Talk:Leo Frank

Let's Create a Leo Frank Page to explore both sides of the case

Paravant, Why was the page removed? SissyMendelstein (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The article is one sentence long. Do you have plans to flesh it out some?---Mona- (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Mona, I created the article as one sentence long, so we could get it started somewhere. I'd like us to discuss the case a little bit before we get started with one if that makes sense. SissyMendelstein (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@OP, I suggest you make a draft in your own sandbox and wait until you have something substantial before adding it to mainspace. One sentence-stubs are apt to be speedy deleted. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I can do that, but how do I deal with people like Paravant who keep deleting it. What is the best way to approach getting it rooted, so it can be properly developed. SissyMendelstein (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Leo Frank is a favorite bugaboo of anti-Semites, because his murder was one of the motivations for the creation of the Anti-Defamation League, so obviously something something vast Jewish conspiracy. The consensus among historians is that he was wrongly convicted. The Wikipedia article gets a steady trickle of editors changing it to reflect The Truth™ about Jewish Lies™. --Ymir (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Ymir, why don't we let the facts speak for themselves instead instead of using name calling. It would be equally infantalizing if I said Leo Frank is the favorite bugaboo of racist anti-Gentile bigots and Jewish supremacists. Instead of using epithets, let's present both sides of the case and let the facts speak for themselves. SissyMendelstein (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Ymir isn't "calling names." He's accurate describing a cohort of people who have long been obsessed with The Truth™ of the Leo Frank case.---Mona- (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Paravant, -Mona-, ScepticWombat, Dendlai, PacWalker, Queex and Ymir et al. (did I forget anybody?), I am grateful that all of you have taken the time to provide your thoughtful commentary on this contentious matter, whether one sentence long or significantly longer. I'm also grateful that people are expressing different concerns, possibilities and formulations of bias that would naturally occur in a century-long conflict of Jewish-Gentile relations. This case is still relevant today in 2015, because Rabbi Steven Lebow of Marietta and a former Governor of Georgia, Roy Barnes, and some other leading retirees have expressed their desire that Leo Frank be officially exonerated for the sex murder of 13-year-old Mary Phagan and, but they were rebuked by current Governor of Georgia Nathan Deal and the state congress who have rejected the request. The reason why the Jewish community has been pressing hard to create a coalition to vindicate Leo Frank is because when he (Leo Frank) was posthumously pardoned in March of 1986, the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles made it very clear they were not addressing Leo Frank's innocence or guilt, so that his pardon was not officially absolving him of the crime, but as an appeasement to "heal old wounds" and because the state failed to protect Leo Frank was he was incarcerated. Basically, just because Leo Frank was murdered in jail, it didn't undo the crime he committed. Another way to think about it is if someone is convicted of murder, and they get killed in jail by strangulation, it doesn't undo their verdict.

Steve Oney said it best when he described the Frank-Phagan affair as "one of the most complex and incendiary criminal cases of Georgia jurisprudence". What some of you are understandably suggesting, however, could equally be an interpretation of true believers for either the defense or prosecution side of the case and thusly applied by one side against the other -- something roughly similar to "everyone who thinks like us is we (correct), everyone else is they (incorrect)". We shouldn't reduce the Leo Frank case to Gentile Anti-Semite bigots verses Jewish Anti-Gentile bigots or "good Jews verses Bad yahoos" (to quote Steve Oney who says we shouldn't reduce it to that), but we should definitely explore the biases and could potentially explore the name calling by one side against the other. However reducing Leo Frank's ultimate guilt or innocence to White Supremacists verses Jewish Supremacists lacks intellectual honesty and bravery. I think that reduction would be an over simplification of a complex case that is very well documented in official legal records - documents of which all are present in their entirety as of 2015 and published online. What we should do instead is calmly and dispassionately present both sides of the case, and let people draw their own fair minded conclusions based on their own logic, common sense and rational thinking. Most people know very little about this case other than what they read by partisans and detractors. The good news is that all the newspaper reports of the case in the Atlanta media from April through August 1913 are available online at the Internet archive, we have the capacity to compare these reports with what was transcribed and recorded at the trial in the brief of evidence and later in appeals records. We also have secondary source interpretations written about the case as well that present different sides of the case, these two can be compared and fact checked against the official legal records or they could be compared against each other (secondary sources verses secondary source). SissyMendelstein (talk) 03:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you know any other songs?---Mona- (talk) 03:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Kinda makes this article on-mission. Of course, it'll be the exact opposite of what the article creator wants it to be. Dendlai (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Whatever it eventually becomes, as long as it presents both sides of the case rationally then it lives up to the mission of this wiki. SissyMendelstein (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I suspected that this was some dog whistle stuff for anti-Semitism, considering the OP's allegations against "pseudo academics" which ignores that not only did Frank receive a posthumous pardon in 1983, but the governor at the time of the trial braved the easily foreseeable public outrage and commuted Frank's death sentence. So, it's hardly only a cabal of "pseudo academics", or even just a consensus of historians, who agree that the Frank conviction was a miscarriage of justice, making his subsequent abduction and lynching an even greater atrocity. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Btw, I agree with Dendlai that insofar as RW should have an article on Leo Frank, the relevant angle is probably that of the anti-Semitic revisionist claims about Frank being guilty - especially since the WP article already goes into the details of the case and aftermath. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

1. Governor John Slaton who commuted the death sentence of Leo Frank to life in prison was the part-owner of the law firm *Rosser*, Brandon, *Slaton* and Phillips. Luther Rosser was Leo Frank's lead trial and State appeals attorney. Basically Governor John Slaton commuted the death sentence of his own lawfirm's client, an obvious conflict of interest.

2. Leo Frank was posthumously pardoned, but he was not officially absolved of his guilt for murdering Mary Phagan. Leo Frank is still officially guilty.

3. Rabbi Steven Lebow and other leaders in the Jewish community have petitioned the Governor of Georgia, Nathan Deal, to exonerate Leo Frank of the murder, and were refused.

