defended her husband against charges both criminal and moral, and stood by his side during his trial and appeals. There are some indications, however, that she may have early on during the Mary Phagan case believed that her husband had not been entirely faithful and had in fact killed Mary Phagan, probably believing it to be accidental. Long after her husband’s death, she may have returned to those views.
Mrs. Leo Frank in 1913
Mrs. Leo Frank in 1913: Is it conceivable that her 29-year-old husband, surrounded every working day by over 150 young women and teenage girls over which he had absolute authority, was unfaithful?

State’s Exhibit J at Leo Frank’s trial consisted of an affidavit by Minola McKnight, the Frank’s black cook. Mrs. McKnight first came to the attention of the authorities when her husband told police that his wife had heard some startling revelations while working at the Frank residence the evening of the murder — namely, that Leo Frank had drunkenly and remorsefully admitted to his wife that he and a girl “had been caught” at the factory, that he “didn’t know why he would murder” her, and that he asked his wife Lucille to get him a pistol so he could kill himself.
These are Minola McKnight’s own words from the affidavit: “Sunday, Miss Lucille said to Mrs. Selig that Mr. Frank didn’t rest so good Saturday night; she said he was drunk and wouldn’t let her sleep with him… Miss Lucille 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 he told his wife to get his pistol and let him kill himself… When I left home to go to the solicitor general’s office, they told me to mind how I talked. They pay me $3.50 a week, but last week they paid me $4.00, and one week she paid me $6.50. Up to the time of the murder I was getting $3.50 a week and the week right after the murder I don’t remember how much she paid me, and the next week they paid me $3.50, and the next week they paid me $6.50, and the next week they paid me $4.00 and the next week they paid me $4.00. One week, I don’t remember which one, Mrs. Selig gave me $5, but it wasn’t for my work, and they didn’t tell me what it was for, she just said, ‘Here is $5, Minola.’ I understood that it was a tip for me to keep quiet. They would tell me to mind how I talked and Miss Lucille gave me a hat.”
(Leo Frank admitted that he bought a box of chocolates for his wife on the way home on the evening of the day of the murder.) Minola McKnight would tell a different story after she was back in the Frank household, however. She then repudiated her affidavit and said police had coerced it from her. But neither she nor anyone else has given a credible motive for Minola’s husband to have lied.
After Leo Frank’s arrest, Lucille did not visit her husband for some thirteen days, after which she began her loyal and indomitable defense of him. What made her wait? Leo Frank’s explanation was that Lucille had to be “physically restrained” because she wanted so badly to be locked up with him in jail. Judge for yourself the credibility of this explanation against that offered in State’s Exhibit J.
Lucille Frank died in 1957, and in her will she specifically directed that she be cremated and thus not buried next to, or with, her first and only husband, Leo Frank — even though a plot had already been provided for her next to him.
87. Leonard Dinnerstein is an author who has made almost his entire career writing about anti-Semitism, with a special concentration on proving that Leo Frank was a victim of anti-Semitism. His book, The Leo Frank Case, is promoted as a canonical work — and is one of the main sources for the claims that 2) anti-Semitism was pervasive in 1913 Georgia and 2) that anti-Semitism was the major factor in the prosecution and conviction of Frank.
Both of these claims are hoaxes, as shown by Elliot Dashfield writing in The American Mercury: “Dinnerstein makes his now-famous claim that mobs of anti-Semitic Southerners, outside the courtroom where Frank was on trial, were shouting into the open windows ‘Crack the Jew’s neck!’ and ‘Lynch him!’ and that members of the crowd were making open death threats against the jury, saying that the jurors would be lynched if they didn’t vote to hang ‘the damn sheeny.’
“But not one of the three major Atlanta newspapers, who had teams of journalists documenting feint-by-feint all the events in the courtroom, large and small, and who also had teams of reporters with the crowds outside, ever reported these alleged vociferous death threats. And certainly such a newsworthy event could not be ignored by highly competitive newsmen eager to sell papers and advance their careers. Do you actually believe that the reporters who gave us such meticulously detailed accounts of this Trial of the Century, even writing about the seating arrangements in the courtroom, the songs sung outside the building by folk singers, and the changeover of court stenographers in relays, would leave out all mention or notice of a murderous mob making death threats to the jury?
“During the two years of Leo Frank’s appeals, none of these alleged anti-Semitic death threats were ever reported by Frank’s own defense team. There is not a word of them in the 3,000 pages of official Leo Frank trial and appeal records — and all this despite the fact that Reuben Arnold [Frank’s attorney] made the claim during his closing arguments that Leo Frank was tried only because he was a Jew… Yet, thanks to Leonard Dinnerstein, this fictional episode has entered the consciousness of Americans of all stations as ‘history’ — as one of the pivotal facts of the Frank case.”
88. In his book attempting to exonerate Frank, Leonard Dinnerstein knowingly repeats the preposterous 1964 hoax perpetrated by “hack writer and self-promoter Pierre van Paassen” (Dashfield, The American Mercury, October 2012):
“Van Paassen claimed that there were in existence in 1922 X-ray photographs at the Fulton County Courthouse, taken in 1913, of Leo Frank’s teeth, and also X-ray photographs of bite marks on Mary Phagan’s neck and shoulder — and that anti-Semites had suppressed this evidence. Van Paassen further alleged — and Dinnerstein repeated — that the dimensions of Frank’s teeth did not match the ‘bite marks,’ thereby exonerating Frank… Since Dinnerstein is such a lofty academic scholar and professor, perhaps he simply forgot to ask a current freshman in medical school if it was even possible to X-ray bite marks on skin in 1913 — or necessary in 2012, for that matter — because it’s not. In 1913, X-ray technology was in its infancy and never used in any criminal case until many years after Leo Frank was hanged.” Furthermore, there is no hint anywhere in the massive official records of the Leo Frank trial and appeals of any “bite marks.” If Leo Frank is manifestly and truly innocent, why do his supporters have to engage in such outrages against truth?
89. Far from being a region rife with hatred for Jews, the South in general and Atlanta in particular were regarded by Jews as a haven and as a place nearly free from the anti-Semitism they suffered in other parts of the nation and the world. Even today, and even after Jewish-gentile relations there were strained by the Frank case and by Jewish support for the civil rights revolution, the Christians who form most of the population of the South are stoutly pro-Jewish. The South is the center of Christian Zionism and American support for the Jewish state of Israel.
90. Harry Golden wrote in the American Jewish Committee’s magazine Commentary that early “Bonds for Israel” salesmen would purposely seek out Southern Christians, since they were almost all passionately pro-Jewish and pro-Israel. When Southerners were asked about their reasons for supporting Zionism, Golden said that a typical Southerner’s response was “It’s in the book!” – meaning, of course, the Bible. This attitude had deep roots and certainly did not materialize in 1948.
91. The writer Scott Aaron gives insight into Southern attitudes toward Jews when he says: “In the race-conscious South of 1913, Jews were considered white. In fact, in the newspapers of Atlanta before, during, and after the trial of Leo Frank for the murder of Mary Phagan, Frank was referred to as a ‘white man’ on innumerable occasions by reporters, witnesses, African-Americans, fellow Jews, pro-Frank partisans, and anti-Frank polemicists. Jews, furthermore, were not known for violent acts or crimes, nor feared as violators of white women. If anything, they were seen as an unusually industrious, intelligent, and law-abiding segment of society, even if they were a bit peculiar in their religious views.
“Marriage between Jews and Christians might have raised a few eyebrows in both communities — just as did intermarriage between members of widely different Christian denominations — but it was far from unknown, and such couples were not ostracized. In fact, Leo Frank’s own brother-in-law, Mr. Ursenbach, with whom he canceled an appointment to see a baseball game on the day Mary Phagan was killed, was a Christian.
“If there was prejudice against Leo Frank in 1913 Atlanta, it was almost certainly not because he was a Jew. He was, however, a capitalist, a business owner, a manager, an employer of child labor, and a Northerner with an Ivy League education. He also came to be known during the course of the trial as sexually profligate. These facts probably did count against him.”
92. Aaron also cites a study funded and published by a Jewish group: “John Higham, in his ‘Social Discrmination Against Jews 1830 – 1930,’ a work commissioned by the American Jewish Committee, called the South ‘historically the section least inclined to ostracize Jews,’ and drew attention to the ‘striking Southern situation’ of almost no discrimination against Jews there. True, Jewish-Gentile relations had somewhat declined there by the mid-twentieth century, and the massive campaign during the Frank appeals to paint his prosecution, and the South generally, as anti-Semitic – and the eventual creation of the Anti-Defamation League in the wake of Frank’s death – played their part in this change…
“But the aftermath of the Frank trial had no part, of course, in the attitudes of the people of Atlanta on the day Mary Phagan was murdered. All things considered, the South in general and Atlanta in particular seem to have been, if anything, safe havens for Jews where they might escape from the anti-Semitism that was rampant around the beginning of the last century.”
93. Southern attitudes toward Jews can be further gauged by the fact that, during the Civil War, Southerners made a Jew their Secretary of the Treasury: Judah P. Benjamin was the first Jewish appointee to any Cabinet position in any North American government. Benjamin also served as Attorney General, Secretary of State, and Secretary of War for the Confederate States of America. He was so highly regarded that his portrait graced the paper money of the South. Meanwhile, around the same time, Northern general Ulysses S. Grant issued an order physically expelling all Jews from the parts of the South under his control, even demanding that they leave a huge multi-state area “within 24 hours.”
The claim that a pervasive and vicious anti-Semitism was the real reason for the prosecution and conviction of Leo Frank is an absurd lie and a fantastic misrepresentation of history. Nevertheless, it is now the stuff of innumerable works of alleged scholarship, drama, and fiction, and is viewed by naive students who are exposed to such works as the central “truth” of the case. If Leo Frank were innocent, why would his supporters have to fabricate such blatant impostures and engage in emotional blackmail on a colossal scale?
94. Researcher Allen Koenigsberg states that some of the most intriguing and important parts of Minola McKnight’s sworn affidavits have, for some reason or other, been completely omitted from the current literature on the Frank case:
“One of the most intriguing circumstances in the pre-trial development of this case involved a document signed by the black cook in the Frank/Selig household (Minola McKnight). Frank’s attorneys would long argue that it was coerced by the police as a result of ‘third degree methods.’ Since 1913, it has never been shown in its entirety, and we are glad to present it here [ http://www.leofrankcase.com/ ]. Also unmentioned in the last nine decades is the sequence of events that led up to its appearance. Minola would make three affidavits in all (May 3rd, June 2nd and 3rd), but her overnight incarceration was specifically caused by her husband Albert’s statement made on May 26, and notarized on June 2nd [ also at http://www.leofrankcase.com/ ]. This description of events has never been cited, with only an oblique reference in the Samuels’ Night Fell on Georgia (1956).
The Albert McKnight affidavit
The Albert McKnight affidavit

