Did Leo Frank Confess?

Did Leo Frank Confess? thumbnail

On the 99th anniversary of the verdict, we examine the murder of Mary Phagan and the trial of Leo Frank (Illustration: autopsy photo).

by Mark Cohen

THE CENTURY-OLD “cold case” Mary Phagan murder mystery — the violent rape and murder of teenager Mary Phagan and the subsequent lynching of the convicted killer, Jewish businessman Leo Frank — has now been conclusively solved by scholars using the extensive 1913 official investigation and trial records. In this once-in-a-lifetime event, the publishing, mass media, and academic establishments — who have for decades promoted the conspiracy theory that anti-Semites framed Frank for the crime because he was Jewish — have been proven to be wrong by the statements of Leo Frank himself.

Leo Frank

In addition to being an executive of Atlanta’s National Pencil Company, Leo Frank was also a B’nai B’rith official — president of the 500-member Gate City Lodge in 1912 — and even after his conviction and incarceration Frank was elected lodge president again in 1913. As a direct result of the Leo Frank conviction, the B’nai B’rith founded their well-known and politically powerful “Anti-Defamation League,” or ADL.

At the climax of the Leo Frank trial, an admission was made by the defendant that amounted to a confession during trial. How many times in the annals of US legal history has this happened? Something very unusual happened during the month-long People v. Leo M. Frank murder trial, held within Georgia’s Fulton County Superior Courthouse in the Summer of 1913. I’m going to show you evidence that Mr. Leo Max Frank inadvertently revealed the solution to the Mary Phagan murder mystery.

When Leo Frank mounted the witness stand on Monday afternoon, August 18, 1913, at 2:15 pm, he orally delivered an unsworn, four-hour, pre-written statement to the 250 people present.

The Leo Frank trial

Epic Trial of 20th Century Southern History

The audience sat in the grandstand seats of the most spectacular murder trial in the annals of Georgia history. Nestled deep within the pews of the Fulton County Superior Court were the luckiest of public spectators, defense and prosecution witnesses, journalists, officials, and courtroom staff.

Hugh M. Dorsey

Like gladiators in an arena, in the center of it all, with their backs to the audience, seated in ladder-back chairs, were the most important principals. They were the State of Georgia’s prosecution team, made up of three members, led by Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey and Frank Arthur Hooper. Arrayed against them were eight Leo Frank defense counselors, led by Luther Z. Rosser and Reuben Rose Arnold. The presiding judge, the Honorable Leonard Strickland Roan, sitting in a high-backed leather chair, was separated by the witness stand from the jury of 12 white men who were sworn to justly decide the fate of Leo Frank.

Crouched and sandwiched between the judge’s bench and the witness chair, sitting on the lip of the bench’s foot rail, was a stenographer capturing the examinations. Stenographers clicked away throughout the trial and were changed regularly in relays.

Reuben R. Arnold

Surrounding the four major defense and prosecution counselors were an entourage of uniformed police, plainclothes detectives, undercover armed security men, government staff, and magistrates.

The first day of the Leo Frank trial began on Monday morning, July 28, 1913, and led to many days of successively more horrifying revelations. But the most interesting day of the trial occurred three weeks later when Leo Frank sat down in the witness stand on Monday afternoon, August 18, 1913.

The Moment Everyone Was Waiting For

What Leo Frank had to say to the court became the spine-tingling climax of the most notorious criminal trial in US history, and it was the moment everyone in all of Georgia, especially Atlanta, had waited for.

Leo Frank posing for Collier’s Weekly. The photo would later become the front cover for the book The Truth About the Frank Case by C.P. Connolly. In the picture, the fingertips of Leo Frank’s left hand are firmly clasped around the base of a cigar, vertically projecting upward from his groin region. The significance of Leo Frank’s left fist would be revealed when the Mary Phagan autopsy, conducted on Monday, May 5, 1913, by Dr. H. F. Harris, was reported during the Leo Frank trial.

Judge Roan explained to the jury the unique circumstances and rules concerning the unsworn statement Leo M. Frank was to make. Then, at 2:14 pm, Leo Frank was called to speak. When he mounted the stand, a hush fell as 250 spellbound people closed ranks and leaned forward expectantly. They were more than just speechless: They were literally breathless, transfixed, sitting on the edges of their seats, waiting with great anticipation for every sentence, every word, that came forth from the mouth of Leo Frank.

But listening to his long speech became challenging at times. He had a reputation as a “gas jet” from his college days (see his college yearbook entry), and he lived up to it now with dense, mind-numbing verbiage.

Three Out of Nearly Four Hours: Distractions and Endless Pencil Calculations

To bring his major points home during his almost four-hour speech, Leo Frank presented original pages of his accounting books to the jury. For three hours he went over, in detail, the accounting computations he had made on the afternoon of April 26, 1913. This was meant to show the court that he had been far too busy to have murdered Mary Phagan on that day nearly 15 weeks before.

Leo Frank’s reputation as a “hot air artist” — and service as a debating coach — shown in his college yearbook entry

One point emphasized by the defense was how long it took Frank to do the accounting books: Was it an hour and a half as some said, or three hours? Can either answer ever be definitive, though? No matter how quickly one accountant works, is it beyond belief that another could be twice as fast?

The Ultimate Question Waiting to be Answered

Monteen Stover

The most important unanswered question in the minds of everyone at the trial was this: Where had Leo Frank gone between 12:05 pm and 12:10 pm on Saturday, April 26, 1913? This was the crucial question because Monteen Stover had testified she found Leo Frank’s office empty during this five-minute time segment – and Leo Frank had told police he never left his office during that time. And the evidence had already shown that Mary Phagan was murdered sometime between 12:05 and 12:15 pm in the Metal Room of the same factory where Leo Frank was present.

There weren’t a plethora of suspects in the building: April 26, 1913, was a state holiday in Georgia — Confederate Memorial Day — and the factory and offices were closed down, except for a few employees coming in to collect their pay and two men doing construction work on an upper floor.