4. The claim that Leo Frank was wrongfully convicted is false, I can present evidence from the trial transcript showing that Leo Frank changed his murder alibi on the witness stand and placed himself in the men's toilet at the very time that the prosecution built the case that Leo Frank murdered Mary Phagan there. SissyMendelstein (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You need to discuss the overwhelming evidence against Mr. Conley before you go any further; note that the "lied as witness" standard you're applying more than applies to him, so you've already argued his guilt also. WalkerWalkerWalker 19:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

PacWalker, Yes, we should talk more about Jim Conley and his trial testimony, because he was an admitted accomplice-after-the-fact who produced four different affidavits (see: Leo Frank trial brief of evidence, 1913). Jim Conley finally admitted his part of guilt and was convicted as an admitted accessory-after-the-fact serving some 10 or 11 months. Conley at first was reticent about what happened that fateful afternoon, giving at first the police false affidavits to cover for himself and leo Frank. After the police cracked him using the third degree (good cop verses bad cop), Conley then revealed his version of the events and helped the police solve the murder of Mary Phagan. Once cracked, Jim Conley told the police that Leo Frank confessed to him that he assaulted Mary Phagan because she "refused him" (refused to have sex with him). Conley went back there to the metal room (at the back of the second floor), where Leo Frank had assaulted and raped Phagan. Conley found Mary Phagan dead (strangled) in the men's toilet (located in the metal room, again back of the second floor). Leo Frank had basically assaulted, raped and strangled Mary Phagan in the metal room at minutes after noon on Saturday, April 26, 1913. Jim Conley admitted that he removed Mary Phagan from the metal room to the basement to cover-up the murder by also helping Frank to frame the factory's Black nightwatchman Newt Lee. This is a major fact suppressed about the murder of Mary Phagan: Leo Frank's racist attempt to frame his black nightwatchman Newt Lee. Leo Frank's racism is covered up in this case, so it would nice to flush out how he tried and failed to racistly frame his black nightwatchman Newt Lee. The details of Leo Frank's failed racist plot are quite juicy. SissyMendelstein (talk) 06:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

(EC) In other words, you're just another run-of-the-mill totally-not-an-antisemite who just so happens to care so very much about this one minor issue that's not particularly relevant to this wiki. 1 is not a conflict of interest because there's no benefit to issuing the commutation for the law firm. 2 is a dumbfuck technicality irrelevant to whether or not he did commit the crime. 3 is irrelevant. 4 would be interesting, if you actually could, but I suspect you won't be able to. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 19:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Can we keep this discussion civil without making person attacks, ad hominem, and red herrings? This is a review of the book 'Murder of Little Mary Phagan' by Mary Phagan Kean https://archive.org/details/TheMurderOfMaryPhaganByLeoFrankIn1913 and this is the 14 hour audiobook of 'The Murder of Little Mary Phagan' orated by Margi H, https://archive.org/details/TheMurderOfLittleMaryPhaganByMaryPhaganKean1987 I am asking everyone to review the case with an open mind and no vitriolic terms or accusations. Every level of the United States legal system upheld his murder conviction, including Governor John Slaton (1915) and the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles (1986) -- which did not officially absolve him of the murder. Leo Frank is still officially guilty of the murder, but many members of the Jewish community have for more than 100 years claimed he was wrongfully convicted. The Government of Georgia recently released the 1,800 page Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court Records, https://archive.org/details/leo-frank-georgia-supreme-court-case-records-1913-1914 which contain the Leo Frank trial brief of evidence, 1913. I would like us to present both sides of the case, and give both an equal hearing. SissyMendelstein (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

One angry relative does not a reliable source make. WalkerWalkerWalker 19:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Walker, the author of 'The Murder of Little Mary Phagan' is named Mary Phagan Kean and she is not an angry relative, she is the great niece of Mary Phagan who provides a fair review of the affair. She wrote the most even handed book about the Leo Frank case, because she actually does something that no other author does, namely, give both the prosecution and defense an equal hearing. The other authors who write about the case (the most prominent being Leonard Dinnerstein and Steve Oney), despite their rave reviews, leave out 99% of the evidence against Leo Frank. Given these circumstance it makes sense that people would think Leo Frank was innocent and wrongfully convicted, especially in light of Leonard Dinnerstein's hatecrime hoax and the Mary Phagan bitemark hoax. SissyMendelstein (talk) 09:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

That review... "Most importantly, Phagan-Kean dispels one of the central anti-Christian, anti-Southern and anti-Gentile blood libel conspiracies perpetuated by the Jewish community". Such bollock. So anitisemite. Dendlai (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Gov. John Slaton was convinced Leo Franks was innocent. He commuted the deaths sentence to life, and told some in private he would have pardoned Frank totally but he expected a new trial with new evidence to make that unnecessary. Slaton was outraged and horrified when a mob lynched Franks.---Mona- (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Rational Wiki Main Page Quote with Commentary:

• Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:*

1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.

I would like to refute the forensic hoax that Mary Phagan had bitemarks on her neck and shoulder, and that x-ray photographs of Leo Frank teeth did not match up with the bitemarks on Mary Phagan's skin. It was not possible in 1913, to make X-rays of bitemarks and its not possible to make x-rays of bitemarks today in the manner they might have tried then. X-ray technology was in its infancy in 1913 and its not possible to xray bitemarks on skin.

2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas.

A great opportunity to look at the anti-Semitism of the case by White Christians, and the anti-Gentilism of the case by White Jews. For instance Leonard Dinnerstein started a hate crime hoax in 1968 that mobs of Southerners were screaming death chants through the open windows of trial during proceedings. In December of 2014, after 46 years of maintaining this hate crime hoax Leonard Dinnerstein finally admitted there was insufficient evidence to sustain this claim. WOW! It took 46 years for this to be debunked. Yet, you can see Steve Oney and other authors quoting Dinnerstein as the source of this hoax as if it were actually real! Pretty amazing. Check out the prestigious source of Leonard Dinnerstein's hatecrime hoax, The American Jewish Archive Journal 1968 https://archive.org/details/LeoFrankAndTheAmericanJewishCommunity

3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.