“The most striking sentence (and odd omission) is shown here for the first time: ‘Mrs. Frank had a quarrel with Mr. Frank the Saturday morning of the murder she asked Mr. Frank to kiss her good bye and she said he was saving his kisses for _______ and would not kiss her.‘ Readers may wish to consider its authenticity, as new light is shed on why Leo Frank ‘so thoughtfully’ bought his wife a box of chocolates from Jacobs’ Pharmacy just before returning home at 6:30 PM on April 26th.” (LeoFrankCase.Com, Retrieved 2012).
95. Much has been made of the fact that Jim Conley’s attorney, William M. Smith, eventually believing his own client to be guilty, made an analysis of the language used by Conley on the stand and, comparing it to the language used in the death notes, concluded that the real author of the notes was Conley. Therefore, Smith’s theory went, the notes had not been dictated by Leo Frank as Conley had testified. Many greeted this “revelation” with well-deserved derision. Few believed that Frank would have insisted that Conley copy his language exactly, word for word (though Hugh Dorsey made the mistake of suggesting this was so in his closing arguments). In fact, the death notes would serve their intended purpose — to place blame for the murder on a black man — much more effectively by being written in the natural language of an authentic speaker of Southern black dialect, and surely that is a fact that no intelligent murderer would fail to see and act upon.
96. In his book, A Little Girl Is Dead, writer Harry Golden, though not incapable of objective journalism (for example, he once reported that Southerners had unusually favorable attitudes to Jews), may have perpetrated the most outrageous hoax in the Frank case. Golden claimed that Jim Conley had made a deathbed confession to the murder of Mary Phagan. But famed pro-Frank researcher and author Steve Oney (very charitably) says of Golden that this was “wishful thinking.”
Harry Golden
Harry Golden

Oney went to great lengths to follow up on Golden’s claim: “Over the last few years legal aides have rifled through microfilm files in libraries across the South searching for news of Conley’s confession. They have found nothing.” (Oney, “The Lynching of Leo Frank,” Esquire, September 1985)
97. It seems unlikely that Hugh Dorsey was motivated by anti-Semitism in his prosecution of Leo Frank, considering that a partner in his law firm was Jewish. It’s preposterous to even have to ask the question, but if Dorsey hated Jews enough to send one to the gallows as an innocent man, why would he tolerate — and proudly claim, as he did at trial — such a close association with a Jewish man? And, if Dorsey was guilty of such vicious malice against Jews, why would his partner continue the association himself? (Closing arguments of Hugh Dorsey, Leo Frank trial)
98. Why did the Leo Frank defense team, consisting of some of the most skilled attorneys in the state, refuse to cross-examine 20 young women and girls who testified that Frank had a bad moral character? Under Georgia law, the prosecution was only allowed to use these witnesses’ testimony to enter the general fact that Frank’s character was bad. Under cross-examination, though, the defense could have forced the girls and women to give specific reasons and relate specific incidents that supported their opinion, and trip them up if they could. Why, then, did they not do so? The only reasonable answer: They knew Leo Frank’s character, and they did not dare allow any specifics to go before the jury.
99. One of the most bizarre hoaxes in the Phagan case was that surrounding insurance salesman W.H. Mincey. On the afternoon of the murder, Mincey claimed that Jim Conley, on the public streets of Atlanta and with no prompting — and for no apparent reason whatever — confessed to murdering a girl that very day.
According to the contemporary book The Frank Case, p. 66: “Mincey asserted that late in the afternoon he was at the corner of Electric avenue and Carter streets, near the home of Conley, when he approached the black, asking that he take an insurance policy. The negro told him, he said, to go along, that he was in trouble. Asked what his trouble was, Mincey swore that Conley replied he had killed a girl. ‘You are Jack the ripper, are you?’ said Mincey. ‘No,’ he says Conley replied, ‘I killed a white girl and you better go along or I will kill you.'”
That this tale could be accepted by any man in possession of his reason is doubtful, but nevertheless the Frank defense team seriously asserted in court their intention to call Mincey as a witness. They withdrew him, however, after the prosecution was said to have discovered Mincey’s problematic relationship with the truth and had 25 witnesses prepared to impeach him — and furthermore intended to produce copies of several books Mincey had written on the subject of “mind reading.”
100. Mary Phagan’s grand-niece, Mary Phagan Kean, relates in her book The Murder of Little Mary Phagan that her grandfather William Joshua Phagan, Jr. (Mary Phagan’s brother) confronted Jim Conley in private in 1934, and was ultimately convinced that the former factory sweeper was telling the truth. At times so emotionally moved that he could barely hold back tears, William Phagan finally told Conley that he believed him — and said that, if he had thought he was lying, “I’d kill you myself.” After the intense meeting was over, Jim Conley and Mary Phagan’s brother went out for a drink.
Mary Phagan
Mary Phagan

In truth, there are more — far more — than 100 reasons to believe that Leo Frank was guilty of murdering Mary Phagan. There are far more than 100 reasons to believe that the claim of widespread “Southern anti-Semitism,” virtually promoted as gospel today, is a complete and malicious fraud. There are far more than 100 reasons to believe that Frank’s defenders have used perjury, fraud, and outright hoaxes to impose their view of the case on an unsuspecting public.
I urge each and every one of you to read the original source materials I have catalogued in the Appendix which follows this article. Only by seeing what the jury saw — by reading what the people of Atlanta read as events unfolded — uncensored and without the nuance and spin of modern authors who are, with but a very few exceptions, uniformly dedicated to one side — can you truly understand the tragedy of little Mary Phagan and the whirlwind her death unleashed.
In my opinion, the most horrible imposture, the real injustice, in the Frank case as it stands today is that millions of trusting men and women, children and students, all across the world have been forcefully imprinted, by a relentless multimillion-dollar media campaign, with the idea that Leo Frank — the monster who almost certainly abused and strangled bright and beautiful Mary Anne Phagan to death — is the “real victim” in this case.
* * *

MAKE SURE to check out the FULL American Mercury series on the Leo Frank case by clicking here.

APPENDIX
_________

Full archive of Atlanta Georgian newspapers relating to the murder and subsequent trial
The Leo Frank case as reported in the Atlanta Constitution
The Leo Frank Case (Mary Phagan) Inside Story of Georgia’s Greatest Murder Mystery 1913
The Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean
American State Trials, volume X (1918) by John Lawson
Argument of Hugh M. Dorsey in the Trial of Leo Frank
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

Related Articles:​

 

Broadway revival "Parade" opening night met by antisemitic protestors outside of theater​

WABC logo

Wednesday, February 22, 2023 10:27PM

Link: https://abc7ny.com/antisemitic-protesters-parade-broadway/12861743/

Security upgraded after Broadway's 'Parade' met with antisemitic protestors


EMBED <>MORE VIDEOS

Antisemitic protesters marched, brandishing vulgar signs, and pestering theatergoers on the opening night of "Parade." Jim Dolan has more on the pumped up security efforts Wednesday night.
BROADWAY, New York City (WABC) -- The first preview performance of the Broadway revival of "Parade" should have been a celebration, instead on Tuesday night it was thrust into ugliness not by anything on stage, but by a vile scene outside the theater.

Antisemitic protesters marched, brandishing vulgar signs, and pestering theatergoers.

"You want the truth about who you're going to see tonight," said one of the protestors. "You're paying $300 to go (expletive) worship a pedophile, you might as well know what you're talking about."

The musical dramatizes the story of Leo Frank, a Jewish factory superintendent in Atlanta wrongly convicted of the 1913 rape and murder of his 13-year-old employee.

Frank was kidnapped and lynched by people who hate Jews.

The main character is played by Ben Platt- who is also Jewish.

Platt took to Instagram to address the protesters.

"I just got home from our first preview performance of 'Parade,'" Platt said in a video. "For those who don't know, there were a few neo-Nazi protesters from a really disgusting group outside of the theater, bothering some of our patrons on their way in and saying antisemitic things about Leo Frank, who the show is about. It was definitely very ugly and scary but a wonderful reminder of why we're telling this particular story and how special and powerful art and, particularly, theater can be. Now is really the moment for this particular piece."

Producers of the Broadway revival also issued a statement:

"If there is any remaining doubt out there about the urgency of telling this story in this moment in history, the vileness on display tonight should put it to rest. We stand by the valiant Broadway cast that brings this vital story to life each night."

Platt said he wanted to celebrate what a beautiful experience the play is and all the "gorgeous work all my wonderful colleagues did, not the really ugly actions of a few people who are spreading evil."

Antisemitic attacks have been on the rise in the last few years, hitting an all-time high in 2019, according to the Anti-Defamation League.
 
Note the purpose for this posting, suckers: observe this object-lesson for Jew prop. by which Jews tell the most blatant lies, yet it still works for them as they literally control everything by means of their central-bank legalized counterfeiting scam which simply continues to printing-out evermore currency (not real MONEY), repeating, repeating, repeating the same lies, so that the stupid gentiles, especially the "liberals," are persuaded that the lies are really the truth. Observe the story, below, lies and says Frank was "falsely accused"--EVEN THOUGH HE WAS CONVICTED BY A JURY--and what is the proof he was "falsely" accused?--NONE, they just assert he was "falsely" accused w. nothing to back up this idiot assertion. Such then is the great advantage of the central-bank counterfeiting scam which simply continues to pumping out evermore currency, Jews owning the "Jews-media," "big Tech," etc.--they thus literally control the culture, a culture of infinite lies and lying, and it never ends until the culture itself is destroyed and collapsed--that's what we're facing.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Broadway's 'Parade' fights hatred both onstage and off​

Link: https://www.yahoo.com/news/broadways-parade-fights-hatred-both-180911724.html

  • This image released by DKC/O&M shows Ben Platt in character as Leo Frank from the Broadway musical Parade. (Emilio Madrid/DKC/O&M via AP)


    Theater - Parade​

    This image released by DKC/O&M shows Ben Platt in character as Leo Frank from the Broadway musical "Parade." (Emilio Madrid/DKC/O&M via AP)
    ASSOCIATED PRESS
  • This image released by DKC/O&M shows Ben Platt, left, and Micaela Diamond, in character as Leo and Lucille Frank from the Broadway musical Parade. (Emilio Madrid/DKC/O&M via AP)