Two investigators had testified that Leo Frank gave them the alibi that he had never left his office from noon until after 12:45. If Leo Frank’s alibi held up, then he couldn’t have killed Mary Phagan.

Everyone wanted to know how Leo Frank would respond to the contradictory testimony clashing with his alibi. And, after rambling about near-irrelevancies for hours, he did: Frank stated — in complete contradiction to his numerous earlier statements that he’d never left his office — that he might have “unconsciously” gone to the bathroom during that time — placing him in the only bathroom on that floor of the building, the Metal Room bathroom, which is where Jim Conley stated he had first found the lifeless body of little Mary Phagan, and immediately adjacent to the Metal Room proper, where Mary Phagan’s blood was found, and where the prosecution had spent weeks proving that the murder had actually taken place.

Paul Donehoo

This was doubly amazing because weeks earlier Leo Frank had emphatically told the seven-man panel led by Coroner Paul Donehoo at the Coroners Inquest, that he (Leo Frank) did not use the bathroom all day long — not that he (Leo Frank) had forgotten, but that he had not gone to the bathroom at all. The visually-blind but prodigious savant Coroner Paul Donehoo — with his highly-refined “B.S. detector” was incredulous as might be expected. Who doesn’t use the bathroom all day long? It was as if Leo Frank was mentally and physically, albeit crudely and unbelievably, trying to distance himself from the bathroom where Jim Conley said he found the body.

Furthermore, Leo Frank had told detective Harry Scott — witnessed by a police officer named Black — that he (Leo Frank) was in his office every minute from noon to half past noon, and in State’s Exhibit B (Frank’s stenographed statement to the police), Leo Frank never mentions a bathroom visit all day.

And now he had reversed himself!

Why would Leo Max Frank make such a startling admission, after spending months trying to distance himself from that part of the building at that precise time? That is a difficult question to answer, but there are clues. 1) The testimony of Monteen Stover (who liked Frank and who was actually a supportive character witness for him) that Frank was missing from his office for those crucial five minutes was convincing. Few could believe that Stover — looking to pick up her paycheck, and waiting five minutes in the office for an opportunity to do so — would have been satisfied with a cursory glance at the room and therefore somehow missed Frank behind the open safe door as he had alleged. 2) The evidence suggests that Frank did not always make rational decisions when under stress: Under questioning from investigators, he repeatedly changed the time at which Mary Phagan supposedly came to see him in his office (and State’s Exhibit B shows that Frank, in the presence of his lawyers, told police that Mary Phagan was in his office with him alone between 12:05 and 12:10 pm); he reportedly confessed his guilt to his wife the day of the murder; he, if guilty, reacted out of all proportion and reason to being spurned by his teenage employee; and he maintained the utterly unbelievable position throughout the case that he did not know Mary Phagan by name, despite indisputably knowing her initials (he wrote them on the company books by hand) and interacting with her hundreds of times.

Mary Phagan

Frank had also said (to paraphrase his statement before the racial angle had been brought forward by his defense team) that to the best of his recollection when he was in his second floor office from 12:00 to 12:45 pm, aside from temporary visitors, the only other people continuously in the building he was aware of were Mr. White and Mr. Denham on the fourth floor, banging away and doing construction as they tore down a partition. That’s it, three people. One can understand investigators, after hearing Frank’s statement that there were only three people in the building, asking the question: If there are three people in the factory, and two of them didn’t do it, who is left?

Even if only one of these lapses is true as described, it is enough to show a pronounced lack of judgement on Frank’s part. A man with such impaired judgement may actually have been unable to see that by explaining away his previous untenable (and now exposed as false) position of “never leaving the office” with an “unconscious” bathroom visit, he was placing himself at the scene of the murder at the precise time of the murder. Thus are men who tell tales undone, even as they fall back upon a partial truth.

Georgia: Right to Refuse Oaths and Examination

Under the Georgia Code, Section 1036, the accused has the right to make an unsworn statement and, furthermore, to refuse to be examined or cross-examined at his trial. Leo Frank made the decision to make an unsworn statement and not allow examination or cross examination.

The law also did not permit Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey or his legal team to orally interpret or comment on the fact that Leo Frank was not making a statement sworn under oath at his own murder trial. The prosecution respected this rule.

The jury knew that Leo Frank had had months to carefully prepare his statement. But what was perhaps most damaging to Leo Frank’s credibility was the fact that every witness at the trial, regardless of whether they were testifying for the defense or prosecution, had been sworn, and therefore spoke under oath, and had been subject to cross-examination by the other side — except for Leo Frank. Thus it didn’t matter if the law prevented the prosecution from commenting on the fact Leo Frank had refused cross examination, opting instead to make an unsworn statement, because the jury could see that anyway. Making an unsworn statement and refusing to be examined does not prove that one is guilty, but it certainly raises eyebrows of doubt.

Leo Frank takes the stand

The South an “Honor Bound” Society

Could a sworn jury upholding its sacred duty question Leo Frank’s honor and integrity as a result of what Southerners likely perceived as his cowardly decision under Georgia Code, Section 1036? If so, greater weight would naturally be given to those witnesses who were sworn under oath and who contradicted Leo Frank’s unsworn alibis, allegations, and claims. It put the case under a new lens of the sworn versus the unsworn.

The average Southerner in 1913 was naturally asking the question: What white man would make an unsworn statement and not allow himself to be cross-examined at his own murder trial if he were truly innocent? Especially in light of the fact that the South was culturally white separatist — and two of the major material witnesses who spoke against Leo Frank were African-Americans, one claiming to be an accomplice after the fact turned accuser. In the Atlanta of 1913, African-Americans were perceived as second class citizens and less reliable than whites in terms of their capacity for telling the truth.