We can look at the orthodox views of the case by every level of the United States Legal system, and we can look at how historians have taken a different approach transforming Leo Frank into a holy religious martyr of anti-Semitism. We can look at how his innocence and guilt are treated with almost religious fundamentalism by different groups of people. We can explore how Leo Frank's martyrdom and alleged innocense has become a kind of fundamentalist religion, with people who disagree with it being conflated as social pariahs and labelled racists, bigots, Neo Nazis, KKK'ers or anti-Semites.

4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.

We can look at 100 years of media analysis of the case, Hollywood dramatizations by President John F. Kennedy "John Slaton Profiles of courage" https://archive.org/details/ProfilesInCourageJohnSlaton or Broadway theater (Parade the Leo Frank musical by Alfred Uhry and Jason Robert Brown, 1998), Made for TV miniseries (Murder of Little Mary Phagan, 1988), documentaries (People vs. Leo Frank, 2009, by Ben Loeterman and Steve Oney). There are also articles in the media by a Georgia Superior Court Judge saying Leo Frank's posthumous pardon was illegal https://archive.org/details/LetterFromJudgeRandallEvansJr.AboutLeoFrankPardon

We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue.

I'm glad you encourage contributors who disagree, because I think we should look at both sides of the case, not just the Leo Frank defense version, but give the prosecution side of the case an equal hearing.

Because this is RationalWiki, the Leo Frank case requires a calm and dispassionate analytical inquiry of *both* the defense and prosecution sides of the case, not just the defense or prosecution version. The Leo Frank case is a very contentious Jewish-Gentile conflict smoldering for more than 102 years, which is why both sides of the case require an equal hearing with rational analysis. For the last 100 years - according to Jewish scholars - the Leo Frank case has been a cause celebre for the Jewish community who believe Leo Frank was "wrongly accused", "falsely convicted" and "wantonly murdered" because of anti-Semitism and sectarian frictions. Where as many Southerners believe Leo Frank was given a fair trial and that every level of the United States legal system that upheld his conviction were correct in their legal assessment. When Governor John Slaton commuted the death sentence of his lawfirm's client, Leo Frank, to life in prison, he stated in the last paragraph of his 29-page commutation order that he was sustaining the judge, jury and appellate courts, "In my judgment, by granting a commutation in this case, I am sustaining the jury, the judge and the [Georgia Supreme Court & United States Supreme Court] appelate tribunals, and at the same time am discharging that duty which is placed on my by the Constitution of the State [of Georgia]." Please refer to the last page of Governor John Slaton's clemency decision https://archive.org/stream/LeoFrankClemencyDecisionByGovernorJohnM.Slaton1915/leo-frank-clemency-decision-1915#page/n27/mode/2up

Leo Frank is understandably seen as a martyr of anti-Semitism by Jewish social, political and cultural activist groups like ADL, SPLC, and numerous other Jewish alphabet acronym organizations who make up the leadership of the Jewish Community. Understandably so, because even though Governor Slaton was the law partner of Leo Frank's lead trial and State appeals attorney and it was a gross conflict of interest, technically his death sentence was commuted to life in prison. Therefore Leo Frank's hanging by the leading men of Georgia (former Governor or Georgia, Georgia Senators, Superior Court Judge, former Cobb County Sheriff etc..), was technically an extrajudicial murder - or in proper parlance a bona fide lynching; an assassination.

I think it's also curious, that the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles did not exonerate Leo Frank, even though Leo Frank was extra judicially murdered, the Board stating that there was no sufficient evidence to exonerate Leo Frank presented by the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, Atlanta Jewish Federation, and American Jewish Committee, Dale Schwartz, and Charles Wittenstein. This is fascinating that even though Leo Frank was obviously murdered and not legally executed, that the State of Georgia in 1986 maintained Leo Frank's guilt and sustained the trial jury that in 1913 convicted him, and sustained the Georgia supreme court and united states supreme court that left his verdict of guilt undisturbed.

This case provides us with a fascinating opportunity to explore why modern historians believe Leo Frank didn't have a fair trial, even though every level of the United States legal system believed he did have a fair trial. Lots of opportunities to explore the anti-Semitism of this case by Christians, and perhaps even some of the anti-Gentilism by Jews. There are also Two forensic hoaxes in this case that have been uncovered, one being that Mary Phagan allegedly had bite marks all over her body, and the other that mobs of racist anti-Semites were screaming death threat chants at the jury through the windows during open court. SissyMendelstein (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Why are you posting essentially the verbatim text here and at your user talk page? Look, if you can document claims and draft more than a stub, do it at your sandbox. If it seems meritorious we can move it back here.---Mona- (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

"I would like to refute the forensic hoax that Mary Phagan had bitemarks on her neck and shoulder, and that x-ray photographs of Leo Frank teeth did not match up with the bitemarks on Mary Phagan's skin. It was not possible in 1913, to make X-rays of bitemarks and its not possible to make x-rays of bitemarks today in the manner they might have tried then. X-ray technology was in its infancy in 1913 and its not possible to xray bitemarks on skin. " Umm. X-rays of bitemarks? Really? Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 16:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I wondered about this weird claim too. Not only would it make zero sense to X-ray bite marks, then or now, but also, if the point was to match teeth to bite marks, why not simply make a cast of, rather than X-raying, them? This makes the odd claim about bite marks and X-rays look like a straw man or simply a misunderstanding, because as it stands it simply doesn't make any sense. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

ScepticWombat,

Leo Frank Hoax One: You could take photographic x-rays of bitemarks in 1913 and that Phagan had bitemarks on her.

The Mary Phagan bitemark hoax that was fabricated by journalist Pierre van paassen in 1964 (see reference link). And professor emeritus of Judaic studies, Leonard Dinnerstein, since the 1960s has been perpetuating this forensic hoax, first in his PhD thesis (1966) https://archive.org/details/TheLeoFrankCase1966Dissertation and his book The Leo Frank Case (1968 - 2012) https://archive.org/details/TheLeoFrankCaseByLeonardDinnerstein see link. The origin of the Mary Phagan bitemark hoax: To Number Our Days by Pierre van Paassen (see pages 237, 238 about the Leo Frank case) https://archive.org/details/ToNumberOurDaysByPierreVanPaassen

Leo Frank Hoax Two: Mobs of people screaming death threats at the jury during the trial.