    2/3

    Theater - Parade​

    This image released by DKC/O&M shows Ben Platt, left, and Micaela Diamond, in character as Leo and Lucille Frank from the Broadway musical "Parade." (Emilio Madrid/DKC/O&M via AP)
    ASSOCIATED PRESS
This image released by DKC/O&M shows Ben Platt in character as Leo Frank from the Broadway musical Parade. (Emilio Madrid/DKC/O&M via AP)This image released by DKC/O&M shows Ben Platt, left, and Micaela Diamond, in character as Leo and Lucille Frank from the Broadway musical Parade. (Emilio Madrid/DKC/O&M via AP)This image released by DKC/O&M shows Ben Platt in character as Leo Frank from the Broadway musical Parade. (Emilio Madrid/DKC/O&M via AP)
1
MARK KENNEDY
Mon, February 27, 2023 at 12:09 PM CST

NEW YORK (AP) — There's so much darkness awaiting Ben Platt in his new Broadway role these days that he's countered with a dash of brightness.
“I painted my dressing room pink so that it’s a very bright and warm and joyful place to be, so that I can leave what happens on the stage on the stage,” he says.
Platt deserves all the joy he can grab while playing the doomed lead anti-hero in the musical “Parade,” adapted from a true story that took place in Atlanta just before World War I.
He plays Leo Frank, a Brooklyn-born Jewish factory manager falsely accused of murdering a young girl. He is tried and convicted, has his death sentence commuted but then is lynched by a Southern mob who dislikes his religion and Northern values.
“It’s really a human story about how people — because of the traumas of their past — can’t escape the prejudice of their present,” says the show's director, Michael Arden.
The musical is being revived on Broadway just as the nation endures another wave of anti-Semitism, which has brought darkness even to the theater's front door. The show's first preview was marred by a few neo-Nazi protesters outside.
That has only proven to Platt and the rest of the “Parade” team that bringing this musical back in front of an audience is the right thing to do in the face of bigotry and bullying.
“I think both in terms of specifically anti-Semitism and in terms of just the horrors of social media and online mob mentality, it feels all too contemporary,” Platt says. “I think everybody could feel very palpably that this was the piece for right in this very moment and that there was really a reason to be doing it.”
This is Platt's first return to Broadway since his star-making turn in “Dear Evan Hansen,” which earned him a Tony and a Grammy and propelled his career to TV shows like “The Politician” and a record deal with Atlantic Records. The new musical opens March 16 at at the Bernard B. Jacobs Theatre.
Platt calls “Parade” a “hidden gem” in musical theater and grew up listening to its songs. It was mostly well-received by critics in 1998 when it first arrived — and later won Tonys for best book and score — but closed within a few months, despite a story by “Driving Miss Daisy” writer Alfred Uhry and music and lyrics by multiple Tony-winner Jason Robert Brown. Platt says it was ahead of its time.
“I think maybe people just weren’t ready to hear it at that point,” he says. “There’s a lot of gray in the show, and it’s also a piece that holds racism and anti-Semitism in the same conversation and highlights that they are both products, particularly in America, of the same system of white supremacy.”
Behind the legal drama, there is a second — the story of two people, Frank and his wife, Lucille, whose relationship gets stronger as their lives get more difficult. Micaela Diamond stars here as Lucille, and it is the first time Jewish actors have led a professional production of “Parade” of this scale.
“I’m hopeful that this will be an opportunity for those who didn’t already appreciate it, to find it and for it to get some of the due that it maybe should have gotten in the first place,” Platt says.
What viewers will find is a complex portrayal of Frank, a fussy, often unpleasant man who dislikes the South and who complains about the food when he is first thrown in jail. That challenge attracted Platt.
“There’s some moral challenge and ambiguity,” says Platt. “I think it’s an important message when you’re representing anyone who’s been oppressed or victimized, let alone a real person, to say that just because somebody isn’t perfect and entirely virtuous, it doesn’t mean that they aren’t deserving of justice and truth.”
Arden grew up in Midland, Texas, listening to Broadway cast albums and was “just transported by the score” of “Parade.” He watched a video capture of the original show and saw a version mounted by the Donmar Warehouse in 2007.
“It is rare when we get an opportunity to go to the theater and truly be challenged to reflect on our own shortcomings in this way and kind of stir up the darkness of our past,” he says. “We must reexamine our past or else we repeat it.”
Arden hopes his direction has focuses on the intimacy of the marriage, and he has stripped the musical down, without a lot of set design and without a heavy hand.
“We’re sort of presenting this play as evidence for an audience to make up their own minds about something, as opposed to trying to necessarily fully paint the picture in a way that a film could or perhaps the original production attempted to,” he says.
It is a challenging, often wrenching show and Platt gets into character each night in his pink dressing room with some key items: A framed photo of Leo and Lucille Frank taken at their happiest.
“I think it helps me to remember that the main purpose here is to honor them and to show the love between them and the humanity between them as much, if not more, than the tragedy that befell them,” he says.
There's also a photo of him and his fiance, Noah Galvin, and of his family, including one from his brother's bar mitzvah. He calls them “reminders of where I come from and what I get to go home to, that Leo didn’t get to go home to.”
“As traumatic and and dark as this particular story is, my greatest joy in life is to be in the theater,” he adds. “Even going through something like this and emotionally finding my way through it, I do go home with such a fulfillment and satisfaction because this is really my dream.”
 
Last edited:

Below-copied is yet just ANOTHER lying prop. piece fm the Jew/satanist enemy that has captured our culture, specifically fm Yahoo.com site which has practically daily anti-anti-semitic articles on its typical, liberal-oriented, fake-news site. This is the sort of constant lies and prop. u get when u control the fiat-currency machine, the central-bank of issue, like the US Federal Reserve (the "fed") which just pumps out that nearly infinite currency stream (not real money, commodity-based, which is necessarily limited in amount).

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *​

Neo-Nazis came to Broadway to protest 'Parade.' All the more reason for the show to go on.​

Jason Robert Brown
Wed, March 1, 2023 at 4:30 AM CST

Link: https://www.yahoo.com/news/neo-nazis-came-broadway-protest-103002058.html

There were neo-Nazis on Broadway last week.
The night of the first preview of the new Broadway production of "Parade," audience members waiting to enter the Bernard B. Jacobs Theater were harangued by members of a far-right white supremacist group, The National Socialist Movement.
"Parade" tells the story of Leo Frank, the Jewish superintendent of a pencil factory in Atlanta, who in 1913 was falsely accused and wrongfully convicted of the murder of 13-year-old Mary Phagan. It is a signal event in the history of antisemitism and white supremacist terrorism in this country, and the case was behind both the creation of the Anti-Defamation League and the resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan.

Since 'Parade' opened in the late '90s

There is a website about the Leo Frank case that is not hard to find on Google. It has been around in some form or other since we first opened "Parade" in the late 1990s, and perhaps even before then. It’s quite extensive and you might even think it was a legitimate research archive if you didn’t dig too deep.
Opinions in your inbox: Get exclusive access to our columnists and the best of our columns
But then you’ll run across something like this article from Oct. 28, 2019, written by the site’s curator, N. Joseph Potts: “Jewish Men Dying In Jail For Ravaging Young Girls: (Jeffrey) Epstein v (Leo) Frank.”
And suddenly there you are, deep in the world of antisemitic conspiracy theory and fearmongering that has followed Jews around since Ptolemy ruled ancient Egypt.
Leo Frank was convicted of the rape and murder of 13-year-old Mary Phagan in 1913 amid a rise in antisemitic fervor in Georgia. He was lynched in 1915 after being kidnapped during a prison transfer.

Leo Frank was convicted of the rape and murder of 13-year-old Mary Phagan in 1913 amid a rise in antisemitic fervor in Georgia. He was lynched in 1915 after being kidnapped during a prison transfer.
When Jews first encounter this stuff at a young age, our instinct – well, let me not generalize – my instinct was to laugh; surely no one believed this. We had horns? We baked matzah with the blood of Christian children? We secretly ran the world’s banking systems? Madness, obviously.
As I got older, I developed a wary familiarity with the nonsense. It didn’t seem to affect my life too much, but it was always there, this persistent mockery and hostility that seemed so ridiculous on the surface but was continually being given little infusions of oxygen.

Oxygen giving antisemitism new life​

You don’t need me to tell you that it’s all been getting a whole lot more oxygen recently. Correlation might not equal causation, but the Jew haters have certainly gotten noisier and bolder since Donald Trump’s election. You know that. I know that. They know that. Let’s not be coy.
'I don't know how we survived': A new generation of the antisemitism we thought was behind us
Fear, hate and ignorance live in darkness: On Hanukkah, the 9th candle reflects how anyone can fight antisemitism by sharing truth
It’s not that "Parade" hasn’t been on their radar before. Mary Phagan’s grandniece, Mary Phagan-Kean, has been loudly denouncing Leo Frank and our show since we opened at Lincoln Center and has been duly embraced and amplified by antisemitic groups.
There was a certain degree of hubbub when we opened our tour in Atlanta in 2000; and there are many websites (including the one I mentioned above) that include "Parade" in their list of sins against the good white people of Georgia and America, but by and large, to be honest, the show itself hasn’t had a large impact on the general public, so it hasn’t drawn out the crazies as much as it would have had it been, say, "Hamilton."
Ben Platt as Leo Frank and Micaela Diamond as Lucille Frank in "Parade" at New York City Center. The play will open March 16, 2023.

Ben Platt as Leo Frank and Micaela Diamond as Lucille Frank in "Parade" at New York City Center. The play will open March 16, 2023.
But before we had our gala presentation at New York City Center last fall, our producer, Jenny Gersten, called me to ask whether there had been a history of threats against the show. I didn’t need to ask why she was calling. I took a deep breath. Ah, I thought. That’s where we are now.
I feel terrible that audience members waiting in line to see our show on Broadway may be accosted by neo-Nazis. (I can’t believe I’m writing that sentence.) But I'll tell you the truth: I’m glad the thugs showed up. I’m glad they feel threatened enough to emerge into the light and show their faces. They are what "Parade" is about.
'An Innocent Man Was Lynched': Reporting exonerated Leo Frank in the murder of Mary Phagan
I suspect they don’t particularly know or care about the case; they just want to yell out the words “Jew” and “pedophile.” They won’t really engage with you, they can’t; everything they could tell you about Leo Frank and the case has been decisively debunked, over and over again.
No legitimate conversation about the murder of Mary Phagan will end with you believing Leo Frank was guilty.
Visiting Mary Phagan's grave for the first time, Alonzo Mann reads the tombstone inscription. On March 7, 1982, The Tennessean printed a section titled "Justice Betrayed: A Sin of Silence," in which a key witness in the Leo Frank case, Alonzo Mann, said false testimony led to Frank's conviction.