Today, we might ask: Why wouldn’t Leo Frank allow himself to be cross examined when he was trained in the art and science of debating during his high school senior year and all through his years in college, where he earned the rank of Cornell Congress Debate Team coach? (Pratt Institute Monthly, June, 1902; Cornellian, 1902 through 1906; Cornell Senior Class Book, 1906; Cornell University Alumni Dossier File on Leo Frank, retrieved 2012)

Odd Discrepancies

Newt Lee

Most Leo Frank partisan authors omit significant parts of the trial testimony of Newt Lee and Jim Conley from their retelling of the Leo Frank Case. Both of these black men, former National Pencil Company employees, made clearly damaging statements against Frank.

The evidence Newt Lee brought forward was circumstantial, but intriguing — and never quite adequately explained by Leo Frank then, or by his defenders now.

He stated that on Friday Evening, April 25, 1913, Frank made a request to him, Lee, that he report to work an hour early at 4:00 pm on Confederate Memorial Day, the next day. The stated reason was that Leo Frank had made a baseball game appointment with his brother-in-law, Mr. Ursenbach, a Gentile who was married to one of Frank’s wife Lucille’s older sisters. Leo Frank would eventually give two different reasons at different times as to why he canceled that appointment: 1) he had too much work to do, and 2) he was afraid of catching a cold.

Newt Lee’s normal expected time at the National Pencil Company factory on Saturdays was 5:00 pm sharp. Lee stated that when he arrived an hour early that fateful Saturday, Leo Frank had forgotten the change because he was in an excited state. Frank, he said, was unlike his normal calm, cool and collected “boss-man” self. Normally, if anything was out of order, Frank would command him, saying “Newt, step in here a minute” or the like. Instead, Frank burst out of his office, bustling frenetically towards Lee, who had arrived at the second floor lobby at 3:56 pm. Upon greeting each other, Frank requested that Lee go out on the town and “have a good time” for two hours and come back at 6:00 pm.

Because Leo Frank asked Newt Lee to come to work one hour early, Lee had lost that last nourishing hour of sleep one needs before waking up fully rejuvenated, so Lee requested of Frank that he allow him to take a nap in the Packing Room (adjacent to Leo Frank’s front office). But Frank re-asserted that Lee needed to go out and have a good time. Finally, Newt Lee acquiesced and left for two hours.

At trial, Frank would state that he sent Newt Lee out for two hours because he had work to do. When Lee came back, the double doors halfway up the staircase were locked – very unusual, as they had never had been locked before on Saturday afternoons. When Newt Lee unlocked the doors and went into Leo Frank’s office he witnessed his boss bungling and nearly fumbling the time sheet when trying to put a new one in the punch clock for the night watchman – Lee – to register.

The National Pencil Company building around 1913

It came out before the trial that Newt Lee had earlier been told by Leo Frank that it was a National Pencil Company policy that once the night watchman arrived at the factory – as Lee had the day of the murder at 4:00 pm – he was not permitted to leave the building under any circumstances until he handed over the reigns of security to the day watchman. Company security necessitated being cautious – poverty, and therefore theft, was rife in the South; there were fire risk hazards; and the critical factory machinery was worth a small fortune. Security was a matter of survival.

The two hour timetable rescheduling – the canceled ball game – the inexplicable sudden security rule waiver – the bumbling with a new time sheet – the locked double doors – and Frank’s suspiciously excited behavior: All were highlighted as suspicious by the prosecution, especially in light of the fact that the “murder notes” – found next to Mary Phagan’s head – physically described Newt Lee, even calling him “the night witch.” And, the prosecutor asked, why did Leo Frank later telephone Newt Lee, not once but two or more times, that evening at the factory?

A “Racist” Subplot?

The substance of what happened between Newt Lee (and janitor James “Jim” Conley – see below) and Leo Frank from April 26, 1913 onward is most often downplayed, censored, or distorted by partisans of Leo Frank.

From the testimony of these two African-American witnesses, we learn of an almost diabolic intrigue calculated to entrap the innocent night watchman Newt Lee. It would have been easy to convict a black man in the white separatist South of that time, where the ultimate crime was a black man having interracial sex with a white woman — to say nothing of committing battery, rape, strangulation, and mutilation upon her in a scenario right out of Psychopathia Sexualis.

Luther Z. Rosser, for the defense

The plot was exquisitely formulated for its intended audience, the twelve white men who would decide Leo Frank’s fate. It created two layers of African-Americans between Frank and the murder of Mary Phagan. It wouldn’t take the police long to realize Newt Lee didn’t commit the murder, and, since the death notes were written in dialect, it would leave the police hunting for another black murderer. As long as Jim Conley kept his mouth shut, he wouldn’t hang. So the whole plot rested on Jim Conley – and it took the police three weeks to crack him.

The ugly racial element of this defense ploy is rarely mentioned today. The fact that it was Leo Frank, a Jew (and generally considered white in the racial separatist Old South), who first tried to pin the rape and murder of Mary Phagan on the elderly, balding, and married African-American Newt Lee (who had no criminal record to boot) is not something that Frank partisans want to highlight. The Leo Frank cheering section also downplays the racial considerations that made Frank, when his first racially-tinged defense move failed and was abandoned, change course for the last time and formulate a new subplot to pin the crime on Jim Conley, the “accomplice after the fact.”

If events had played out as intended, there would have likely been one or two dead black men in the wake of the defense team’s intrigue.

Jim Conley knew too much. He admitted he had helped the real murderer, Leo Frank, clean up after the fact. To prevent Conley, through extreme fear, from revealing any more about the real solution to the crime, and to discredit him no matter what he did, a new theory was needed. Jim Conley certainly was scared beyond comprehension, knowing what white society did to black men who beat, raped, and strangled white girls.

The Accuser Becomes the Accused

Jim Conley

The new murder theory posited by the Leo Frank defense was that Jim Conley assaulted Mary Phagan as she walked down the stairs from Leo Frank’s office. Once Phagan descended to the first floor lobby, they said, she was robbed, then thrown down 14 feet to the basement through the two-foot by two-foot scuttle hole at the side of the elevator. Conley then supposedly went through the scuttle hole himself, climbing down the ladder, dragged the unconscious Mary Phagan to the garbage dumping ground in front of the cellar incinerator (known as the “furnace”), where he then raped and strangled her.