The Leonard Dinnerstein Hate Crime Hoax about mobs of people screaming anti-semitic death threats through the open windows of the Leo Frank trial proceedings was invented by the activist pseudo-historian pseudo-scholar professor in 1968. 'Leo M. Frank and the American Jewish Community', American Jewish Archive Journal, 1968, Volume 20, number 2 https://archive.org/details/LeoFrankAndTheAmericanJewishCommunity

Leo Frank Hoax Three: Leo Frank was exonerated of murdering Mary Phagan when he was pardoned in 1986.

Mona brought up a good point on my talk page about the Georgia Board of Paroles falsely claiming the records of the Leo Frank case were no longer in existence.

One point that is interesting is that Leo Frank changed his alibi on the witness stand and placed himself at the very place and time the prosecution theorized Leo Frank strangled to death Mary Phagan, so it was an easy conviction - only took 2 hours for the jury to deliberate after the trial. You're the greatest for bringing up the point about Leo Frank's pardon, thanks for pointing out the falsehood the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles made to the public about there being a lack of available of records. The Leo Frank trial brief of evidence was never lost, nor was the Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court Records, they still exist 102 years later! You are mistaken about Leo Frank being exonerated for the crime, he was only pardoned, but he is still recognized as legally guilty. This is why Rabbi Steven Lebow of Marietta Georgia is pressing the government of Georgia to exonerate Leo Frank, because Leo Frank is still officially guilty, despite all people claiming he was wrongfully convicted. The GA board did not address his of his guilt. "Without attempting to address the question of guilt or innocence, and in recognition of the State's failure to protect the person of Leo M. Frank and thereby preserve his opportunity for continued legal appeal of his conviction, and in recognition of the State's failure to bring his killers to justice, and as an effort to heal old wounds, the State Board of Pardons and Paroles, in compliance with its Constitutional and statutory authority, hereby grants to Leo M. Frank a Pardon."

Leo M. Frank, Plaintiff in Error, vs. State of Georgia, Defendant in Error. In Error from Fulton Superior Court at the July Term 1913. Brief of Evidence 1913. https://archive.org/details/LeoM.FrankPlaintiffInErrorVs.StateOfGeorgiaDefendantInError.In

A better source for the Leo Frank trial brief of evidence is the 1,800 page Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court Records https://archive.org/details/leo-frank-georgia-supreme-court-case-records-1913-1914

This will be a great opportunity to debunk all the hoaxes and publicity stunts that were used to try and trick the public into thinking Leo Frank was wrongfully convicted. SissyMendelstein (talk) 07:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

"You could take photographic x-rays of bitemarks" You're still talking crap. X-rays won't pick up soft tissue detail on a bite mark. The X-ray part in bite mark analysis generally comes from X-rays of the the teeth, not the bite mark. I don't know how you've got turned around. It's also incredibly apparent that despite all of your protestations you are not approaching this as some sort of rational, dispassionate observer. You keep using the word 'hoax' when outlining weird conspiracy theories. Even if the generally accepted facts are wrong, no fair observer would rush to use the word hoax so often. The only evidence you provide is a gratuitously anti-Semitic book review (not even the book itself), and hand-waving at court documents (which, even they did support your claims somehow, can't be considered completely reliable by virtue of the fact that if it was a miscarriage of justice, such records would be tainted). It's not an opportunity to "explore the anti-Semitism of this case by Christians, and perhaps even some of the anti-Gentilism by Jews.", it's an opportunity to explore how badly you fail at trying to pretend to be a fair observer. Even down to adopting a stereotypically Jewish user name. You're not fooling anyone, except perhaps yourself. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 10:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Queex, according to one source concerning the Mary Phagan Bitemark Hoax: Excerpt that discusses the case of Leo Frank and Van Paassen's discovery of photographic evidence, 'To Number Our Days' (1964), pages 237 and 238:

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

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

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

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

Source: To Number Our Days by Pierre van Paassen (see pages 237, 238 about the Leo Frank case): WWW: http://archive.org/details/ToNumberOurDaysByPierreVanPaassen

Scholarly debunking of the Mary Phagan bitemark hoax

In reality, X-ray technology was in its infancy in 1913, and it was never possible to X-ray bite marks on skin in 1913 or today (ask any X-ray technician). Vehicles had virtually no safety features to speak of in 1922, so the chances of someone walking away “without a scratch” from a head-on collision is a bald-faced lie. Was Leo Frank’s appeals attorney named “Harry Alexander” (false) or Henry Alexander (correct)? Leo Frank was not lynched on his way to his murder trial in 1913. He was tried and sentenced to death by Judge Leonard Strickland Roan on August 26, 1913. The hanging took place nearly two years later on August 17, 1915. Leo Frank went on trial in Atlanta, not 170 miles away in Milledgeville where the hoaxer suggests the trial was scheduled. SissyMendelstein (talk) 04:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject". Dendlai (talk) 04:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

It's also interesting that the one who appealed for a dispassionate discussion without red herrings has chosen a red herring as one of the cardinal points of what (s)he's constantly referring to as a "hoax": The Van Paassen source is simply crap, because not only does it make this ludicrous claim about X-rays of bite marks (which as both Queex and I have pointed out is BS as X-rays are use to "look through" soft tissue, hence why it's so useful in detecting broken bones), but it also claims that Franks was never tried, which is clearly not true. However, this source is not mainly dealing with the Frank case (these 2 pages seem to be the only reference to it) and Van Paassen is curiously absent from the WP summary of the case as well. Thus SM's "debunking" is simply a red herring as this claim is not a prominent argument for Frank's innocence (again, you will search the WP summary in vain for anything about X-rays, bite marks or teeth). ScepticWombat (talk) 05:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Dendlai, -Mona-, ScepticWombat and Queex, Quite the contrary to a "fanatic" I'd love to be presented with evidence that would cause me to change my mind. I believe in the sanctity of science that can be repeated in a laboratory environment. I would concede if forensic science could show that in 1913, the above claim by Pierre van Paassen were true, and that Leo Frank partisan authors who quote this claim are vindicated by this science today. I'm open minded and specifically would love to see medical science videos, read medical science research documents or hear audio programs of medical science researchers in discussions providing evidence that bitemarks on skin could be x-rayed in 1913 or today. As far as I know it is not possible to take x-ray photographs of bitemarks on skin in 1913 or 2015. Please present the scientific data, information and forensic knowledge in these regards concerning x-ray photographs that is contrary to this 1964 assertion that is repeated by others as fact. I'd really be happy to review it with an open mind.

The Mary Phagan bitemark hoax is used as evidence that Leo Frank was innocent and wrongfully convicted by Leonard Dinnerstein https://archive.org/download/TheLeoFrankCase1966Dissertation/leonard-dinnerstein-dissertation-leo-frank-case-1966.pdf in his PhD disseration (1966), his book, 'The Leo Frank Case' 1968 - 2012 https://archive.org/details/TheLeoFrankCaseByLeonardDinnerstein and Steve Oney in his "definitive book on the case" https://archive.org/details/LeoM.Frank.TheDeadShallRiseBySteveOney called 'And the dead shall rise, The murder of Mary Phagan and lynching of Leo Frank' (2003). According to the mainpage of Rational Wiki http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page "Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes: Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement." I would like to present this as pseudoscientific forensic claims used by Frank partisan historians as false evidence to convince people Leo Frank was falsely accused and wrongfully convicted.

Two Specific locations of this pseudoscientific hoax used by Emeritus professor of Judaic Studies, Leonard Dinnerstein, as evidence that Leo Frank was wrongfully convicted in his PhD Dissertation and Book:

Leonard Dinnerstein's PhD Disseration (see page 280): https://archive.org/stream/TheLeoFrankCase1966Dissertation/leonard-dinnerstein-dissertation-leo-frank-case-1966#page/n285/mode/2up

Bibliography of Leonard Dinnerstein's PhD Dissertation: https://archive.org/stream/TheLeoFrankCase1966Dissertation/leonard-dinnerstein-dissertation-leo-frank-case-1966#page/n287/mode/2up/search/paassen

Book The Leo Frank Case by Leonard Dinnerstein (1968-2012), see page 158: https://archive.org/stream/TheLeoFrankCaseByLeonardDinnerstein/leo-frank-case-leonard-dinnerstein#page/n177/mode/2up/search/journalist

Bibliography of Leonard Dinnerstein's Book, 'The Leo Frank Case' (1968-2012): https://archive.org/stream/TheLeoFrankCaseByLeonardDinnerstein/leo-frank-case-leonard-dinnerstein#page/n239/mode/2up/search/pierre

Specific locations of this pseudoscientific hoax used by Journalist-Author, Steve Oney, as evidence that Leo Frank was wrongfully convicted: https://archive.org/stream/LeoM.Frank.TheDeadShallRiseBySteveOney/DeadShallRise#page/n685/mode/2up/search/bite

These are clear examples of two prominent authors using this forensic hoax as evidence that Leo Frank was innocent and wrongfully convicted. SissyMendelstein (talk) 05:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

You're still red herringing away aren't you SM? And yes, I checked Dinnerstein's 1966 dissertation and it doesn't use the supposed X-rays as a clincher for Frank's innocence either. In fact its only reference to them is on p. 280 where it's used as an example, not of evidence of innocence (not that "proven" is put in quotation marks), but as an example of the reprisals against those who dared to raise the question of Frank's innocence for decades after the lynching. Similarly, Oney didn't use these supposed X-rays as a clinching argument for Frank's innocence and on the one occasion he refers to them (pp. 617-618) he clearly hedged by prefacing his reference to them by the words "seemed to be" and "apparently telltale" and, like Dinnerstein, Oney used Van Paassen mainly as an example of the taboo of raising the question of Frank's innocence. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh fucking fuck the fuck. Can't we just block the neonazi? Dendlai (talk) 07:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Dendlai Addressed to you individually, there is no need for defeatist curse words or racist ad hominem epithets. Given this is RationalWiki, why not be open minded by giving all the evidence presented from the prosecution and defense an equal hearing before drawing any preordained conclusions. Think of this as an opportunity to challenge your most basic assumptions about the case and determine if in fact you have been mislead about somethings, including the claim by some historians that Leo Frank was innocent, framed and wrongfully convicted. I'm open minded and appreciate greatly the different points of views presented here when they stay on topic and don't veer into personal attacks. Every book written about the Leo Frank case from 1913 onward is available online, so are the three Atlanta daily newspapers competing for coverage of the case from April to August, 1913 and the most important records the official Leo Frank trial brief of evidence and Leo Frank Georgia supreme court records. Fact checking is essential to understanding this case. SissyMendelstein (talk) 09:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

For being a moron when we can actually counter his claims? Why?

Oh, and as for the claim that Van Paassen's unscathed escape from a collision with a streetcar was "a bald-faced lie" because "[v]ehicles had virtually no safety features to speak of in 1922" ignores the fact that both streetcars and vehicles ran a far slower speeds than we're used to today (a Ford Model T had a top speed of 40–45 mph (64–72 km/h) and street cars of the 1910s only had top speeds of around 30 mph (ca. 48 km/h)). A driver walking away from Ford T ruined by hitting and glancing off a streetcar wouldn't necessarily be a implausible scenario. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

ScepticWombat and Dendlai, I will later address your other concerns about the Mary Phagan bitemark hoax used in nearly every Leo Frank partisan "non-fiction" published book since 1964, but first let us review together Pierre van Paassen's fallacious 1964 published report in 'To Number Our Days' (237, 238) of an alleged 1922 head-on collision with a "fast-moving streetcar coming from the opposite direction".

To Number Our Days (1964) by Pierre van Paassen (see pages 237, 238 about the Leo Frank case), links to original book scan are available above, Quote:

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

Please focus on the words "forced me into the track" and "opposite direction" and "My car was demolished" so that our shared understanding is clear that this was allegedly a head on collision.

So here we see a situation described where allegedly some unknown person forced Pierre van Paasen out of his lane which was going in one direction and into the opposing lane where he had a head on collision with a "fast moving street-car" coming from the other direction. Visualize that. Let's ask any physics professor or just use our basic common sense to determine whether or not someone could walk away without a scratch in such a head on collision, when we know in 1922 there were no safety features in such vehicles to speak of and at such a speed as ScepticWombat described above. Ponder it. For deniers that Pierre van Paasen's claim is in fact poppycock, perhaps I could sarcastically recommend we could ask 'myth busters' to slam two Model-T fords from 1922 into each other, head-on collision style, at their 1922 top speed, with crash test dummies inside of course. It would make a great video to publish on youtube, vimeo, daily motion and RationalWiki in an effort to debunk this tall tale. In fact even if they weren't going top speed, but half their top speed ("fast moving street-car", it is doubtful anyone would walk away from such a head on collision without a scratch, especially since "My car was demolished".

Now if we go by your claim ScepticWombat that the top speed of these street-cars at the time was 30mph and the two cars were both going 30mph or thereabout in a head on collision (compound the speeds), its quite doubtful anyone would "walk away" from the incident without a scratch in anything other than a body bag. In fact all of Pierre van Paassen's claims (2 pages) regarding the Leo Frank case are obviously preposterous, yet since 1964 every Leo Frank partisan author who wrote "non-fiction" books about the case has included this journalist-hoaxer's claims in their books without pointing out how obviously preposterous they truly are. In fact they present Pierre van Paassen's claims *as a part* of their central thesis that Leo Frank was wrongfully convicted. Notice the new keyword clarification "as a part" of their evidence, rather than their only evidence, or the "clincher".

This is not a red herring as you claim ScepticWombat, this is pseudo-science a total mockery of forensic science, physics, biology, and historical integrity, that since 1964, Harry Golden, Leonard Dinnerstein, Steve Oney, Elaine Marie Alphin -- all Leo Frank partisans -- use this as part of their books without pointing out clearly that it is undeniably a forensic pseudoscience that insults our intelligence. SissyMendelstein (talk) 08:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Apropos of Dendlai's penultimate comment, I guess we can add argumentum ad nauseam to the list along with red herring and so on and so forth. More the fool of me for allowing this sidetracking... And unlike SM's claim, it's quite clear from actually reading the original sources that neither author puts any emphasis on the dubious X-ray claims, but instead mention Van Paassen in the context of intimidation of those trying to question Frank's guilt, so I guess we're heading for an argument by assertion scenario too. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

ScepticWombat, are you able to comprehend that an obviously nonsensical series of falsehoods, lies, fabrications, exaggerations and pseudo-scientific claims professed by Pierre van Paassen about his alleged investigation into the Frank-Phagan affair circa 1922 are being used and cited by a life-long ivory tower academic, Leonard Dinnerstein, for both *specific* and *broad* context in his PhD Dissertation (1966) and also in his "non-fiction" book about the Leo Frank case (1968-2012)?

In a larger view are you able to comprehend this is not a red herring or isolated example, but that several separate "non-fiction" books written by different Leo Frank case revisionist, denialists and partisan authors since 1964 also use this Pierre van Paassen citation for both *specific* and *broad* context in their treatments to support the theory that Leo Frank was the victim of an injustice? Shall I list them? Shall we examine each one?

I've only just scratched the surface, this is just one of numerous different examples of how deception is used by Leo Frank's defenders. What I'm beginning to show by bring this forward is that the authors who attempt to rehabilitate Leo Frank are willing to use obviously spurious evidence to support their assertions. We can also see examples across the Internet of people who disagree with the theory that Leo Frank was wrongfully convicted are called pejoratives (just read this entire page carefully to see all the red herring ad hominem).

Specific Context:

In one instance, the *specific context* for Dinnerstein is the usage of this citation and quote to both present evidence of fearfulness by the Jewish community to discuss or bring up the subject of Leo Frank's guilt in the media. But the evidence Dinnerstein uses is self-evident as being counterfactual and he fails to make it absolutely clear, but instead uses vague language (see: Intellectual Dishonesty).

Broader Context:

Now, the broader context of the deceptive citation is that it tends to fallaciously sustain Dinnerstein's theory about Leo Frank being innocent and wrongfully convicted. Given Dinnerstein is familiar with the facts of the case, he would have known then that the passage is patently ludicrous and he has an obligation to disclose its preposterous nature with no ambiguity. It's unreasonable to think today readers are going to take out the time to hunt down an obscure book, written some 50 years ago by a long-dead journalist, then look up the reference and then fact check the citation claims. Most people do not know that you couldn't photograph bitemarks on skin with an x-ray machine in 1913 nor today 2015. Most people are not going to look up the 1,800 page Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court records, or 300+ page Leo Frank trial brief of evidence and read the autopsy reports of Mary Phagan to learn that there is no mention of bitemarks on her body. Dinnerstein having access to all the legal records and contemporary newspaper reports knows that none of the autopsy reports by physicians indicated bitemarks on Phagan's neck and shoulder.

Let's look at the subsection 'Intellectual Dishonesty' of the RationalWiki article http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty about Intellectual honesty.

Quote: "Intellectual dishonesty: Some intellectual dishonesty can be subtle. For example, relevant facts and information may be purposefully *omitted when such things contradict one's hypothesis*, or facts may be presented in a biased manner or twisted to give misleading impressions."

1. What is the hypothesis of Leonard Dinnerstein's PhD dissertation and book? What is the *broad context* of his works that he argues to defend? His central hypothesis is that Leo Frank was innocent, framed and wrongfully convicted, because of a number of sectarian societal factors, rumors, hearsay, anti-semitism, false evidence, and fallacious testimony. Is it not intellectually dishonest that Leonard Dinnerstein would, to make his point, the one you ScepticWombat claim above, by using such poppycock from a disreputable journalist, when Dinnerstein, familiar with the facts, would know Pierre van Paassen's statements are dishonest and misleading on their face? Dinnerstein clearly does not point out each and every abject absurdity of this "journalist's" claims is an "obvious omission when such things contradict one's hypothesis" (re: Intellectual dishonesty, *emphasis mine).

2. Does it not strike you concerning intellectual dishonesty that though the context of Dinnerstein using Pierre van Paassen's poppycock is to support his claim about fear of the Jewish community talking about the Frank case or bringing attention to it, but that the substance of the hoaxer's original claim in 1964 provides false evidence and fabrications that Leo Frank was innocent and wrongfully convicted, which is in accordance with Dinnerstein's central thesis? This is a clear example of academic dishonestly by an academic "facts may be presented in a biased manner or twisted to give misleading impressions."

3. Your claim this is a redherring or strawman is false, because since the ludicrous bamboozle was invented, then published by Pierre van Paasen in 1964, almost "non-fiction" book defending Leo Frank have cited this so called "journalist" to support their arguments in both narrow and broad context. Focus on the word both narrow and broad, because in each of these separate books they all share similar theories about Leo Frank's case being a miscarriage of justice. SissyMendelstein (talk) 03:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Jeez, you are a long-winded feller, ain't ya'? All your lumbering prose aside however, it would seem that your claim boils down to:

A) Van Paassen is a bad source.

B) Anyone using Van Paassen must have been doing so to deliberately mislead.

C) Any work citing Van Paassen can be discarded out of hand as a pseudo-academic hoax.

Not only does this ignore Hanlon's Razor, it also insists on a zero errors culture that is simply impracticable and unrealistic in academia. Furthermore, you rely on a guilt by association in which even peripheral citations of one bad source taints an entire work to the extent that it should be discarded, not only as bad academic craftsmanship, but as a deliberate hoax.

Arguably even worse is that your entire premise is flawed: Van Paassen's story of the supposed X-rays was not put forward by either Dinnerstein or Oney as key or even solid evidence for Frank's innocence as they both clearly hedged their references to either Van Paassen's story as "proving" Frank's innocence (Dinnerstein) or by hedging references to the X-rays (Oney). Instead, as I've already pointed out, both Dinnerstein and Oney used Van Paassen to illustrate the continuing hostility to any attempts at raising the Frank case in public which is reflected by neither author spending no more than 1-2 pages on it in works totalling 351 pages (Dinnerstein) or a whopping 781 pages (Oney) and Van Paassen's claims do not appear in either author's conclusion. This is clearly not the approach taken by authors setting out to deliberately mislead and the only one who seems to be taking Van Paassen's claims at face value appears to be you, SM, because, as I've already pointed out, you will look in vain for references to them at WP, for instance. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Leo Frank was NOT Exonerated verses he was Posthumously Pardoned without Officially Absolving him of his Guilt

SM is a weasel. This never happened: "Mona brought up a good point on my talk page about the Georgia Board of Paroles falsely claiming the records of the Leo Frank case were no longer in existence." I never remotely implied the Board said anything "falsely."

Look, SM, as you've been advised before: take you thesis to your sandbox or create a Leo Frank page at your user account page. Write whatever it is you find compelling and persuasive on this topic.

The community will find your product worth engaging and considering, or it won't. But there's nothing further to (re)discuss here.---Mona- (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

-Mona-, There is no "anyway". The complete text of what you wrote on my talk page pertaining to the topic of Leo Frank's 1986 posthumous pardon is:

" the State of Georgia in 1986 maintained Leo Frank's guilt" Apparently not. What it held was, per that other wiki: "It denied the pardon in 1983, hindered in its investigation by the lack of available records. It concluded that, 'After exhaustive review and many hours of deliberation, it is impossible to decide conclusively the guilt or innocence of Leo M. Frank. For the board to grant a pardon, the innocence of the subject must be shown conclusively.'" Anyway, you have to write more than a stub and can expect other editors to be checking both your fact claims and reasoning.---Mona- 25 November 2015

1. There were *two* legal petition on behalf of Leo Frank between 1982-1986. The first round, Georgia's Board of Pardon and Paroles was petitioned to *exonerate* Leo Frank in 1982, not just pardon him, it's a subtle detail worth mentioning. The exoneration petition was rejected in 1983 on a false pretext that the board was "hindered in its investigation by the lack of available records". The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles made a *false statement* about the "lack of records" when in fact both the Leo Frank trial brief of evidence (1913) https://archive.org/stream/LeoM.FrankPlaintiffInErrorVs.StateOfGeorgiaDefendantInError.In/BriefOfEvidence#page/n0/mode/2up and Leo Frank's Georgia Supreme Court Records https://archive.org/details/leo-frank-georgia-supreme-court-case-records-1913-1914 were in existence in their entirety up to the 1980s and they still exist today in 2015. So with 100% of the official 1913 - 1915 legal records available, saying there was a lack of records is a total falsehood. If you want to read the evidence that caused the jury to convict Leo Frank in 2 hours, after the longest and most expensive trial in Southern history at the time, then read the trial brief of evidence contained in the Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court Records, its only some 300 pages long. Also a jury doesn't convict someone on whim in 2 hours unless there is compelling evidence of their guilt.

Struggling With Leo Frank’s Lynching a Century Later, August 12, Atlanta Jewish Times, Quote" In 1983, after an elderly man who had worked at the factory as a boy came forward and implicated another worker at the plant, the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles rejected an appeal that Frank be exonerated, saying that his innocence could not be proved beyond a shadow of doubt." Read More http://atlantajewishtimes.com/2015/08/struggling-with-leo-franks-lynching-a-century-later/

Leo Frank's posthumous pardon in 1986, did NOT officially absolve him of his murder conviction. Leo Frank is still officially and legally guilty of murdering Mary Phagan. The default status of his guilt was maintained, so yes the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles did in fact maintain Leo Frank's guilt by leaving it undisturbed. If you have any doubts that Leo Frank's conviction status remains as guilty, you can call Rabbi Steven Lebow of Temple Kolemeth in Marietta, he has been trying to get Leo Frank officially exonerated for some 30 years. If you do a little search on the events surrounding Rabbi Steven Lebow and former Governor Roy Barnes, you will see that there is an effort in place right now to try and get Leo Frank officially exonerated of the crime. Do you understand now that the Pardon did not officially absolve Leo Frank of his guilt? Do you get that yet? Shall I dig up some articles about the efforts to get Leo Frank exonerated at the months surrounding the centennial of his lynching last summer?

Leo Frank Exoneration Memorial Service is Sunday, August 14, 2015. You got to check this one out: http://www.eastcobber.com/leo-frank-exoneration-memorial-service-is-sunday

Lawyers, Judges and a Rabbi Call on State to Exonerate Leo Frank, Katheryn Hayes Tucker, Daily Report, August 17, 2015, Read more: http://www.dailyreportonline.com/id=1202734899963/Lawyers-Judges-and-a-Rabbi-Call-on-State-to-Exonerate-Leo-Frank

Rabbi Steven Lebow 2015 national petition to get Leo Frank exonerated "Lynched in 1915, Exonerate Leo Frank!" "Please sign!" Please read: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/401/459/947/lynched-in-1915-exonerate-leo-frank/

A century after Jewish man's lynching, Georgia town unsettled, CBS News, August 16, 2015, "And on August 16, Lebow will lead a memorial service at which he and some current and former Georgia Supreme Court justices plan to call on state lawmakers to declare Frank's exoneration." Please read: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/leo-frank-jewish-man-lynching-marietta-georgia-unsettled-100-years/

Does it make sense to you -Mona- that leading political retirees in Georgia would be pursuing exoneration for Leo Frank, if his Posthumous Pardon already exonerated him of his guilt? Ponder that for a moment. Now, To recap. Do you want me to dig up more articles indicating that Leo Frank was not officially exonerated? or do you get it yet?

1. I'm here to tell you that the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles was false in stating there was a "lack of records", 100% of the trial brief and appeals records survived in their entirety.

2. Leo Frank was not officially exonerated of the phagan murder in 1986. He was not officially absolved of the murder, because the board stated they were not addressing the issue of his guilt or innocence. Leo Frank is still officially guilty under the law today. I don't know of any other way to state that to make it clear that his Pardon did not relieve him of his conviction or disturb his conviction of guilt. But if you have doubts about what I am saying please call Rabbi Steven Lebow, he's a nice guy who has studied the case for 30 years and he will glibly chew your ear off for hours about how Leo Frank was not officially exonerated. If you want a legal understanding of why Leo Frank was not pardoned, you can call former Georgia Governor Roy Barnes, a very nice man, who will glibbly nibble your ear off for hours about how Leo Frank was not officially exonerated. But hopefully the newspaper articles I provided made that clear.

3. Watch the 84 minute 2009 documentary about the Leo Frank case created by Ben Loeterman and Steve Oney. What are the last words of the documentary. "In 1986, The State of Georgia, Granted Leo Frank a Posthumous Pardon, But it did not exonerate him" Is that clear yet? See it with your own eyes https://youtu.be/F9fRs2xd890?t=1h20m55s

Regardless of any misunderstandings about what you or I believe, or not believe. Please, Just try to deal with the facts of this case without reverting to defeatist personal attacks or red herring ad hominem. So did I cut through the bullshit? Or do you need more evidence that Leo Frank was not officially exonerated? Do you need more evidence that he is officially still guilty? Do you need more evidence that the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles did not disturb his verdict of guilt? Do you want me to go 100 pages deep into google, bing and yahoo to provide you with articles indicating Leo Frank was is still guilty? Do you want me to go and get copies of "posthumous" pardon? SissyMendelstein (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

"The complete text of what you wrote on my talk page pertaining to the topic of Leo Frank's 1986 posthumous pardon is" Yes, and nowhere in that text did I state or remotely imply that the Board was false in its claims. You behave like either a nut or an antisemite with an idée fixe; possibly both. Go play in your user sandbox. I'm done with you.---Mona- (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

-Mona- I understood what you were saying then and I understand it now, comprehend that I used your misunderstanding as an opportunity to point out that your "apparently not" statement is understandably wrong (how could you be expected to know), because all of the official legal records of the Leo Frank case are available online at www.Archive.org the Internet Archive and at the Georgia Archives. Not only have all the legal records survived, but so have the newspaper reports that recorded the day by day trial questions and answers during direct and cross examination, they too are online at the Internet Archive. Do you finally understand what I am asserting now? The first Leo Frank petition in 1982 / 1983 was not a petition for a pardon, but for his FULL exoneration (it was rejected, second petition for a pardon was accepted without exonerating him). The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles made a false statement if they said "It denied the pardon [exoneration?] in 1983, hindered in its investigation by the lack of available records." I provided a link to the Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court records at IA, some 1,800 pages that contains Leo Frank's trial brief of evidence (300+ pages) and his state appeals to the Georgia Supreme Court in 1913 & 1914. There is *NO* lack of available records, 100% of the trial brief and appeals are available even today. Hopefully you understand now that Leo Frank was NOT exonerated of his guilt when he was posthumously pardoned in 1986. I'll presume now, that I don't need to go 100 pages deep into google, yahoo and bing, digging up articles proving the point that second petition (which succeeded) for a pardon of Leo Frank in 1986 did not officially absolve him of the murder he was convicted of in 1913 and that you understand he is still officially recognized as guilty today in 2015. Hopefully you get it now that their are still efforts underway 102 years later to get him fully exonerated, but those efforts have been rejected by the current Governor of Georgia, Nathan Deal, and the State Congress. Maybe the next Governor will take a different position. With enough behind the scenes wheeling and dealing, and political pressure, Leo Frank just might one day get exonerated by a corrupt Governor or Congress in GA. Keep your fingers crossed. SissyMendelstein (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)