Visiting Mary Phagan's grave for the first time, Alonzo Mann reads the tombstone inscription. On March 7, 1982, The Tennessean printed a section titled "Justice Betrayed: A Sin of Silence," in which a key witness in the Leo Frank case, Alonzo Mann, said false testimony led to Frank's conviction.

What Leo Frank's case mirrors in our America today​

There is plenty of research, much more than there was when Alfred Uhry and I started work on this show, which details in stark clarity the myriad ways in which Leo Frank was targeted and attacked by a society that did not care about the evidence or the law.
The wounded, frightened populace of Atlanta wanted a Jew punished, and in the same way that some people will tell you that there was fraud in our last election no matter how much you show them that there wasn’t, the people of Georgia in 1913 believed that a Jew killed that girl no matter how much you proved that he couldn’t have. Some of them still do.

Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store.

The evidence presented at trial and collected over the past 110 years suggest pretty clearly that Leo Frank was a difficult man to like. He was no hero. He was no martyr. But one of the things "Parade" says is that you don’t have to praise or admire Leo Frank to see that he was the victim of a gross miscarriage of justice, fueled by rage and fear and antisemitic hysteria.
For the past couple of months, lots of people have been saying to me how important it is that we’re bringing "Parade" to Broadway right now, how the world needs to see this story at this moment in time. Honestly, I’ve been kind of skeptical; the story’s been there all along.
But I have to acknowledge in light of last week’s events that there’s something about Ben Platt, a Jewish star, leading this American story about prejudice and scapegoating, right there in our weird little corner of the national cultural conversation, that really counts. Clearly it affects our audience. Obviously it’s affecting the other side as well.
The conversation was brought right to the stage door last week. That’s where we are now.
Jason Robert Brown is a Tony Award-winning American musical theatre composer, lyricist and playwright. He is the composer and lyricist of "Parade."
You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @usatodayopinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter. To respond to a column, submit a comment to letters@usatoday.com.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Neo-Nazis protest Broadway musical 'Parade.' That's where we are now
 

Jewish Men Dying in Jail for Ravaging Young Girls​

We Met Jeffrey Epstein over a Hundred Years Ago​

N. Joseph Potts

Link: https://inconvenienthistory.com/11/3/6872

Jump to issue: Vol. 15 (2023)Vol. 14 (2022)Vol. 13 (2021)Vol. 12 (2020)Vol. 11 (2019)Vol. 10 (2018)Vol. 9 (2017)Vol. 8 (2016)Vol. 7 (2015)Vol. 6 (2014)Vol. 5 (2013)Vol. 4 (2012)Vol. 3 (2011)Vol. 2 (2010)Vol. 1 (2009) No. 1No. 2No. 3No. 4 go

frank_epstein.jpg
The death in jail of Jeffrey Epstein last month recalls a very famous death of another jailed Jewish man charged (and convicted and sentenced) of crimes against a 13-year-old girl in 1913. That case, which involved only one of many rumored similar victims, involved the lethal abuse of a factory worker named Mary Phagan by the manager of the factory, 29-year-old pillar of the Atlanta Jewish community Leo Frank, who, having grown up in Brooklyn, might have seemed rather a “damn Yankee” to at least some of his neighbors of 106 years ago. Frank’s victim, unlike any of Epstein’s known victims, was murdered and, while Frank was tried and convicted and sentenced to death, his guilt continues to be vigorously contested this more-than-a-century later, by the successors to the massive and distinctly Jewish campaign to win his exoneration of the offense.
The two cases, while they have many and important differences, both involve Jewish men accused of raping[1] underage teenage girls as well as large and enduring campaigns of national stature to secure the acquittal of the defendants. In Frank’s 1913 case, America’s (then-smaller, but already powerful) Jewry mobilized to support his exoneration, stimulated by the notion, perhaps manufactured among the larger and more-influential Jewry of the northern United States, that Frank was being discriminated against because he was a Jew in the South, whose Jewish population was then less-influential than that of their co-religionists to the north (Frank was, in any case, a “child” of the North, having grown up in Brooklyn). The establishment of the Anti-Defamation League in October 1915 is widely credited to the (Jewish) outrage at Frank’s lynching in August of that year.
Epstein’s case entailed a “conviction” and a much-diluted “prison sentence” in what now might be called its first phase, one that might reflect his vastly greater influence (read: wealth) over the juridical apparatus, and no doubt because no one had been found murdered. Frank’s case had only one phase (including appeals that went all the way to a petition to the US Supreme Court), but of course did involve a murder, one the guilt for which satisfied all the jurors on his case, but has never satisfied the jury of “public opinion” as mediated by media firmly controlled by parties sympathetic to, if not Frank’s innocence, then at least to his ethnic affiliation.
Frank did not have the means to mount the monumental defense that eventually rose to his succor, but Jewish moguls of the day such as Albert Lasker saw to it, through vigorous fund-raising campaigns conducted throughout Jewish communities in the North, that his justice was indeed the best that money could buy. Epstein had no need of any such circling of the financial wagons; he was a billionaire in his own right, but in view of his ability to purchase his defense in the open market, nonetheless Jewish legal luminaries such as Alan Dershowitz figured large in the phalanx ultimately mustered to defend him in the 2016 Florida case that led to his sentence to 13 months’ “confinement” in a minimum-security prison near his palatial estate in Palm Beach. Some of these lawyers, such as Dershowitz, stood among those who might have been implicated in the crimes committed by, or through the connivance of, Epstein.
Among those ensnared in Epstein’s fiendishly woven net was the United States Attorney for Southern Florida Alexander Acosta, who arranged for Epstein’s convenient conviction on a Florida State charge. Later appointed secretary of labor by President Donald Trump, he subsequently resigned under fire after Epstein was again arrested in July 2019 by the United States Attorney for Southern New York, the locus of yet more of the crimes with which Epstein was charged, all of these involving underage teenage girls.
Epstein’s guilt is not contested, neither as to the ages of his victims, nor even really as to their numbers (apparently something in the dozens). Neither Epstein nor any of his co-conspirators is implicated in any murder. Frank’s guilt, at least of the murder of Mary Phagan, continues to be very much contested by, among others, the ubiquitous Alan Dershowitz—yes, the very same Harvard Law School professor who has for many years now led the star-studded legal team defending Jeffrey Epstein, the Twenty-First Century’s answer to Leo Frank. Naturally, the metaphorical child of the Frank case, the Anti-Defamation League, continues to beat its very loud drum to advance the cause of Leo Frank’s innocence even to the point, in 1986, of securing a posthumous pardon from the state of Georgia, issued as an apology for having failed to protect its notorious inmate at its prison in Milledgeville in 1915.
Frank’s lynching was the first and last lynching of a Jew recorded in the annals of American lynching. American Jewry had, over the two years preceding it, made the case a cause célèbre, not least in the media, which, even at that early time, were controlled by Jewish interests not only of ownership, such as Adolph Ochs’s New York Times, but through the massive and pervasive influence of large-scale advertisers such as merchandiser Alfred Lasker, whose tentacles reached into the hearts of virtually every newspaper large and small in the United States. Lasker, having taken the cause very much to heart, became the unofficial leader of the campaign in Frank’s behalf, a campaign that may be said to have continued vigorously today well into its second century.
The Epstein case, unlike the Frank case, did not become a “Jewish” issue despite the Jewishness of Epstein, Epstein’s “patron” Les Wexner, Dershowitz and many of Epstein’s other defenders. Indeed, Epstein did not, as Frank did with some distinction, take part in Jewish religious affairs beyond hobnobbing with ex-prime ministers of Israel and the like. But the ethnic commonality among Epstein and other Jewish men such as Harvey Weinstein and Leon Wieseltier was the subject of a recent article by ex-Jew Gilad Atzmon in the Unz Review, volubly countering this non-ethnic quality of l’affaire Epstein. However, the non-ethnicity of the matter has seemingly left the ADL out of this reprise of the case that brought it into existence 104 years ago.
Leo Frank was not, as Jeffrey Epstein was, rich (although his wife did come from a wealthy family), so he could not, as Epstein easily did, fund his own high-powered team of defense lawyers. But Frank did indeed enjoy a powerful defense team easily comparable to the one marshaled around Epstein. It was funded by Alfred Lasker and a nationwide fundraising campaign conducted largely through Jewish auspices such as synagogues and chapters of the B’nai B’rith, of whose Atlanta chapter Frank was president. Indeed, Frank’s team’s successors have managed within the past year to establish Georgia’s first Conviction Integrity Unit, which has taken on local closed cases such as that of convicted murderer Wayne Williams, along with a posthumous one, that of Leo Frank, with full exoneration in view. Unlike also-pardoned ADL beneficiary Marc Rich, Leo Frank’s supporters haven’t made large donations to foundations of American presidents, but smaller donations to the foundations and political-campaign funds of Georgia and Fulton County politicians may produce the desired effects quite handily. No relatives of Leo Frank are to be found among the public advocates of this campaign, nor any descendent of anyone who knew him. Relatives of Mary Phagan, however, oppose the initiative.
Assuming, as is widely done, that Epstein was murdered in jail á la Lee Harvey Oswald, to keep him from dishing the dirt on many powerful people, Frank’s death at the hands of a lynch mob that had extracted him from jail would appear to have been committed on other considerations, notably his Jewishness as continually asserted this past century or so by the ADL, his supporters, and their latter-day successors such as Alan Dershowitz.
But that idea also is contested, notably by the Historical Research Department of the Nation of Islam, publisher and author of record of The Secret Relationship between Blacks and Jews Vol. 3, the Leo Frank Case. This work (long since banned by amazon.com) advances the proposition (pp. 309-330) that the lynch mob was covertly orchestrated by the same (Jewish) parties who had supported and defended Frank’s innocence in the two years preceding the lynching. Why would these same partisans now wish their beneficiary dead?
Because he might confess. He was alive, in keeping with their wishes, but still incarcerated, very much against their wishes, if only because there, he might be subject, á la Rudolf Höss[2] of Holocaust fame, to coercion, or even inducements, to confess to the crimes of which he was accused. This would certainly never do. In fact, Frank nearly died in his cell, as Epstein did in his, after a fellow inmate cut his jugular vein with a butcher knife about one month after the commutation. Perhaps the would-be murderer was committing a din rodef[3] murder in behalf of Jewish paymasters not unlike those said to have commissioned Jeffrey Epstein’s death.
Two months elapsed between Governor Slaton’s commutation of Frank’s sentence and the lynch mob’s carefully arranged transits by car of 150 miles over unpaved roads from Marietta to Milledgeville, where they picked up their hapless victim, and then back again to Marietta, chosen because it was the hometown of poor Mary Phagan. None of the (well-known) participants in the lynching was even charged with the murder of Frank, much less prosecuted.
One wonders if, a hundred or so years from now, the ADL will secure the exoneration of Jeffrey Epstein.
Yeah. Those girls were all party-crashing gold diggers. Epstein just got the rap because he was Jewish.
That’s right. Just because he was a Jew.