But this grotesque racially-tinged framing was to fail in the end — in part because because physicians noticed that the scratch marks on Mary Phagan’s face — she had been dragged face down in the basement — did not bleed, strongly suggesting she was already quite dead when the dragging took place.

Investigators arranged for a conversation to take place between Leo Frank and Newt Lee, who were intentionally put alone together in a police interrogation room at the Atlanta Police Station. The experiment was to see how Frank would interact with Lee and determine if any new information could be obtained.

Once they thought they were alone, Leo Frank scolded Newt Lee for trying to talk about the murder of Mary Phagan, and said that if Lee kept up that kind of talk, Frank and he would go straight to hell.

Leo Frank in the courtroom; his wife Lucille Frank behind him

Star Witnesses

The Jewish community has crystallized around the notion that Jim Conley was the star witness at the trial, and not 14-year-old Monteen Stover who defended Leo Frank’s character — and then inadvertently broke his alibi.

Leo Frank partisans downplay the significance of Monteen Stover’s trial testimony and Leo Frank’s attempted rebuttal of her testimony on August 18, 1913. Governor John M. Slaton also ignored the Stover-Frank incident in his 29-page commutation order of June 21, 1915.

Many Frank partisans have chosen to obscure the significance of Monteen Stover by putting all the focus on Jim Conley, and then claiming that without Jim Conley there would have been no conviction of Leo Frank.

Could they be right? Or could Leo Frank have been convicted on the testimony of Monteen Stover, without the testimony of Jim Conley?

It is a question left for speculation only, because no one ever anticipated the significance of Jim Conley telling the jury that he had found Mary Phagan dead in the Metal Room bathroom.

It was not until Leo Frank gave his response to Monteen Stover’s testimony – his explanation of why his second floor business office was empty on April 26, 1913 between 12:05 pm and 12:10 pm – that everything came together tight and narrow.

Tom Watson resolved the “no conviction without Conley” controversy in the September 1915 number of his Watson’s Magazine, but perhaps it is time for a 21st century explanation to make it clear why even the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that the evidence and testimony of the trial sustained Frank’s conviction.

August 18, 1913: You Are the Jury

The four-hour-long unsworn statement of Leo Frank was the crescendo of the trial. (Later, just before closing arguments, Frank himself was allowed the last word. He spoke once more on his own behalf, unsworn this time also, for five minutes, denying the testimony of others that he had known Mary Phagan by name and that he had gone into the dressing room for presumably immoral purposes with one of the company’s other employees.)

The jury that convicted Leo Frank

Three Confessions

It is important to understand that Leo Frank’s startling admission of his presence in the death room at the critical moment did not stand alone in the jury’s eyes. Conclusive as it was, it was not Frank’s only confession.

The official record shows Leo Frank confessed to murdering Mary Phagan three times, though he would deny all three.

James Conley

• Confession Number One — April 26, 1913: Leo Frank’s murder confession number one was made to Jim Conley when Leo Frank told him he had tried to “be with her” (have sexual intercourse with Mary Phagan) and she refused him. According to Conley, Frank then stated he had hit her, knocking her down, then adding “I guess I struck her too hard and she fell and hit her head against something.” Some of Mary Phagan’s bloody hair was discovered on Monday, April 28, 1913, by Robert P. Barret on the handle of a lathe in the second floor Metal Room.

• Confession Number Two — April 26, 1913: According to the McKnight family, Leo Frank confessed to murdering Mary Phagan to his wife Lucille Selig Frank on the evening of April 26, 1913, at around 10:30 pm, saying to his wife that he didn’t know why he would murder — and asking his wife for his pistol so he could shoot himself. Lucille reportedly told her family, and her household cook and cleaning lady Minola McKnight, about what happened that evening. Minola McKnight told her husband Albert McKnight, and full documentation can be found in State’s Exhibit J (see the Appendix to this article). Decades later, Lucille Selig Frank refused to be buried in the Frank family plot next to her husband, leaving explicit instructions to the contrary.

• Leo Frank Murder Confession Number Three — August 18, 1913: This is the “unconscious bathroom visit” statement delivered by Frank to the court in his unsworn statement, placing him unequivocally at the murder scene at the critical time. Frank would also reaffirm this admission in a newspaper interview published by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on March 9th, 1914.

With Mercy — or Without?

Judge Leonard Strickland Roan gave the jury two options if they found Leo Frank guilty of the crime of murder: ‘With Mercy’ or ‘Without Mercy.’ If there was any doubt of Leo M. Frank’s guilt, the judge and jury could have sentenced him to life in prison instead of sentencing him to death by hanging. When the jury unanimously sentenced Leo Frank to death by hanging after deciding on a verdict of guilt, Judge Roan had the legal option to downgrade the jury’s death sentence, and only give Leo Frank life in prison – that is, if Roan disagreed with the judgement. But Judge Roan agreed with their collective verdict and recommendation.

Judge Leonard Strickland Roan

Many in the Jewish community, and other Leo Frank partisans, have suggested that Judge Roan doubted the verdict because of one of his apparently appeasing comments made orally to his former law partner, Luther Rosser. But if Roan actually doubted the verdict, he could have exercised his power many times to prevent Frank’s execution, and even given him a new trial if that would have served the cause of justice. But he did none of these things.

You are Hereby Sentenced to Hang on April 17, 1914; Happy Birthday

Certainty of Leo Frank’s guilt was so strong that — after reviewing his trial testimony for months, and after the Georgia Supreme Court’s majority decision upheld Leo Frank’s conviction and the fairness of his trial — Judge Benjamin Hill, on March 7, 1914, sentenced him to die on his 30th birthday: April 17, 1914.

Only absolute mathematical certainty of guilt warrants such a cruel sentencing date by a judge.

* * *

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

Appendix: Essential Reading

To gain a full understanding of the Leo Frank case, and the tissue-thin “anti-Semitic conspiracy” theories advanced by the media today, it is necessary to read the official record without censorship or selective editing by partisans. Here are the resources which will enable you to do just that.

Leo M. Frank Brief of Evidence, Murder Trial Testimony and Affidavits, 1913

• Leo M. Frank unsworn trial statement (BOE, Leo Frank Trial Statement, August 18, 1913)

• Leo Frank trial, State’s Exhibit B

Original State’s Exhibit B:

Part 1 – http://www.leofrank.org/images/georgia-supreme-court-case-files/2/0061.jpg

Part 2 – http://www.leofrank.org/images/georgia-supreme-court-case-files/2/0062.jpg

Complete Analysis of State’s Exhibit B (required reading): The full review of State’s Exhibit B

• Leo Frank Case files from the Georgia Supreme Court, Adobe PDF format: http://www.leofrank.org/library/georgia-archives/

Atlanta Constitution issue of March 9, 1914 (Leo Frank Answers List of Questions Bearing on Points Made Against Him, March 9, 1914)

• Compare the analysis of the bathroom statement by reading: Argument of Hugh M. Dorsey, followed by Argument of Mr. Frank Hooper — also compare with Tom Watson’s version

• Minola McKnight statement (Minola Mcknight, State’s Exhibit J, June 3, 1913) and cremation request in the 1954 Notarized Last Will and Testament of Lucille Selig Frank

• 2D and 3D National Pencil Company floor diagrams

The National Pencil Company in 3 Dimensions

3-Dimensional Floor Plan of the National Pencil Company in 1913: http://www.leofrank.org/images/georgia-supreme-court-case-files/2/0060.jpg.

The Defendant Leo Frank’s Factory Diagrams Made on His Behalf:

2-Dimensional Floor Plan of the National Pencil Company in 1913. Defendants Exhibit 61, Ground Floor and Second Floor 2D Birds Eye View Maps of the National Pencil Company: http://www.leofrank.org/images/georgia-supreme-court-case-files/2/0125.jpg. Plat of the First and Second Floor of the National Pencil Company.

1. State’s Exhibit A (Small Image) or State’s Exhibit A (Large Image).

2. Different Version: Side view of the factory diagram showing the front half of the factory

3. Bert Green Diagram of the National Pencil Company

• James “Jim” Conley’s testimony (James Conley, Brief of Evidence, August, 4, 5, 6, 1913)

• Staged late defense version of events

• The Jeffersonian Newspaper 1914-1917 and Watson’s Magazine (August and September, 1915) series on the case

• Defense and prosecution both ratify the original Brief of Evidence: 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

John Davison Lawson’s American State Trials 1918, Volume X

• Mary Phagan Kean’s analysis of the Leo Frank Case: The Murder of Little Mary Phagan

State’s Exhibit A

 

Related Articles:

3 thoughts on “Did Leo Frank Confess?

  1. A thoroughly insightful analysis of the Leo Frank Case, used by the Jewish community for the last 100 years as a social, political and cultural weapon against European-Americans. I hope more people will discuss this case in 2013, and 2015, during the years surrounding the double centennial.

    http://www.LeoFrank.org

  2. 100 Years Ago Today: The Trial of Leo Frank Begins
    https://theamericanmercury.org/2013/07/100-years-ago-today-the-trial-of-leo-frank-begins/

    Leo Frank Trial Week One
    https://theamericanmercury.org/2013/08/the-leo-frank-trial-week-one/

    Leo Frank Trial Week Two
    https://theamericanmercury.org/2013/08/the-leo-frank-trial-week-two/

    One Hundred Years Ago Leo Frank Mounts the Witness Stand
    https://theamericanmercury.org/2013/08/100-years-ago-today-leo-frank-takes-the-stand

    Leo Frank Trial Week Three
    https://theamericanmercury.org/2013/08/the-leo-frank-trial-week-three/

    Leo Frank Trial Week Four
    https://theamericanmercury.org/2013/09/the-leo-frank-trial-week-four/

    Leo Frank Trial Closing Arguments: Luther Rosser, Reuben Arnold and Frank Hooper
    https://theamericanmercury.org/2013/10/the-leo-frank-trial-closing-arguments-of-hooper-arnold-and-rosser/

    Closing Arguments of Prosecutor Hugh Dorsey at the Leo Frank Trial
    https://theamericanmercury.org/2013/12/the-leo-frank-trial-closing-arguments-solicitor-dorsey/

    One Hundred Reasons Leo Frank is Guilty
    https://theamericanmercury.org/2013/04/100-reasons-proving-leo-frank-is-guilty/

    Anti-Defamation League: One Hundred Years of Jewish Hate, October 1913 – 2013
    https://theamericanmercury.org/2013/10/adl-100-years-of-hate/

    Professor Emeritus of Judaic Studies: Leonard Dinnerstein’s Pseudo-history About the Leo Frank Case
    https://theamericanmercury.org/2012/10/the-leo-frank-case-a-pseudo-history/

    Review of Tabloid Style Journalist Steve Oney’s the Dead Shall Rise: Who Really Solved the Mary Phagan Murder Case?
    https://theamericanmercury.org/2012/10/who-really-solved-the-mary-phagan-murder-case/

    Did Leo Frank Confess to the Murder of Mary Phagan?
    https://theamericanmercury.org/2012/09/did-leo-frank-confess/

    Atlanta Constitution Newspaper (1913 – 1915):
    http://archive.org/details/LeoFrankCaseInTheAtlantaConstitutionNewspaper1913To1915

    Atlanta Georgian Newspaper (April – August, 1913):
    http://archive.org/details/AtlantaGeorgianNewspaperAprilToAugust1913

    Atlanta Journal Newspaper (April – August, 1913):
    http://archive.org/details/AtlantaJournalApril281913toAugust311913

  3. Hi,
    Ask the ADL if Harvey Weinstein was innocent?
    ON JEWS AND SHIKSAS

    Let me cut right to the chase: The title for this essay should really be “The Specifically Jewy Perviness of Harvey Weinstein,” which, as luck would have it, is in fact the title of a short entry by Jewish writer Max Oppenheimer in the very Jewish magazine Tablet. This Jewish writer opines that “Harvey, sadly, is a deeply Jewish kind of pervert.”
    Okay, I’m good with that. It fits the facts.