[1] As raping is legally defined. In most of the United States today, the legal age of consent is 18. Sexual relations with a person younger than that age is called “statutory rape,” intended to cover cases in which the victim gives her consent.
[2] Höss’s Commandant of Auschwitz (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1959), written while he was in jail, is a pillar of today’s regnant Holocaust narrative.
[3][3] Din rodef is a Talmudic concept holding that it is permissible—indeed, required—to kill a person whose continued life threatens the life, or reputation, of a Jew, or, as in Frank’s case, the Jewish community en grosse.
Author(s):N. Joseph Potts
Title:Jewish Men Dying in Jail for Ravaging Young Girls
Sources:
Dates:published: 2019-09-06, first posted: 2019-09-06 22:01:34
 
Mary Phagan Family Position Paper

July • 2021

Link: https://littlemaryphagan.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Phagan-Family-Position-Paper-July-2021.pdf

[see numerous pictures, illustrations at site link, above]

My name is Mary Phagan-Kean and I am the great-niece and namesake of “Little Mary Phagan,” the thirteen-year-old girl who was raped and murdered by Leo Max Frank, the president of Atlanta’s B'nai B’rith Lodge No. 144, on April 26, 1913. Leo Frank was the manager of the National Pencil Company — a sweatshop factory where over a hundred children labored, and where the Sam Nunn federal building stands today. Little Mary Phagan was 12-years old when she started working there in 1912, and Frank admitted he was the last person to see Mary alive. In fact, the evidence of his guilt was overwhelming and on August 25, 1913, after a month-long trial in the Fulton County Superior Court, Leo Frank was found guilty by a jury of his peers, and on the next day, he was sentenced to hang for the murder of Mary Phagan. What followed was an unprecedented effort by Leo Frank and his legal team and supporters to pin this horrific crime on everyone but himself. It is an effort that continues to this very day. The Leo Frank case is no “cold M The Mary Phagan Family: The Truth of the Leo Frank Case 2 case.” It is obvious to anyone who objectively considers the case evidence that Leo Frank was rightly convicted for this heinous crime. Today, his supporters have targeted a black man named James Conley who worked as a janitor at the factory. Evidence shows that after Frank beat and strangled Mary he was unable to move the body. He called on Conley and ordered him to help him conceal the crime and swore him to secrecy.

After initially concealing Frank’s crime Conley ultimately revealed to authorities the true events of that day. The detail he gave was so shocking and so convincing that he became the state’s star witness against Leo Frank. Frank and his legal team’s response was to accuse Conley of the murder, and that has been their story for a century. But Mary’s killer was not James Conley, and the state of Georgia proved beyond any reasonable doubt that Leo Frank alone murdered Little Mary Phagan. The Phagan family has no objection to anyone expressing their opinions about the Leo Frank case, but we do insist that organizations and personal campaigns not distort the truth and facts to use this case for their own political purposes. For over 100 years, each passing decade brought with it dubious revelations of “new historical evidence” falsely claiming to exonerate Leo Frank. The Phagan family has stated since 1982 that if there were clear-cut evidence to clear Leo Frank of this heinous crime, we would be the first to ask for an exoneration. However, such historical evidence has never come to light. Rather, there are considerable data, extensive documentation, revealing archival material, and legal, court, and government records that only support and even strengthen the guilty verdict. Phagan Family’s Statement on the Latest Attempt to Exonerate Leo Frank It was reported in the Atlanta Journal and Constitution that on April 26, 2019 [ironically 106 years to the day after Mary Phagan's murder] that the Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard [defeated by Fani Willis on November 6, 2020] had established a “Conviction Integrity Unit” that he said would review the Leo Frank conviction of 1913. Those named as participants in this move were the following: Former Governor Roy Barnes Rabbi Steven Lebow Attorney Dale Schwartz Melissa D. Redmon, director of the University of Georgia Law School Former Supreme Court Justice Leah Ward Sears Former Court Chief Justice Norman Fletcher Former Cobb County Superior Court Chief Judge J. Stephen Schuster Assistant District Attorney Van Pearlberg

The Family of Mary Phagan believes that these individuals have “colluded” since August of 2018 to find a way to vacate the murder conviction. ADL attorney Dale Schwartz was quoted thus: “we’re still trying to get a new trial that would, in effect, exonerate him.” [In 1914, several attempts were made to “exonerate” Leo Frank using “new evidence” The Mary Phagan Family: The Truth of the Leo Frank Case 3 that included witness affidavits later found to have been forged or obtained by bribery and other illegal means. See the Atlanta Constitution of May 5, 1914, p. 1.] Clearly, the new agency was a blatantly political scheme that had nothing to do with justice. It was set up, it appears, at the behest of the above-mentioned Frank advocates for one purpose only—to help Leo Frank escape culpability for his crime. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (May 7, 2019), Fulton County D.A. Paul Howard stated, “The Frank Case helped inspire the creation of the new unit” and that former Gov. Roy Barnes “will serve as a consultant.” Barnes admitted that he “had lobbied the district attorney [Howard] to re-examine Frank’s case.” Let us be clear what that means. Those statements alone convince us that the Conviction Integrity Unit has already determined the outcome of the Leo Frank case. According to the article, “Barnes said he is convinced that this will happen. ‘There is no doubt in my mind, and we’ll [Who is “we?”] prove it at the appropriate time, that Frank was not guilty.’”

1 Watch this video at 1:40 mark:
2 See https://littlemaryphagan.com/wpcontent/uploads/2020/02/FINAL-Barnes.pdf For years Roy Barnes has been promoting a fraudulent narrative about the Frank case, and in particular that the 1913 trial was illegitimate because it was “mobdominated.” He said that “there were just mobs of people. And as the jury would go [to] the courthouse every day, the mob would scream, "Hang the Jew or we'll hang you!"1 This charge is a blatant lie that has been disproven by the scholars of the case. It was made up long after the trial by an overzealous writer trying to make a name for himself. Only Barnes continues to repeat it.2 For this and many other reasons Governor Roy Barnes is simply unfit to participate in any serious inquiry into the Leo Frank case. Once again, most advocates and so-called experts who determine Leo Frank is not guilty have relied on blatantly false information and politically biased propaganda. Frank’s conviction was upheld by thirteen separate courts and judges in his thirteen appeals from Fulton County to the United States Supreme Court. Every court affirmed the trial was fair and the jury was not “mob terrorized.” What’s more, driven by the need to exonerate a Jewish leader, they intend to convict an innocent African American man, James Conley—Frank’s employee that he ordered to help move the body. They ignore the 20 young girls and women who testified under oath that Frank sexually harassed them at the factory.

Frank’s attorneys refused to cross-examine ANY of them, and later admitted that they were all telling the truth. 3 3 https://littlemaryphagan.com/the-murder-trial-testimonybrief-of-evidence/ Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard (with former Governor Roy Barnes) announces “Conviction Integrity Unit” to re-open Leo Frank case. Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May 7, 2019. The Mary Phagan Family: The Truth of the Leo Frank Case 4 Nonetheless, Frank’s advocates spread fabrications, propagandize falsehoods, distort the facts and change headlines of original newspapers to promote the hoax of not guilty. The real miscarriage of justice is that in this time of the #MeToo movement, they seek to override a duly convicted child rapist and murderer’s conviction. The Evidence Points to Leo Frank’s Guilt Most people are not aware that there was blood and hair evidence at the murder scene, that Frank changed his alibi several times and lied to police, and that he sexually harassed his young girl employees. Most people are unaware that Leo Frank hired private detectives who planted evidence and bribed and intimidated witnesses to change their testimony. They even hatched a plot to murder the African American James Conley who became a key witness against Leo Frank.

4 Most people are not aware that the two detective firms Leo Frank hired; the Pinkertons’ National Detective Agency and the Burns Detective Agency concluded Leo Frank was guilty of the murder! At his own trial Leo Frank refused to be sworn on the Bible and be cross-examined. A lot has been covered up about the case, including Leo Frank playing the race card to play to the white jurors’ prejudices about black men. In 1915 and under intense political pressure Gov. John M. Slaton commuted Frank’s death sentence to life imprisonment. But even as he signed that commutation order he also wrote that the U.S. Supreme Court “found in the trial no error in law” and had “correctly in my judgment [found] that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict.” The fact is that Leo M. Frank was found guilty under Georgia law with facts and evidence, not with political bullying. The good people of Georgia can make up their own minds about Leo Frank’s innocence or guilt by delving into the historical records themselves. Having researched the Leo Frank/Mary Phagan murder case, including spending thousands of hours examining court records, newspaper reports, and private and public archives, I ask you to please consider the following facts: 4 Atlanta Journal, May 5, 1914, 2. Atlanta Constitution May 6, 1914, 1, 5. New York Times, May 6, 1914, 3. Sexual harassment by Leo Frank: the Harvey Weinstein of his era On Saturday April 26, 1913, Leo Frank used the opportunity of a deserted factory and his power as the company boss to lure Little Mary Phagan to a back area of the factory and attempt to rape her. Mary resisted and, and in the struggle Frank struck her and knocked her unconscious, and then strangled her to death. He left a trail of clues leading to himself, so within a few days of the murder he was arrested. Evidence showed that the murder was sexually motivated, and many of Leo Frank’s own female employees testified to Leo Frank’s history of sexual harassment. They testified that he “got too familiar,” “put his hands on” them, tried to corner them, and proposed sexual acts to them for money.

These teenagers bravely took the witness stand and spoke of Leo Frank’s lewd behavior. Sixteen-year-old Nellie Wood told the court how Frank had pushed himself against her and touched her breast. Fourteen-year-old Nellie Pettis—a witness for the defense—recounted how Leo Frank had propositioned her for sex. Twenty girls in all gave similar testimony about Frank’s improprieties. Several male employees described how they had witnessed Leo Frank “rub up against” young female workers “a little too much.” The testimony was so explicit that the judge had to clear the courtroom of women. The defense attorneys did not even attempt to cross-examine any of the girls who testified at trial about Leo Frank’s lewd behavior. Instead, Leo Frank’s lawyers argued that his improper behavior was not wrong—that it was a sign of more liberal times! One even said in his closing argument, “Deliver me from one of these prudish fellows that never looks at a girl and never puts his hands on her…” #MeToo: Twenty of Leo Frank’s employees testified to his sexual harassment of them. The Mary Phagan Family: The Truth of the Leo Frank Case 6 In the South the LOVE of Jews reigned supreme—Not anti-Semitism! It has been claimed that “anti-Semitism” and the “hatred of Jews” motivated Leo Frank’s conviction and lynching. And yet, incredibly, there was no antiSemitism expressed by police, detectives, prosecutors, jurors, judge, or reporters! There was no “prejudicial trial” or “mob rule” or anti-Jewish bigotry of any kind. Most people are unaware that the prosecutor Hugh Dorsey first brought his case against Leo Frank before a 23-member grand jury that included five prominent members of the Jewish community (including at least two from Frank’s own synagogue), and all the grand jurors signed the bill of indictment against Leo Frank. The trial judge, Leonard Roan, was once a law partner of one of Frank’s defense attorneys, Luther Rosser and, according to a confidential ADL memo: “In general, the rulings of the trial Judge had been favorable to the defense.”

Leo Frank’s defense attorney even declared after the trial: “[W]e do not make the least criticism of Judge Roan, who presided [over the trial]. Judge Roan is one of the best men in Georgia and is an able and conscientious judge.” The false claims of anti-Semitism before, during, and after the trial of Leo Frank are simply unfounded and untrue. The detailed daily accounts by the three Atlanta newspapers—the Constitution, the Georgian, and the Journal, each of which had Jewish editors—reflected no anti-Jewish bias at all. Leo Frank’s religion is only alluded to when it is reported that he is the president of 'B’nai B’rith, and he is written of with the utmost respect for his prominence in the community. In fact, a University of Georgia study showed that the reportage by Atlanta’s three dailies was openly pro-Leo Frank and exhibited a pronounced pro-Frank bias. Author Steve Oney, listed by the Anti-Defamation League as an expert on the Leo Frank case, reported: “To the extent that there was bias in the coverage, it was mostly in Frank’s favor…” He goes on to state that Atlanta’s newspapers, “evincing the prejudices of the time, ridiculed the state’s star witness—a black factory janitor named Jim Conley…” “Anti-Semitism is absolutely not the reason for this libel that has been framed against me. It isn’t the source nor the result of this sad story.” —Leo M. Frank, interviewed by Abraham Cahan of the Forward newspaper The Mary Phagan Family: The Truth of the Leo Frank Case 7 It was Leo Frank’s defense that pushed “anti-Semitism.” Though there is no record of “anti-Semitism” on the part of the crowd, the courtroom audience, the press, or the prosecutors, that doesn’t mean it was non-existent. As the evidence of his guilt became overwhelming, Leo Frank and his lawyers tried desperately to insert “anti-Semitism” into the trial as a diversionary tactic. They actually staged a courtroom confrontation with a prosecution witness over his alleged previous “anti-Semitic” statements.

This officially brought “anti-Semitism” into the trial for the first time. Turns out that witness was working for the Leo Frank defense and was planted to promote their “anti-Semitism” agenda. It was yet another trick by the Leo Frank defense to undermine the court proceeding and to neutralize the evidence of his guilt. The ADL has been promoting a lie for over a century! “HANG THE JEW, HANG THE JEW” is what the Anti-Defamation League says was chanted during the month-long trial, but its own expert Steve Oney says it NEVER OCCURRED! According to Steve Oney, at the time of Mary Phagan’s murder, “Atlanta was a philo-Semitic city. Its assimilated, German-Jewish elite were part of the financial and legal power structure…” Gov. John Slaton in his Mr. Oney refutes the claim that there were anti-Semitic mobs shouting “Hang the Jew!” He told the Jewish Journal: “t didn’t happen. It was something that someone wrote a couple [of] years after the crime, and then it got stuck into subsequent recountings of the story….Jews were accepted in the city, and the record does not substantiate subsequent reports that the crowd outside the courtroom shouted at the jurors: ‘Hang the Jew or we’ll hang you.’” The Mary Phagan Family: The Truth of the Leo Frank Case 8 commutation order also addressed the false claim of an “anti-Semitic mob” surrounding the courtroom pressing to lynch Leo Frank: “No such attack was made and…none was contemplated.” Gov. John Slaton countered the false claim of an “anti-Semitic” atmosphere by reminding Leo Frank supporters that Jews were highly respected and appreciated in Georgia because they had been “conspicuous” contributors to the history and development of the state.

5 Frank’s Jewish defenders believed he was guilty. By the time of his lynching in 1915 many people—including his Jewish supporters—not only were repelled by Leo Frank’s abrasive personality but also believed he was in fact the murderer of Mary Phagan. Chicago icon Albert Lasker, a Jewish philanthropist and the “father of modern advertising,” paid millions (in today’s money) for Leo Frank’s defense, but he privately admitted that he was not even convinced that Leo Frank was innocent. Lasker financed all of Frank’s post-conviction appeals and orchestrated his international public-relations campaign that involved media outlets across the nation, including the New York Times. Albert Lasker recalled the meeting in Frank’s jail cell: “It was very hard for us to be fair to him, he impressed us as a sexual pervert. Now, he may not have been—or rather a homosexual or something like that…” According to Lasker’s biographer, the men with him during that encounter took “a violent dislike to him.” Lasker “hated him,” and said, “I hope he [Leo Frank] gets out…and when he gets out I hope he slips on a banana peel and breaks his neck.” Leo Frank’s Trial Defense was one of the most RACIST in American History Though “anti-Semitism” was not a factor in his trial, Leo Frank’s racism certainly was: Frank’s defense attorneys used the word “nigger” and other racist slurs dozens of times in court. His main attorney told the jury: “If you put a nigger in a hopper, he’ll drip lies.” 5 https://littlemaryphagan.com/wp-con...LeoFrank-for-Murder-of-Little-Mary-Phagan.pdf The Mary Phagan Family: The Truth of the Leo Frank Case 9 Leo Frank argued in court that the many black witnesses that testified against him should not be believed—simply because they were black—and that “negro testimony”—as they referred to it—was by definition inferior and unreliable. At trial Leo Frank’s attorney castigated the white jurors for even considering the testimony of the black witnesses: “They would rather believe the negro’s word….Oh, how times have changed. I hope to God I die before they change any worse than this…” Leo Frank’s lawyers argued to the jury of twelve white men that murder, rape, and robbery were “negro crimes” and thus Leo Frank, a white man, could not have committed the murder of Mary Phagan. One defense attorney said that “the murder was the unreasoning crime of a negro,” that “It isn’t a white man’s crime.” Leo Frank’s own racist thinking is reflected in an Atlanta Constitution front-page headline on May 31, 1913: “Mary Phagan’s Murder Was Work of a Negro Declares Leo M. Frank.” The newspaper quoted Leo Frank: “Here is a negro [James Conley], not alone with the shiftless and lying habits of an element of his race, that is common to the South….No white man killed Mary Phagan. It’s a negro’s crime, through and through. No man with common sense would even suspect I did it.”

Leo Frank tried to pin his crime on 2 innocent black men. Leo Frank’s supporters then and now have played the race card and falsely represent an African-American man as the “real killer.” For over 100 years James “Jim” Conley has been scapegoated in nearly all the literature on the case. He was a sweeper in the factory on the day of the murder who was ordered by his boss Leo Frank to help move the dead body of Mary Phagan. When James Conley confessed to his accessory-after-the-fact role, Frank and his supporters tried to pin his crime on Conley. Leo Frank’s supporters continue to this day James Conley The Mary Phagan Family: The Truth of the Leo Frank Case 10 to smear James Conley as a devious criminal who got away with murder, but Conley’s very detailed statement—corroborated by the physical evidence at the crime scene—was so convincing that it became central to the prosecution’s case. (At trial, Leo Frank refused to be cross-examined by prosecutors, but James Conley withstood 16 hours of crossexamination—under oath.) In 1914, Leo Frank supporters tried to hire a black woman named Annie Maude Carter to slip James Conley some poison while he was in jail waiting to testify at Frank’s hearing for a new trial. She identified the would-be assassins in open court as prominent members of the Jewish community. The plot was exposed in the May 6, 1914 edition of the New York Times. Before he accused James Conley of the crime, Leo Frank worked overtime to pin the murder on another factory employee—the African-American night watchman who found Mary Phagan’s body, Newt Lee.

Leo Frank hired private detectives who planted a blood-soaked shirt in the innocent black man’s home, and then Leo Frank’s attorney hinted to the police where they might find that damning “evidence.” When the newspapers reported that a bloody shirt was found at Newt Lee’s home, it almost caused an innocent man to be lynched. Luckily for Newt Lee, Leo Frank’s private detectives did such a sloppy job at planting the shirt that the police were not fooled at all, and it only increased their suspicion of Leo Frank. That is the point when the people of Atlanta came to believe— and rightly so—that Leo Frank was the murderer of Little Mary Phagan. Alonzo Mann—the man that is supposed to have exonerated Frank in 1982—would have CONVICTED him in 1913.

I, Mary Phagan-Kean, examined in detail the dubious claims of Alonzo Mann, who came forward in 1982— after 69 years of silence—to say he saw Conley with the body of Mary Phagan. It turns out that his new statements hurt Leo Frank far more than they help him. • Alonzo Mann (who died in 1985) was Frank’s “office boy” in 1913 and from the very start he gave many conflicting stories that are irreconcilable with the known facts: In May 1913 as a young teenager, Alonzo Mann told detectives 3 different stories in 3 separate interviews and gave yet another story in his sworn testimony at trial in New York Times, May 6, 1914 The Mary Phagan Family: The Truth of the Leo Frank Case 11 August. In those interviews and in his trial testimony Alonzo Mann never mentioned seeing James Conley at all on the day of the murder. At age 83, in his 1982 videotaped session before the State Board of Pardons and Paroles, he gave still more conflicting versions that contradict the testimony of Leo Frank himself! • What motivated Alonzo Mann to break his 69-year silence on the Leo Frank case by pinning the crime on James Conley? The answer was disclosed at the videotaped private hearing in 1982: behind Alonzo Mann’s obviously scripted, wavering “testimony” was a book and movie deal executed by the Tennessean newspaper—the same Tennessean that abandoned the truth and the facts of the case and any trace of journalistic ethics just to exonerate Leo Frank.