    What is this “perversion”?
    Well, Herr Oppenheimer kindly explains how it is common for Jewish men to lust after women with a “non-Jewish origin,” or, to be more specific, White non-Jewish women. As Oppenheimer writes about the targets of Weinstein’s lust,

    “It goes without saying that nearly every one of these women — Rose McGowan, Ambra Batillana, Laura Madden, Ashley Judd, etc. — was a Gentile, all the better to feed Weinstein’s revenge-tinged fantasy . . .”

    Now what’s all this talk about revenge? And what does that have to do with non-Jewish women? To unpack all of this, I’m going to have to go back in literary history to a Jewish American writer few of my readers under age forty (or fifty?) will even know: Philip Roth.

    Needless to say, Oppenheimer knows this history, which is why he employs the following subtitle to his piece:

    “The disgraced film producer is a character straight out of Philip Roth, playing out his revenge fantasies on the Goyim.”

    Before visiting what Roth has written, however, I must offer a brief description of the word “shiksa” and its manifestation in American film.

    THE SHIKSA
    Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary (1994) defines shiksa as:
    n. Yiddish 1. A girl or woman who is not Jewish. 2. A Jewish girl or woman whose attitudes and behavior are felt to resemble those of a gentile. Cf. shegetz.

    If only it were that simple. As it turns out, there is a far deeper, darker meaning to the term. For instance, Rabbi Daniel Gordis, in the glossary of his book Does the World Need the Jews? mentions the word’s pejorative roots:

    “shiksah — a Yiddish word for a non-Jewish woman, which has a terribly derogatory connotation.” Orthodox Jew Yossi Klein Halevi concurs, writing in his book Memoirs of a Jewish Extremist that shiksa is a “nasty Yiddish word implying ‘slut.’”

    Author David Brenner and Leo Rosten (in his popular The Joys of Yiddish) both agree that the word means “blemish.”

    Perhaps it is the late Israel Shahak, however, who best explains the word’s true meaning. In his important work, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, the Weight of 3000 Years (get the pdf of the book here), Shahak notes that the Megiddo Modern Hebrew-English Dictionary, published in Israel, defines the word as:

    “unclean animal; loathsome creature, abomination . . .”

    Now, do any of you recall the way Woody Allen pokes fun at psychoanalysts in the film Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Sex? It seems a man in the film is quite enamoured of his sexual relationship with a sheep. Thus, there may be two levels of humour at work here: the surface level where comic discrepancy is obvious (sex with a sheep vs. shiksa), but also the intimately Jewish one where only one schooled in Hebrew or Yiddish might connect the animal to Shahak’s etymology of the word shiksa.

    In fact, this likely explains the scene in the film where the psychoanalyst, played by Gene Wilder (yes, he’s Jewish) has an Armenian patient who confesses to sex with a ewe named Daisy. Watch that scene. Now, armed with the above knowledge, you may see why Wilder is about to burst out laughing. We can assume the inside Jewish word joke is part of it, but there is also the humour that likely comes from once again “pulling one over on the goyim,” who will miss the entire subtext of the (Jewish) joke — all at the expense of us goyim.

    (The theme appears again in the movie in the scene featuring a rabbi “whose secret fantasy is to be whipped by a statuesque shiksa while his wife eats pork.” If you’re confused by all these images, be patient, for we’ll get to detailed explanations soon.)

    Because Hollywood is certainly a Jewish milieu, scores of films are filled with shiksa themes large and small, and Woody Allen is just one Jew who mines the theme. There are many others. In the breakthrough film Lenny (1974), for example, a film starring Jewish actor Dustin Hoffman as renegade comedian Lenny Bruce (born Leonard Schneider), we see the quintessential shiksa lust scene: Bruce bursts into a room, intent on meeting his blonde girlfriend, and is stunned to see her posing naked for him. Transfixed, he quivers and intones, “Oh yeah. Oh yeah. It’s a shiksa goddess.” (By the way, Wiki tells us that “Lenny has received a rare ‘100% Fresh’ score on the review aggregate website Rotten Tomatoes based on 16 reviews.”)

    There are any number of useful books on Jews and Jewish themes in Hollywood film, beginning with Patricia Erens’ The Jew in American Cinema. As one example of the shiksa theme, she points to the 1963 film Come Blow Your Horn as a typical specimen of Jewish men’s yearning for the shiksa, or, in Erens’s words,

    “the Jewish male’s search for sexual fulfillment, especially among large-breasted flighty Gentile women.”

    In this movie,

    “Alan and Buddy seek a carnal experience which they associate with the Shiksa. For them this provides a measure of independence, as well as acceptance in non-Jewish society.”

    The shiksa theme, then, can be viewed from a variety of angles. Within an exclusively Jewish setting, it can be seen as a discourse on the limits Jewish culture sets for its adherents: it is taboo for males to go outside the group for sex or for mating. Perhaps no one has understood the deep roots of this discourse and their lamentable influence on American culture better than sociologist John Murray Cuddihy, author of the seminal 1974 work The Ordeal of Civility: Freud, Marx, Lévi-Strauss and the Jewish Struggle with Modernity, a book I would only recommend to the most serious scholars of The Jewish Question.

    In tandem with what Erens writes, Cuddihy agrees that shiksa lust represents an internal Jewish drama: the lure of the non-Jewish women is always threatening to tear the Jewish male away from his own tribe. Cuddihy, however, takes this further, writing that:

    In Freud, the deepest taboo of Judaism, the taboo against intermarriage, the forbidden lust of the Jew for the Gentile shiksa, for the shiksa as “the promise of fulfillment,” is rationalized, psychologized, and reinterpreted as the desire for the mother, which desire” he continues, “is held taboo by everyone, of course, not just by Jews.” The particularist, ritual taboo of the Jewish subculture — intermarriage, connubium — is reconceptualized (and psychologized) as the universalist, “scientific,” anthropological taboo on incest.”

    Of course, since Freud’s ideas had their popular impact during “The Jewish Century,” his bizarre theories were imposed on an unwitting American public, which suffered for decades from this Jewish assault. (For more on this, see MacDonald’s Culture of Critique, Chapter 4, “Jewish Involvement In The Psychoanalytic Movement.”) Our point, here, however, is to introduce the theme of the shiksa to a wider Gentile public and to tie it into the current uproar over Harvey Weinstein’s case. And that finally leads us to that most Jewish of authors, Philip Roth.

    That “Informer to the Goyim,” Philip Roth

    Roth began writing in the midst of what we can think of as the “Jewish American literary onslaught,” as Jews practically took over publishing fiction in America, and Jewish authors shouldered aside non-Jewish writers. Any English student at an American university from 1970–2000 or so would be familiar with the names: Abraham Cahan, Isaac Bashevis Singer, Joseph Brodsky, Henry Roth, Bernard Malamud, Chaim Potok, Saul Bellow, E.L. Doctorow, J.D. Salinger (half), Norman Mailer, Susan Sontag (“Goys are the cancer of human history”), Erika Jong, Cynthia Ozick and so many others.

    Roth came to the fore with the publication of his 1959 novel Goodbye, Columbus, an autobiographically humorous look at Jewish life in the greater New York area. It was with Portnoy’s Complaint, however, written a decade later, that Roth gained stardom. In synch with the times, this novel shocked the elders of that era, including many older Jews, for Roth was explicitly revealing to the goyim many of the negative traits commonly found among American Jews. He was also revealing many of the negative attitudes Jews held with respect to their goy countrymen, an offense which prompted John Cuddihy to label Roth an “informer to the goyim.”

    Portnoy’s Complaint is, in so many ways, the story of Roth himself, a tactic which became his trademark. Wiki notes that the book amounts to a “humorous and sexually explicit psychoanalytical monologue of ‘a lust-ridden, mother-addicted young Jewish bachelor,’ filled with ‘intimate, shameful detail, and coarse, abusive language.’” And that it is.

    For example — and central to our purposes in this essay — protagonist Alexander Portnoy chronicles his sexual escapades with his shiksa sex object, whom he cruelly nicknames “The Monkey.” Throughout the novel, Roth describes how Portnoy humiliates this Christian girl with all manner of explicit sexual acts. Roth’s characterization of Portnoy’s vicious contempt for “The Monkey” represents perfectly the easily established hostility American Jews hold for the Christian majority.
    Consider this long passage Roth wrote that describes the depth of longing for a non-Jewish girl. At this point in the story, it is not particularly hostile, but it does give us a stunningly frank insider description of Jewish male attitudes:

    Shikses! In winter, when the polio germs are hibernating and I can bank upon surviving outside of an iron lung until the end of the school year, I ice-skate on the lake in Irvington Park. . . . I skate round and round in circles behind the shikses who live in Irvington. . . But the shikses, ah, the shikses are something else again. Between the smell of damp sawdust and wet wool in the overheated boathouse, and the sight of their fresh cold blond hair spilling out of their kerchiefs and caps, I am ecstatic. Amidst these flushed and giggling girls, I lace up my skates with weak, trembling fingers, and then out into the cold and after them I move, down the wooden gangplank on my toes and off onto the ice behind a fluttering covey of them — a nosegay of shikses, a garland of gentile girls. I am so awed that I am in a state of desire beyond a hard-on. My circumcised little dong is simply shriveled up with veneration. . . . How do they get so gorgeous, so healthy, so blond? My contempt for what they believe in is more than neutralized by my adoration of the way they look, the way they move and laugh and speak — the lives they must lead behind those goyische curtains! Maybe a pride of shikses is more like it . . .
    So: dusk on the frozen lake of a city park, skating behind the puffy red earmuffs and the fluttering yellow ringlet of a strange shikse teaches me the meaning of the word longing. It is almost more than an angry thirteen-year-old little Jewish Momma’s Boy can bear. Forgive the luxuriating, but these are probably the most poignant hours of my life I’m talking about — I learn the meaning of the word longing, I learn the meaning of the word pang. There go the darling things dashing up the embankment, clattering along the shoveled walk between the evergreens . . . I want Jane Powell too, God damn it! And Corliss and Veronica. I too want to be the boyfriend of Debbie Reynolds — it’s the Eddie Fisher in me coming out, that’s all, the longing in all us swarthy Jewboys for those bland blond exotics called shikses . . .

    In a later scene, however, the brilliant Portnoy, having just recited a famous poem, reveals to his blonde lover (“The Monkey”) the name of the poet — William Butler Yeats — but immediately realizes:

    “how tactless I had been, with what insensitivity I had drawn attention to the chasm: I am smart and you are dumb . . .”

    Later, Portnoy happens upon a note she has written and responds:

    “I am just face to face with my first specimen of The Monkey’s handwriting. A note to the cleaning lady. Though at first glance I imagine it must be a note from the cleaning lady . . .”
    dir willa polish the flor by bathrum pleze & dont furget the insies of windose mary jane r
    Portnoy reads the note three times, finding new meaning with each reading, the most significant of which he describes:

    Oh that z, that z between the two e’s of “pleze” — this is a mind with the depths of a movie marquee! And “furget”! Exactly how a prostitute would misspell that word! But it’s something about the mangling of “dear,” that tender syllable of affection now collapsed into three lower-case letters, that strikes me as hopelessly pathetic. . . . This woman is ineducable and beyond reclamation.