So Alonzo Mann was induced to come forward for fame and fortune. The Phagan family was consulted by the Board in the run-up to the 1983 pardon decision, since the surviving members of the family had a great deal of personal knowledge of and documentation about the case and would be directly and profoundly affected by any decision. It was our Little Mary who had been strangled and very likely raped, after all. And the Board denied that pardon application. The Jewish organizations tried again in 1986, but this time the Phagan family was not consulted. They were told about the upcoming pardon decision after the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (ADL) and its well-heeled allies: Atlanta Jewish Federation and American Jewish Committee had been meeting with and lobbying the Board for six months or more. Why the secrecy? Obviously, the Jewish groups—led by Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith board member and attorney Dale Schwartz—didn’t want the victim’s family to have any say on the matter or any time to alert the public as to what was afoot. Thus, in 1986 the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles issued a posthumous “pardon” to Leo Frank on the basis of the state’s failure to protect him while in custody, but it did not absolve him of the crime of murdering Mary Phagan and Frank’s conviction remained intact. The state’s 1986 “pardon” did not overturn the guilty verdict. Believe it or not, there are still documents from the Leo Frank case that are being hidden from the public because they have been classified as “GEORGIA STATE SECRETS”! Our repeated attempts to obtain them from the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles were denied again in December 2020. What could they be hiding? What could be so secret about a case that is 106 years old!?

And why isn’t the media pursuing this extraordinary government action? Alonzo Mann in 1913: Tells 4 different versions, and 2 more in 1982. The Mary Phagan Family: The Truth of the Leo Frank Case 12 Sources Banned and Censored On the 100th Anniversary (April 26, 2013) of Mary Phagan’s rape and murder, the trial Brief of Evidence and appeals records of the Leo Frank case were digitized as well as the voluminous Atlanta newspaper reports about the crime. These sources—and many, many more like them—use to be available on the internet until very recently. Indeed, the books, videos, articles, and court documents that provide a balanced view of the case have been systematically removed from the internet SINCE THE Fulton County CONVICTION INTEGRITY UNIT WAS ANNOUNCED! No Longer Available • Original articles from the three major dailies covering the day-by-day progress of the case (removed from archive.org) • Videos from YouTube that challenge the false idea that Leo Frank was “wrongly convicted. • Official case documents like the Brief of Evidence, the appeals filings, and the published trial records have been scrubbed from the internet. • Books that prove Leo Frank’s guilt and provide a serious case analysis have been banned and censored. My 1987 book titled The Murder of Little Mary Phagan has been removed from some websites where it was previously available for years. The Nation of Islam’s recent book Leo Frank: The Lynching of a Guilty Man has been mysteriously banned from sale on Amazon.com. • Google searches EXCLUDE articles and documents that show evidence of Frank’s guilt. • When we made an Open Records Request to the University of Georgia, they first said 70 records match the request. When we paid to have them mailed to us, all of a sudden, all 70 records vanished with no explanation! Fortunately for the Fulton County Conviction Integrity Unit, the public and the media will still be able to access those critical official documents that the Leo Frank crusaders are trying to hide. We have made them available at LittleMaryPhagan.com where we believe they will be safe from the Leo Frank censors and their internet cleansing campaign.

My book, The Murder of Little Mary Phagan is available free at: http://www.littlemaryphagan. com The Mary Phagan Family: The Truth of the Leo Frank Case 13 Fulton County District Attorney, Paul Howard was defeated in the last election but the Conviction Integrity Unit he set up is still operating under the new District Attorney Fani Willis. Ms. Fani Willis might do well to ask why the original documents in the case all of a sudden have been removed from the internet, and who had the power to remove them and why. How can the case be carefully reviewed without them? Indeed, the books, videos, articles, and court documents that provide a full and balanced view of the case have been systematically removed SINCE THE CONVICTION INTEGRITY UNIT WAS ANNOUNCED!!! Obviously, Truth has become offensive or objectionable and has been deemed “hate speech” in order to impose censorship. But FACTS ARE NOT HATEFUL! Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis inherited this corrupt process, but will she bow to the same pressure that was put on her former boss to exonerate a man who raped and murdered our family member? As of today, no word from Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis on whether her office will finally give long overdue justice to the victim, Mary Phagan. Can we expect that she will stand by her own words?: “Cases won’t be for sale under my administration. Not for an endorsement, not for money, not for anything.” “You have my word, during my tenure as district attorney in Fulton County, we will become a beacon for justice and ethics in Georgia and across the nation.” “[D.A.] Willis vowed to bring ‘transparency and accountability’ to the DA’s office,” reported the Atlanta Journal and Constitution. She would be the first to do so. We’ll see.
 

THE LEO FRANK CASE: DOCUMENTED FINDINGS​

NOVEMBER 26, 2019 NOI RESEARCH ARTICLES 0

Link: https://noirg.org/articles/the-leo-frank-case-documented-findings/


The Leo Frank Case: Documented Findings

The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, Volume Three: The Leo Frank Case, The Lynching of a Guilty Man is a 536-page study referenced with thousands of footnotes and illustrated with maps, diagrams, and graphics that touch on every aspect of this controversial case. Here are a few of The Secret Relationship’s documented findings (and the page numbers where full references can be found):
  • Frank was not targeted by an unruly mob. A 23-member grand jury that included five prominent members of the Jewish community voted for the indictment of Leo Frank. In other words, they all believed there was enough evidence to convict Leo Frank as the sole murderer of Mary Phagan. (See page 52, notes 102-106.)

  • The claim that a mob chanted “Hang the Jew or we’ll hang you” at the trial is simply false. The ADL’s own expert, author Steve Oney, told the Jewish Journal: “It didn’t happen.…Jews were accepted in the city, and the record does not substantiate subsequent reports that the crowd outside the courtroom shouted at the jurors: ‘Hang the Jew or we’ll hang you.’” (See pages 163-64, 173-187.)

  • Leo Frank himself told a Jewish newspaper publisher, “Anti-Semitism is absolutely not the reason for this libel [murder conviction] that has been framed against me. It isn’t the source nor the result of this sad story.” (Page 142.)

  • Anti-Semitism was virtually absent from the case, but anti-Black racism was brutally present: Leo Frank, as leader of B’nai B’rith, publicly and openly referred to Blacks as “niggers.” His defense attorneys used the word “nigger” and other racist slurs dozens of times in court. His main attorney told the jury: “If you put a nigger in a hopper, he’ll drip lies.” And: “Is it possible that you Anglo-Saxon men have forgotten the nature of the negro?….Conley is a plain, beastly, ragged, filthy, lying nigger. Have I overstated that?” Another of Frank’s many attorneys addressed the jury, stating that Conley came from “a law-breaking race.” (Pages 121-23, 128-29, 131-33, 362.)

  • Frank argued in court that the many Black witnesses should not be believed—simply because they were Black—and that “negro testimony” was by definition inferior and unreliable. Further, Frank argued to the all-white jury of his peers that murder, rape, and robbery were “negro crimes” and thus, he, a white man, could not have committed the murder of Mary Phagan. (Pages 124-136.)

  • Atlanta police did not “frame” Frank; nor did they arrest him because he was Jewish. Both private detective agencies hired by Frank concluded that Leo Frank was the murderer of Mary Phagan. Another attorney hired by Frank similarly found and stated openly that his client was guilty. (Pages 31-34, 47-48, 50-52, 65-66, 91 note 187, 147, 247.)

  • Jim Conley was the second Black person that Leo Frank publicly accused of Mary Phagan’s murder. Newt Lee, the night watchman who found the body in the factory basement, was actively targeted by Frank’s hired private eyes. They actually planted a blood-soaked shirt in the innocent Black man’s home, and then told the police where they could find that damning “evidence.” At the same time, Frank altered Lee’s work time card in order to make Lee the prime suspect. (Pages 35-44.) Frank’s attorney, the famous Luther Rosser, had this exchange in open court with the medical expert, related to the planted bloody shirt:
Rosser: The shirt had the odor of blood on it when you first got it, didn’t it?
Yes.
Rosser: Then, wouldn’t the odor of blood have killed the odor of nigger?
No.
Rosser: Then, if a nigger had just put on his shirt and had taken it off in an instant, your nose would “get him”?
Have you ever smelled a negro, Mr. Rosser?
Rosser: More than you ever smelled. I was smelling them before you were born. [Pages 134-135.]
  • Leo Frank’s own Black cook, Minola McKnight, signed an affidavit saying she overheard Frank’s wife and mother discussing how Frank had confessed to the murder. She (and her husband) also gave damning evidence of Frank’s movements on the day of the murder that conflicted with Frank’s already weak alibi. (Pages 34, 378-79, 423-428.)

  • Leo Frank was caught lying so often and so unapologetically that he was actually his own worst enemy. He refused to take an oath on the Bible, and then refused to be cross-examined by prosecutors. But James Conley withstood sixteen hours of cross-examination—under oath. (Pages 92ff, 122, 136-140, 362-382.)

  • After Frank’s conviction powerful Jewish leaders rallied to his defense, but in private documents they admitted that they could not stand Frank’s personality and that he probably was guilty. Albert Lasker ran the top advertising agency in America and financed Frank’s legal defense. His private view of the B’nai B’rith president was harsh and disturbing: “It was very hard for us to be fair to him [Frank], he impressed us as a sexual pervert.”(Pages 216-217, 254-255, 322.)

  • Frank’s main attorney admitted in open court that Frank’s lewd behavior was “a sign that we are getting more broad-minded…[D]eliver me from one of these prudish fellows that never looks at a girl and never puts his hands on her….” So powerful was the testimony of twenty adolescent girls about Leo Frank’s sexual harassment at the factory that none of his attorneys dared to cross-examine them—not one. (Pages 107-123.)

  • Frank supporters tried to hire a Black woman to slip Conley some poison. She identified the plotters in open court. (Pages 262-263.)

  • Frank was convicted in Atlanta, but most of the 13 appeals occurred outside Atlanta, and every one of those courts—including the US Supreme Court—upheld the conviction. (Pages 276-277, 282.)

  • Prosecutor Hugh Dorsey has been portrayed as an “anti-Semite,” but it was Dorsey who allowed Blacks to testify at the trial, an unprecedented advancement in civil rights. Leo Frank’s attorneys fought this tooth and nail, and did everything they could to keep Blacks from participating in any part of the trial. It was Frank’s attorneys—not Georgia prosecutors—who used their power to eliminate Blacks from the jury pool. Dorsey later became governor of Georgia, whereupon he forcefully condemned the racial violence in his state and in America. The NAACP declared that Governor Dorsey’s stand “greatly enhanced the significance of the anti-lynching crusade.” Frank’s B’nai B’rith—and all Jewish organizations—were totally absent from the anti-lynching movement. In fact, Leo Frank’s main appeals attorney, Louis Marshall, as president of the American Jewish Committee, fought to undermine anti-lynching legislation, calling it “unconstitutional” and a violation of “state’s rights.” (Pages 88, 478-479.)

  • Several of Frank’s strongest advocates—including his main lawyer and the man who financed his legal appeals—were both Jewish and open and active members of the American eugenics movement. A generation later Hitler would draw inspiration for his anti-Jewish policies from American eugenicists. (Pages 217, 221-222.)

  • Pro-Frank embellishers have claimed that “thousands” of Jews fled Atlanta, but this is a complete myth. Jewish demographers show that the Jewish population of Atlanta actually increased over the weeks, months, and years after the Frank episode. (Pages 330-344.)

  • Mysteriously, in 1982 a “witness” named Alonzo Mann materialized, claiming that he was at the factory in 1913 on the day of the murder and saw Conley carrying the body of Mary Phagan. The Nation of Islam meticulously examined those claims and shows conclusively that Mann had given many conflicting stories—in 1913 and in 1982—that are irreconcilable with the known facts and that the aged Mann was very likely coaxed by Frank’s advocates into making his 1982 claims. (Pages 435-464.)
 

Here's yet ANOTHER propaganda story by Jews and Jews-media on the Jew murderer, Leo--see how it NEVER ENDS--why Jews make sure they totally dominate the mass-media to drum home their lies.​

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *​

Review: In Broadway revival of ‘Parade,’ a story of Southern antisemitism remains too much on the surface​

Link: https://www.yahoo.com/news/review-broadway-revival-parade-story-160500938.html

Chris Jones, Chicago Tribune
Fri, March 17, 2023 at 11:05 AM CDT

NEW YORK — At the new Broadway production of “Parade,” the customary recorded admonition to silence cellphones is delivered by no less a personage than Raphael Warnock, the U.S. senator from Georgia.
Clearly, that’s an effort to acknowledge that while this somber, gorgeously scored Jason Robert Brown musical is about the prejudiced 1913 murder trial and subsequent lynching of a Jewish man, Leo Frank, in that Peach State in 1915, everyone involved knows that it was Black Georgians who were far more likely to suffer that fate. And, of course, it’s also a tacit statement that the racist forces of corruption and intolerance that figure in the piece remain very much at large.
The new revival, which stars Ben Platt in the title role, is a more politically engaged “Parade” than the one I remember more than 20 years ago, less of a melancholy exploration of the clash of cultural division and more of an explicit indictment of Southern Republicans and their jingoistic, lingering, festering loyalties to the remnants of the Confederacy, a hotbed of racism and antisemitism.
Which makes it all the more strange that Platt offers a beautifully sung but less than empathetic performance in the leading role. So much so, in fact, that I wondered if this hugely talented Broadway star had allowed all of the noise out there to get to him.
There’s no question that Brown’s incarnation of Frank, a Brooklyn transfer and the manager of an Atlanta pencil factory, is a troubled man, a lousy communicator who was often remote, imperious and self-involved. But the trajectory of the musical clearly suggests that he becomes more self-aware over time, finally seeing his own sexism and understanding that his Southern-born wife, played by Micaela Diamond, could help him better than he can help himself.
By Act 2, Frank also realizes that few have overcome racial hatred through bookish research but rather by looking the haters in the eye, finding allies in the fight against them and forcing the ignorant to see our shared humanity.
To put all that more simply, “Parade” is very much about Southern antisemitism, but it also has a protagonist who makes a journey toward better knowing both his world and himself.
Platt sounds spectacular and nothing he does feels fake. Yet his Leo Frank seems much the same at the end of the show at the beginning, and just as remote. Perhaps that’s indicative of the political shift of the moment, where any kind of change in such a character risks being seen as his capitulation to the forces of intolerance, even though I think book writer Alfred Uhry and Brown intended exactly the opposite.
All those years ago, as I watched the composer conducting the pit orchestra in Green Bay, Wisconsin, I remember the stunning opening number of “Parade,” titled “The Red Hills of Georgia,” originally coming off as a lament for what the South could have achieved had it actually managed to vanquish its deep-seated sins of racism and intolerance. At the Bernard B. Jacobs Theatre the other night, the number, superbly sung by an unnamed Confederate soldier (Charlie Webb) returning from the war, felt more like the fascistic “Tomorrow Belongs to Me” from “Cabaret.”
So America has gone these past two decades, and Broadway has had no choice but to pick a side.
But as they note over at “Hamilton,” history is not inevitable. And musicals are about humans, their triumphs and errors. So that disconnect, that lack of nuance, that absence of the present-tense pulse of possibility and the sense that the world only spins forward, indicates the central flaw in this passionately performed but not entirely secure production from the director Michael Arden. Powerful projections created by Sven Ortel on Dane Laffrey’s set link the fictionalized characters we are watching with the real-life historical figures.
The strengths here include a wonderful supporting performance from Kelli Barrett, playing the mother of the murdered girl (”My Child Will Forgive Me” brought me to tears) and also from Sean Allan Krill, playing the Georgia governor who finally sees his obligation to the truth and the need to fight off the malevolent prosecutor (Paul Alexander Nolan).
The gutsiest work of the night flows from the spectacular Alex Joseph Grayson, playing Jim Conley, the likely perpetrator of the crime for which Frank is blamed. Conley’s big number is blisteringly powerful. And there are some very potent moments from Diamond, even if the final, wrenching scenes with Platt don’t for me, at least, pack the emotional punch I’ve experienced before at this show.
There’s nothing inevitable about “Parade,” anymore than there was about America’s abiding intolerance. And that’s the tricky thing about a show that always has inhabited a space somewhere between the melodramatic and the tragic. But melodrama just confirms. A richer understanding of the error of our collective ways always come from tragedy.
 

'Secret Suspensions and Shadowbans': Elon Musk Blows The Lid Off The ADL's Behind-The-Scenes Censorship of Social Media​

Link: https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=63950/

Chris Menahan
InformationLiberation
Sep. 04, 2023


ShareFacebookTwitterRedditTelegramVKEmail
space.gif

Jonathan_Greenblatt_35038965983-221.jpg
Elon Musk on Monday blew the lid off the Anti-Defamation League's behind-the-scenes pressure campaigns, revealing that the pro-Israel lobbying group uses advertiser boycotts to push Twitter/X to "secretly suspend or shadowban any account they don't like."

"Advertisers avoid controversy, so all that is needed for ADL to crush our US & European ad revenue is to make unfounded accusations," Musk said Monday night on Twitter/X. "They have much less power in Asia, so our ad revenue there is still strong."

"This 'controversy' causes advertisers to 'pause', but that pause is permanent until ADL gives the green light, which they will not do without us agreeing to secretly suspend or shadowban any account they don't like," he revealed. "That is the relationship they've had with X/Twitter for many years. Presumably, they have that with all western search or social media orgs."



Musk on Monday evening said he's likely going to sue the ADL for $22 billion in damages he says were caused by their advertiser boycotts. He also said he will start releasing the details of their shadowy pressure campaigns in the coming days and weeks.

The ADL's tortious interference with Musk's businesses appear to be downright criminal but so far not a single congressman has come out against the ADL in support of Musk.

As I reported yesterday, the Israeli government came out in support of the ADL on Monday to condemn their critics as Jew-hating conspiracy theorists and white supremacists.

Meanwhile, suspected Israeli intelligence agents are getting exposed for trying to influence the anti-ADL campaign on Twitter/X.

Elon Musk's father Errol told The Sun in an article published Monday that he fears his son could be assassinated for going up against powerful forces in the US government.

"Errol exclusively told The U.S. Sun that both he and Elon are worried about what could happen to him," The Sun reported:
Reacting to a recent New Yorker piece by journalist Ronan Farrow titled "Elon Musk's Shadow Rule," Errol said: "It's a hit job, a shadow government-sponsored opening salvo on Elon.

"The artillery-like softening up of the enemy before the actual attack and preparing of the ever-submissive people for the attack."

Asked if he fears that the "shadow government" will try to assassinate Elon, he replied: "Yes."

Errol, who has previously told The U.S. Sun that he warned his son to beef up his security, said Elon shares the same fear.
The ADL was accused in the past of being involved in the Jewish Defense League's firebombing assassination of Alex Odeh at his office in Santa Ana, California. Odeh was a Palestinian-American who founded his own ADL-like group he dubbed the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) to fight against the ADL's agenda.

As Israel-based journalist David Sheen reported in 2020:
[Odeh's] activism made the ADC enemies of the [JDL-backed] Kahanists, but also of the pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC, and of another powerful group that the ADC once saw as their Jewish corollary: the Anti-Defamation League. For a decade, the ADL had published reports on Arab-American organizations, calling them a "propaganda apparatus" and accusing them of being either "PLO fronts" or "part of the Arab master plan".

The anti-Arab campaigns of AIPAC and the ADL successfully stripped communal voices like the ADC of their legitimacy; so much so that US campaign donations from Arab-Americans were regularly returned to their donors by local, state and federal politicians -- including, just the previous year, the Democratic candidate for US President, Walter Mondale.

But the Kahanists believed that Arab-American voices should not only be politically excluded, but physically silenced, as well.

[...] [T]he ADL's top spy Roy Bullock had infiltrated the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee, and had even obtained a floor plan and a key to Alex Odeh's office [before it was firebombed by the JDL in a targeted assassination].

Years later, when the FBI realized the vast extent of the ADL's spy operations -- which included information on hundreds of US groups and over ten thousand US citizens -- Bullock denied any involvement in the Odeh murder, but admitted that among the dozens of groups he had infiltrated on behalf of the ADL were both the San Francisco and Los Angeles-area offices of the ADC.

"The Bureau was interested -- they had traced the three or four guys they thought did it," Bullock told the San Francisco Police Department in January 1993 about the FBI's investigation into the Odeh murder. "I missed going to the office by one day; I might have been there to open the door instead of him because he allowed me to go into the office if I was down there; just by sheer coincidence it wasn't me."

As an ADL agent posing as a solidarity activist volunteering with the ADC, Bullock amassed information on thousands of the group's members and tried to recruit suspected anti-Semites into the ADC in an attempt to discredit it.

"He was one of our most vocal members," ADC President Albert Mokhiber said of Bullock after his espionage became public knowledge. "He portrayed himself as someone sincerely interested in Arab civil rights and someone dedicated to the principles of our organization, and everyone believed him to be so."
These days, the head of the FBI literally writes "love letters" to the ADL.

Musk is going up against extremely powerful forces and he's going to need all of our support and backing.
 
Back
Top