    Despite this contempt — or perhaps because of it — Portnoy continues his sexual relationship with his shiksa, “The Monkey.”

    Was this at all motivated by revenge fantasies, though? In fact, it becomes easy to argue that it is because Roth himself tells us so. In passages related to the Quiz Show scandal of the 50s, the author inserts a scene into the book that portrays a naked, viscerally anti-goy animus:

    I was on the staff of the House subcommittee investigating the television scandals. . . . and then of course that extra bonus, Charlatan Van Doren. Such character, such brains and breeding, that candor and schoolboyish charm — the ur-WASP, wouldn’t you say? And turns out he’s a fake. Well, what do you know about that, Gentile America? Supergoy, a gonif! Steals money. Covets money. Wants money, will do anything for it. Goodness gracious me, almost as bad as Jews — you sanctimonious WASPs!

    Yes, I was one happy yiddel down there in Washington, a little Stern gang of my own, busily exploding Charlie’s honor and integrity, while simultaneously becoming lover to that aristocratic Yankee beauty whose forebears arrived on these shores in the seventeenth century. Phenomenon known as Hating Your Goy and Eating One Too.

    Did you get that last line? “Hating Your Goy and Eating One Too.” Harvey Weinstein, is that how you also felt? Is that why Max Oppenheimer writes,

    “The disgraced film producer [Weinstein] is a character straight out of Philip Roth, playing out his revenge fantasies on the Goyim”?

    If you are still not convinced Roth’s character Portnoy is filled with revenge fantasies, then consider Portnoy’s telling confession to his psychiatrist in another scene.

    “What I’m saying, Doctor, is that I don’t seem to stick my dick up these girls, as much as I stick it up their backgrounds — as though through fucking I will discover America. Conquer American — maybe that’s more like it.”

    Quite frankly, I think readers should copy these quotes and share them with any friends or family willing to listen. Then talk about the Weinstein article. Show them Max Oppenheimer’s piece, too. Try to explain this Jewish mentality to them. Though you need not necessarily mention it explicitly, try to get across the message that Jews constitute much of the elite in this country — and many of those Jews are hostile toward the people they rule — hostile toward us. This goes a long way toward explaining our current situation, I maintain.

    This theme of Jewish men lusting after and abusing shiksas is in the news now but it deserves attention on its own anyway. Thus, I plan to do two or three more essays in this series to further explore the topic. For instance, I’ll take an in-depth look at how Dustin Hoffman often plays a character with a shiksa love interest, beginning with that blatantly Jewish film The Graduate. I will also look at Ben Stiller films as well, and then possibly move on to examples from television.

    This is the kind of stuff we should be learning in graduate seminars, but instead most students are learning harmful nonsense about “White male privilege,” tranny rights, and the sorrows of Sitting Bull and such. Nothing about Jewish power and privilege, let alone the deeper attitudes Jews hold toward the vast non-Jewish world they rule over.
    Stay tuned.

    PS:
    I can’t help but add one peeve I have had ever since reading “Portnoy’s Complaint” years ago:

    Why didn’t the objects of Roth’s scorn rise up and crush the assailant?

    Why did those Baby Boomers think the whole thing was just one fine joke?

    “Oh, how clever!” they would say.

    “Oh, how naughty!”

    Those Boomers back then should have known that this literary assault was part and parcel of the Jewish assault on all parts of Western civilization. Now we who have inherited this fallen world must deal with the consequences, with the Harvey Weinsteins and their ilk.

    Thanks, Boomers.

    SOURCE:
    Edmund Connelly, Ph. D.

    THE JEWISH TALMUD IS THE HEART’S BLOOD OF THE JEWISH RELIGION

    “The Talmud is to this day the circulating heart’s blood of the Jewish religion. Whatever laws, customs or ceremonies we observe ~ whether we are Orthodox, Conservative, Reform or merely spasmodic sentimentalists ~ we follow the Talmud. It is our common law.” ~ Herman Wouk

    We will legally define the Talmud as the basis of the Israeli legal system. ~ Benjamin Netanyahu

    SANHEDRIN, 55b-55a:
    “What is meant by this? – Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that (2) What is the basis of their dispute? – Rab maintains that only he who is able to engage in sexual intercourse, may, as the passive subject of pederasty throw guilt (upon the actual offender); whilst he who is unable to engage in sexual intercourse cannot be a passive subject of pederasty (in that respect) (3). But Samuel maintains: Scriptures writes, (And thou shalt not lie with mankind) as with the lyings of a woman (4). It has been taught in accordance with Rab: Pederasty at the age of nine years and a day; (55a) (he) who commits bestiality, whether naturally or unnaturally: or a woman who causes herself to be bestiality abused, whether naturally or unnaturally, is liable to punishment (5).”

    KETHUBOTH, 11a-11b.
    “Rabba said, It means (5) this: When a grown up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this (6), it is as if one puts the finger in the eye (7), but when a small boy has intercourse with a grown up woman, he makes her as `a girl who is injured by a piece of wood’ “.
    (footnotes) “(5). Lit., `says’. (6) Lit., `here’, that is, less than three years old. (7) Tears come to the eyes again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years.”

    KETHUBOTH, 11a-11b.
    “Rab Judah said that Rab said: A small boy who has intercourse with a grown up woman makes her (as though she were ) injured by a piece of wood (1). Although the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act, nevertheless the woman is injured by it as by a piece of wood(a dildo).”
    (footnotes) “(1) Although the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act, nevertheless the woman is injured by it as by a piece of wood.”

    SANHEDRIN, 69b
    “Our rabbis taught: If a woman sported lewdly with her young son (a minor), and he committed the first stage of cohabitation with her, -Beth Shammai says, he thereby renders her unfit for the priesthood (1). Beth Hillel declares her fit…All agree that the connection of a boy nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not (2); their dispute refers only to one who is eight years old.

Leave a Reply to Leo Frank Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *