Talk:Leo Frank/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Orthodox versus Secular

The article states that Frank was nervous on being taken to the undertaker and that this nervousness counted against him. Frank was president of the Atlanta chapter of B'nai B'rith, and in those times that would make him Orthodox, no question about it. Therefore he could justifiably have been nervous on account of the fact that Jews are to avoid being in the presence of a dead body. If the police had compelled him to identify Phagan's body, he might not have been so nervous, but if they had offered him the choice, he may have been caught between a desire to be helpful and the requirement of his religion, hence his nervousness.

Secondly, if Frank was strictly Orthodox, what is he doing working on the Saturday Sabbath, and doubly worse, handling money (wages)? Both of these things violate Jewish law and there's no way Frank can be excused for not knowing. I don't know what any of this can add to the article, except as background information for readers of this Talk page. Akld guy (talk) 03:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall any sources mentioning which denomination he was, but if another user here knows and believes it's relevant to the article, then it might be worth considering. My initial impression, however, is that it's not important enough for the Wikipedia article as entire books on his case don't mention it. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

"[E]ntire books on his case don't mention it." My point exactly. People with no comprehension of Jewish law do not appreciate the subtleties that might have been at play in this case. Another example: Frank is said to have harrassed some of his female employees. If the behaviour of those women left a lot to be desired or the way they dressed was less than modest, it's entirely understandable that Frank may have remonstrated with them and made enemies who were quick to condemn his behaviour as 'harrassment'. Akld guy (talk) 03:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

While it's an interesting point, and it may well have played a role, we begin to get into WP:OR if we try to add our own analysis when no published sources address it specifically. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

See my disclaimer above that this is only background info for readers of this Talk page (unless someone can unearth something to cite). I'm well aware of what constitutes WP:OR, TYVM, and never for one moment suggested adding anything about this to the article. Akld guy (talk) 04:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

In that case, it more than likely won't be added to the article, but it is an interesting point for the purposes of this talk page. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

While the guidelines are that the talkpages of articles are for the development of the article rather than general discussion of the topic, Wikipedians are fairly tolerant, and will allow some general discussion. I don't think we should be encouraging it, though, on this topic, as it might invite further views and personal opinions, and inappropriate debates may arise. I suggest this conversation, along with any similar general or off-topic comments, be archived sooner rather than later. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Frank and his wife Lucille Selig were members of 'The Hebrew benevolent congregation' or 'The Temple' which was ultra reform Judaism. Rabbi David Marx moved service to Sunday and Yarmulke or other overt visceral symbols of Judaism were generally not mandated. There was a great degree of intermarriage between Jews and Gentiles in South. Lucille Selig's older sister Rosalind was married to Gentile Charles Ursenbach who had a baseball date with Leo Frank on the day of the murder. Frank cancelled that appointment according to his statement at the trial at around 1:30 p.m. When asked why, Frank gave two separate reasons at different times, 1) he didn't want to catch a cold, and later 2) he had too much work to do at his business office in the National Pencil Company. SmittyLiver (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@SmittyLiver: Please provide sources for each of the claims you just made. Thank you in advance. I would particularly appreciate references for the membership of the Temple that Frank attended and for the claim that Rabbi Marx moved service to Sundays. Akld guy (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I can give you three sources to pursue, The People v. Leo Frank by Ben Loeterman and Steven Oney is a docudrama about the case (oddly enough, even given its name, it leaves out the super majority of testimony at the trial). Another source is Professor Alan Koenigsberg of 'The Leo Frank Case' yahoo discussion group which is linked at the bottom of his site, best thing to do is email him or post on his discussion forum. You can also contact 'The Temple' in Atlanta and speak with someone who knows about their history. SmittyLiver (talk) 11:06, 5 September 2015

Docudramas do not meet Wikipedia's criteria as reliable sources, so the docudrama you cited is unacceptable. Even worse, that docudrama is blatantly antisemitic, as even the most cursory reading of the review at the site shows. The second source you cite is an online discussion group, and therefore also fails to meet Wikipedia's criteria. As it happens, I did find the Temple's site which states that Frank was a member. The site appears to meet WP's criteria and it may be possible to work the fact that Frank was a member into the Leo Frank article. I have not yet found anywhere a statement that Rabbi Marx set or shifted Sabbath service to Sundays, or that Frank eschewed Saturday Sabbath in favour of Sunday. So the question still is, why was Frank not only working but handling wage money on the Saturday? Perhaps the answer is that Frank regarded himself as a Jew only by birth and was to all other intents secular. We may never know. Akld guy (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

If you check closer, you will see that it is not the docudrama that is antisemitic but the review of it. In addition to recommending this antisemitic website, SmittyLiver also recommended a website by Alan Koenigsberg -- Koenigsberg is touted as "the World’s Foremost Expert on the Leo Frank Case” by the antisemitic website leofrank.org which also posts his article. Perhaps SmittyLiver can explain what Koenigsberg's qualifications are -- I couldn't find any publications on Frank by him other than this website. Unfortunately these types of websites have been promoted here for quite some time -- one of the leading proponents was recently blocked and two of his sock puppets, including one in the last few days, have also been blocked. It is sad to see another "new" user promoting the same material. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Akld guy: Ben Loeterman is Jewish-American film director-producer and journalist-author Steve Oney is married to a Jewess, so undoubtedly you are confusing the [http://www.amazon.com/The-People-Leo-Frank-Educational/product-reviews/1463107722/ref=cm_cr_dp_qt_hist_one?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar&showViewpoints=0 opposing film review from Amazon.com] with the philosemitic docudrama itself. The docudrama is not at all anti-semitic, but quite the opposite, it argues from a Southern Jewish perspective the South was and is overwhelmingly philosemitic. The film tends to argue that Jews prospered in the South and embraced Southern culture with pride. Speaking to the philosemitism of the South, census records from 1940s and backward have been released to the public on ancestry.com and you can see for yourself that the Jewish population in the South grew significantly from 1910 to 1920, and that fact also contradicts the erroneous claim in the Frank article that half of Georgia's 3,000 Jews left the state after Frank was lynched. There is no verifiable evidence to support the claim that a great number of Jews left Georgia at the conclusion of the Frank case. The leofrank.org alleging of "world's foremost expert" attributed to Dr. Alan Koenigsberg, he is a professor of the classics at Brooklyn College, in NYC and his Yahoo.com true crime forum is a great place to discuss about the Mary Phagan Leo Frank case, but you are correct under wiki criteria it's insufficient as a secondary source. I don't know of any publications by Professor Koenigsberg about the Frank case, but having corresponded with him he is definitely a living encyclopedia on the subject. Frank was definitely not secular, he was the 1912-1913 Atlanta president of the local 500 member Independent Order of B'nai B'rith (Gate City Lodge #144) and even after he was convicted of murder, he was unanimously re-elected president in September 1913 for the term of 1913 - 1914. Frank and his wife were members of 'The Temple' and generally attended service there every Sunday. He ran the affairs of Atlanta B'nai B'rith while in jail waiting on his appeals. SmittyLiver (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Slaton marker

User:DiscoTent added the text of a marker honoring Gov. Slaton that was installed earlier this year in this edit. It includes line breaks in the same locations that the actual marker does. While that makes it more realistic, it also adds a significant amount of white space on both sides. I revised this in this edit to significantly reduce white space and the number of lines in the paragraphs.

Feel free to post here if there is any support for the line break version. I think it's good to include the text as the two markers above it also include the text, but I don't want it to extraneously add to the article's length. Tonystewart14 (talk) 07:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 29 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Pretty clear consensus that the article should remain a biography and details significantly more than just his trial. Jenks24 (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Leo Frank → Trial of Leo Frank – The article is not about Leo Frank but an incident in which he was a central figure. Sources vary on which title they use, some use "Murder of Mary Phagan", which is the title of a two part TV docudrama: The Murder of Mary Phagan, others use Leo Frank's name in variety of titles: [http://www.amazon.com/An-Unspeakable-Crime-Prosecution-Persecution/dp/1467746304 The Prosecution and Persecution of Leo Frank], The Leo Frank Case, The Lynching of Leo Frank, The Leo Frank Trial, The Trial of Leo Frank, The Celebrated Case of Leo Frank, etc, some use both names: [http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Silent-Damned-Murder-Lynching/dp/081541188X The Murder of Mary Phagan and the Lynching of Leo Frank]. A Google search throws up a variety of titles, only one of which appears to use just the Leo Frank name - and that is our Wikipedia article. While the article gives some background info on Leo Frank, the main focus is on the murder, trial, and the aftermath - it is the event that is notable, not the person. Per WP:CRIME and WP:ONEEVENT we write about the event not the person, unless there is sufficient material to have a standalone article on an individual involved in the event, or if it is the person rather than the event that is notable. In this article it is clear that it is the event that is notable. WP:NCEVENTS gives some guidance on how to name an event article where there isn't an existing agreed name. As the main historical focus is on Frank Leo it would be inappropriate to name it just after Mary Phagan, though some consideration could be given to "Murder of Mary Phagan and trial of Leo Frank"; other possible titles include: "Trial of Leo Frank", "Leo Frank case", "Lynching of Leo Frank". I wanted to set up this discussion without a suggested name; however, experience has shown that without a suggested name folks may not end up agreeing on a name, and the default close would then be to the current title, so I have suggested what I feel is a neutral and factual title, and one which is used by a good number of sources. Other suggestions are welcome. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I'd like it to stay as "Leo Frank" because Frank is the reason this is not just another 100-year-old murder case, but one with implications of religious (Jewish vs Christian), regional (North vs South), and class (wealthy vs working class) prejudice. If Frank had not been Jewish, most of the works in the above argument would not have been published. Furthermore, the article covers more than just the case, including Frank's early life and recent scholarship and media based on the case. I have more discussion with the initiator of this move proposal in the GAN page here. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Other articles use the format of "Lynching of XXXX" (see Category:Lynching deaths in Maryland for examples). However, in this case the trial is also of importance. The Trial and lynching of Leo Frank seems a little long-winded, though, and the Murder of Mary Phagan and the trial and lynching of Leo Frank definitely is. I also recommend reading this discussion. —  AjaxSmack  15:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I did a quick look at individual cases starting with this Category:Lynching deaths in the United States -- there is no consistency that I could find. Of the cites provided by the originator of this proposal, WP:CRIME seems to be the most directly on point. It states:

Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies:

For victims, and those wrongly convicted of crime

1. The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role.

The condition does apply. Clearly Matthew Shepard is much more a one event person than Frank, yet the guideline uses him as an example of the case where an article on the individual is called for. I think Tony's argument makes the case of why Frank as an individual is significant. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support When Leo Frank is invoked in books, articles, tv, radio, conferences, memorials and Film it is most often in context of him having been, to paraphrase "falsely accused", "wrongfully convicted" and "wantonly murdered" and these things all happened primarily because of "Antisemitism" and other "sectarian divisions" of bias. His trial and lynching are the central pillars of his notability, the sex murder of Mary Phagan is an afterthought, the inconveniencing event that led to the "judicial persecution" of Frank. Other than Frank's trial for the murder of Phagan and his lynching caused by the outgoing Georgia Governor John Slaton (law partner of Luther Rosser) commuting his death sentence, he is not notable as a person. Frank's appeals to the Georgia Supreme Court are notable because they uncover the fact that Governor Slaton's law office was used in the subornation of perjury, but little mention of this exists in secondary sources. The Trial and Lynching of Leo Frank would be the most apropos name for the article. AviBoteach (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

This user is a sock of a banned user. Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Not a case of a person notable for a single issue. And if it were I am not sure it would be the trial. Having reread WP:1E, I am now even more sure that we need the article to be where it is. The policy gives the example of Rodney King - whose article is, and should be, located at Rodney King and not at "Beating of Rodney King", and the example of Howard Brennan. Additionally we have an entire series of articles on US lynching victims, most of whose articles are located at their names. There is simply no basis for moving this article to the proposed title.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose—Per Tom (North Shoreman) and snunɐɯ·. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: His lynching seems just as notable as his trial. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment proposal seems to me to be logical enough on the grounds of, arguably, adding precision to the title. I don't greatly see a problem re the lynching also being notable but wondered how parallel articles dealt with the same covered things. There is certainly a substantial number of articles starting with the wording "Trial of ..." GregKaye 17:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: I would support an article about Mary Phagan or the murder of, that would likely be opposed because her murder while horrible, is relegated to a section of another atrocious circumstance, but to try to be more concise with this title naming will not work. Otr500 (talk)
• Oppose: The proposer states that the article is not about Leo Frank but an incident in which he was a central figure. In fact, Frank's biographical details are present, at least as far as what is known of them, so it is a biography, one which rightly includes details of that incident. Also, keeping the 'Leo Frank' name makes it easier for readers to come straight to the article by typing or copy-pasting his name, whereas 'Trial of Leo Frank' introduces another level of input that intending readers can't be expected to know or guess at. They would most likely be forced to use a search engine to find the page. I sometimes wonder whether these move requests are put forth by search engine employees to generate search engine page views and thus generate advertising revenue. Let's keep it simple for the readers. Akld guy (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rewrite of the Lede

Based on the ongoing review, I suggest to rewrite the first part of the lede something like this:

Leo Max Frank (April 17, 1884 – August 17, 1915) was a Jewish-American factory superintendent who was convicted of the murder of a 13-year-old employee named Mary Phagan at the factory he managed. His legal case and lynching in Georgia became the focus of powerful class, regional, and political interests and brought attention to the topic of antisemitism in the United States. Frank was posthumously pardoned in 1986 by the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles, which said that its action was performed "[w]ithout attempting to address the question of guilt or innocence". The consensus of researchers on the subject is that Frank was wrongly convicted.

Mary Phagan had been strangled on April 26 of that year and was found dead in the factory cellar the next morning. Frank, an engineer and director of the National Pencil Company in Atlanta where Phagan worked, was arrested on April 29, 1913. Based on what???

I came to a stop at the bold faced question because I noted that nowhere in the article do we say why he was arrested and nowhere is the reader given a clear view of how soon the arrest was made. The arrest came well before Conley started claiming Frank had committed the murder. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I do think the intro paragraph covers the main points much better, and while you stalled shortly thereafter, you at least brought up a salient question worthy of consideration. I'll take a stab at this as well and try to produce a full lead that not only meets the requirements of the MOS, but is high quality. Tonystewart14 (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I filled in the rest of the lede so my proposal would read as follows:

Leo Max Frank (April 17, 1884 – August 17, 1915) was a Jewish-American factory superintendent who was convicted of the murder of a 13-year-old employee named Mary Phagan at the factory he managed. His legal case and lynching in Georgia became the focus of powerful class, regional, and political interests and brought attention to the topic of antisemitism in the United States. Frank was posthumously pardoned in 1986 by the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles, which said that its action was performed "[w]ithout attempting to address the question of guilt or innocence". The consensus of researchers on the subject is that Frank was wrongly convicted.

Mary Phagan had been strangled on April 26 of that year and was found dead in the factory cellar the next morning. Frank, an engineer and director of the National Pencil Company in Atlanta where Phagan worked was arrested on April 29, 1913. Police based the arrest on Frank's nervousness while being interviewed and their interpretations of his admissions concerning his actions on the day of the murder. By the time the case went to trial, the issues involved Frank's character and the timeline for his activities on the day of the crime. The prosecution relied heavily on the testimony of another suspect, James "Jim" Conley, an admitted accomplice after the fact, who worked as a sweeper in the factory. Frank's defense consisted of challenging the veracity of Conley's court testimony, relying on admissions by Conley that he changed his testimony several times in various affidavits and fabricated certain parts of his story. Both sides presented witnesses to either support or refute the timeline suggested by Conley's testimony and to praise or condemn Frank's character. The defense resorted to racial stereotypes in their defense, accusing Conley – who was African-American – of being especially disposed to lying and murdering because of his ethnicity. The prosecution, in turn, used a different stereotype, presenting Conley as if he were an unthreatening character from a minstrel show or a contented plantation worker.

Amid concerns of crowd violence, a guilty verdict was announced on August 25, 1913. Frank and his lawyers made a series of unsuccessful appeals, limited by law to arguing procedural and due process issues rather than a reconsideration of the evidence. Their final appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court failed in April 1915. Considering arguments from both sides as well as evidence not available at trial, Governor John M. Slaton commuted Frank's sentence to life imprisonment. By this time, the Frank case was a national issue. Outside Georgia there was a widespread belief expressed by newspapers throughout the country that Frank's conviction was a travesty. Within Georgia, this outside criticism fueled hatred for Frank and antisemitic attacks against Frank.

Immediately after the commutation, a crowd of 1,200 marched on the governor's mansion in protest. Two months later, Frank was kidnapped from prison by a group of 25 armed men and driven 170 miles (270 km) to Marietta, Georgia, where he was lynched. The new governor vowed to bring these people to justice, but even though the lynchers included prominent citizens of Marietta, Mary Phagan's home town, and their roles in the lynching were generally known locally, none were ever brought to justice.

I tried to address the reviewers request by adding more details of the court arguments and focused a little more attention to the lynching as well as the threat (or fear) of violence that went back to the actual trial. I've added back material referencing the effects of newspapers on public opinion without going in the specifics that were removed from the lede earlier. This lede assumes that additions will be made to the body of the article (i.e. timeline details, reorganization of newspaper coverage, more focused info on the lynching, info on prosecution's racist appeals, info on the original arrest).

I'm not locked into any of the specific language or even the organization and respect the fact that Tony is probably working on a similar reorg right now. I just think it is important to start putting ideas in writing. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's one that is slightly modified from Tom's. I rearranged some of the sentences in the second paragraph to follow a better order in terms of prosecution vs. defense, removed the "amid concerns of crowd violence" phrase at the beginning of the third paragraph so as not to imply that the jury was pressured to vote guilty in order to avoid violence, and miscellaneous typographical corrections. As Tom noted, some facts in the new lead are not mentioned or cited in the main body, and would need to be added. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Tonystewart14 Proposed Lead

Leo Max Frank (April 17, 1884 – August 17, 1915) was a Jewish-American factory superintendent who was convicted of the murder of a 13-year-old employee named Mary Phagan at the factory he managed. His legal case and lynching in Georgia became the focus of powerful class, regional, and political interests and brought attention to the topic of antisemitism in the United States. Frank was posthumously pardoned in 1986 by the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles, which said that its action was performed "[w]ithout attempting to address the question of guilt or innocence". The consensus of researchers on the subject is that Frank was wrongly convicted.

Mary Phagan had been strangled on April 26 of that year and was found dead in the factory cellar the next morning. Frank, an engineer and director of the National Pencil Company in Atlanta where Phagan worked, was arrested on April 29, 1913. Police based the arrest on Frank's nervousness while being interviewed and their interpretations of his admissions concerning his actions on the day of the murder. By the time the case went to trial, the issues involved Frank's character and the timeline for his activities on the day of the crime. The prosecution relied heavily on the testimony of another suspect, James "Jim" Conley, an admitted accomplice after the fact, who worked as a sweeper in the factory. Frank's defense consisted of challenging the veracity of Conley's court testimony, relying on admissions by Conley that he changed his testimony several times in various affidavits and fabricated certain parts of his story. The defense also resorted to racial stereotypes, accusing Conley – who was African-American – of being especially disposed to lying and murdering because of his ethnicity. The prosecution, in turn, used a different stereotype, presenting Conley as if he were an unthreatening character from a minstrel show or a contented plantation worker. Both sides presented witnesses to either support or refute the timeline suggested by Conley's testimony and to praise or condemn Frank's character.

A guilty verdict was announced on August 25, 1913. Frank and his lawyers made a series of unsuccessful appeals, limited by law to arguing procedural and due process issues rather than a reconsideration of the evidence. Their final appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court failed in April 1915. Considering arguments from both sides as well as evidence not available at trial, Governor John M. Slaton commuted Frank's sentence to life imprisonment. By this time, the Frank case was a national issue. Outside Georgia, there was a widespread belief expressed by newspapers throughout the country that Frank's conviction was a travesty. Within Georgia, this outside criticism fueled hatred for Frank and antisemitic attacks against him.

Immediately after the commutation, a crowd of 1,200 marched on the governor's mansion in protest. Two months later, Frank was kidnapped from prison by a group of 25 armed men and driven 170 miles (270 km) to Marietta, Georgia, where he was lynched. The new governor vowed to bring these people to justice, but even though the lynchers included prominent citizens of Marietta, Mary Phagan's hometown, and their roles in the lynching were generally known locally, none were ever brought to justice.

The changes look fine to me. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Although it says without addressing the issue of his innocence or guilt, I think one promblematic issue I see is that the average person will not understand that the posthumous pardon was with out exoneration. Leo Frank was not officially absolved of the crime. I think most people who read that he was pardoned, may falsely believe that he is no longer seen as guilty in the eyes of the law. For the common person reading the article we should specify that for them other wise they might get the wrong impression. SmittyLiver (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The current and proposed lead sections quote the Board decision, so that's why it's worded as it is. It is both without exoneration and without reaffirming his guilty verdict, and merely says that Frank did not get the due process he deserved.

Tom, if you (or anyone else) has a source for this line, "limited by law to arguing procedural and due process issues rather than a reconsideration of the evidence", please let me know. If we add it somewhere in the main body, I believe the lead section should be good to go. If we can also some of the other points that are in the body generally, but not explicitly expressed the way they are in the new lead, that would also be helpful. Tonystewart14 (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Dinnerstein on page 77 references the 1906 state constitution that limited appeals in capital cases to errors in the law. This limited Judge Roan's reconsideration and one of the Georgia Supreme Court hearings. This did not preclude "extraordinary appeals" however which would have allowed appeals based on, for example, new evidence or perjury. The defense did appeal based on perjury however they met a procedural problem here when the justice hearing the second case before the Georgia SC ruled that state law only allowed perjury appeals if the alleged perjurer was actually tried and convicted of perjury (see Oney page 418). Obviously Dorsey was not going to try to convict his own witnesses for perjury. The U.S. Supreme Court was likewise not going to rule on evidentiary issues absent a constitutional issue (Oney p 446 and following discusses getting SCOTUS to hear the case). The only two issues the defense found that might muster constitutional questions were the failure to have Frank in court when the verdict was read and the effects of the anti-Frank crowds and publicity on the jury rendering an objective decision. Our article barely mentions the appeals -- the two paragraph section dedicates the larger paragraph to the publicity and doesn't mention most of the significant issues raised during the appeals. Readers should be made aware that the appeals were all limited in scope and were not by any means a reanalysis of the facts of the case. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I searched the article and new proposed lead for the words "without exoneration", or "absolved", and was unable to find it anywhere. The board neither addressing his innocence or guilt is not by itself clear enough to make the point to common and laypersons reading the article that Frank was not officially exonerated or absolved of the murder. Thus, even when stating "without addressing the subject of innocence or guilt" many people believe the pardon cleared Frank of his guilt, when it in fact did not. Another question we might want to answer is what kind of pardon is that anyway when it did not clear him of the crime? Is there a name for such a pardon? SmittyLiver (talk) 11:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the changes although the support for the language regarding appeals has not yet been added to the body of the article. While SmittyLiver has raised a small objection, it does not effect this edit since the material he/she disputes is only rearranged. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Background section of the article

The reviewer of the article has suggested that the background section be expanded to include more than just the biographical material on Frank and Phagan. Towards that end I am proposing the following new subsection to head the background section:

Social and economic conditions

The horrific events involving the murders of Mary Phagan and Leo Frank occurred in an Atlanta that had been going through significant economic and social change in the first years of the 20th Century. To serve a growing economy based on manufacturing and commerce, large numbers of people were fleeing a failing rural situation to relocate in Georgia's capital city. By 1910, over 50% of Atlanta's workers were involved in these activities. With the relocation to the city came the breakdown of family and community ties. The jobs the newcomers found featured child labor, a 66-hour work week, low wages, and dirty and unsafe work sites unregulated by any level of government. According to Dinnerstein, the migrants often lived in "squalid slums" where they faced "hunger and destitution". "One-third of Atlanta's population lived without water mains or sewers", "more than half of the white school children ... suffered from malnutrition, enlarged glands, and heart disease." Only "twelve [out of 388 cities in US] had a higher death rate."

This time period was also characterized by generational changes effecting the role of women and the relationships between the sexes. In the traditional and paternalistic rural society, women were idealized. Many found the necessity that drove their wives, sisters, and daughters to the city and factories as a sign of degradation. Mixed gender workplaces were seen as places for potential corruption. In the first two decades of the century, the number of women over age 16 in the Atlanta workforce doubled and 70% were under age 19. Child prostitution was a widespread problem for 1910s Atlanta that was attributed to the meager wages and opportunities available to young women.

During this same period Southern Jews felt ambivalent about their status. Generally they were able to economically thrive while getting along with their neighbors and the Atlanta Jewish elite was unusually assimilated into the political, economic, and social fabric of the city. Despite their success, they nevertheless recognized themselves as a "people apart", leaving them "with a pervasive sense of anxiety". One of their responses was to select rabbis and leaders who could put the best face forward for their people in order to eliminate frictions that would threaten the existing equilibrium. In Atlanta the leader from 1895 to 1946 was David Marx. In order to "enhance the image of Jews in the dominant society", Marx's Reform temple adopted Americanized appearances. Despite his acceptance by the Gentile community, Marx believed that "in isolated instances there is no prejudice entertained for the individual Jew, but there exists wide-spread and deep seated prejudice against Jews as an entire people."

An example of the type of tension that Rabbi Marx feared occurred in April 1913. At a conference involving the child labor problem, a myriad of proposed solutions were presented that covered the entire political spectrum. Author Steve Oney wrote, "At the radical end of the spectrum could be heard alarming notions inspired by the fact that many of Atlanta's factories ... were Jewish owned." Historian Leonard Dinnerstein offered the following summation of the Atlanta situation in 1913:

The pathological conditions in the city menaced the home, the state, the schools, the churches, and, in the words of a contemporary Southern sociologist, the 'wholesome industrial life.' The institutions of the city were obviously unfit to handle urban problems. Against this background, the murder of a young girl in 1913 triggered a violent reaction of mass aggression, hysteria, and prejudice."

Comments? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and did copyediting above. There were several quotes at the end of the first paragraph that were all close together, but it wasn't apparent if that was all in the same section. I added some quotes and "According to Dinnerstein...", but double check this as well.

In the second paragraph, I'm not sure if the word "effecting" should be "affecting" with an 'a'. A minor point, but something I thought about. I also changed the reference formatting slightly to be consistent with the rest of the article.

Otherwise, this looks good and it'll be a great addition to that section. I do agree that it gives a good backdrop for people to understand the conditions they were in and why the Frank case matters. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it with your changes. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Reorganization of the article

The reviewer has asked us to reconsider the format of the article. I have found several places where the narrative is broken up by necessary, but difficult to place sections. At the same time it has been suggested that more details were warranted regarding the issues at trial. As part of this, I felt that elaboration on the details were necessary outside of simply the trial section. This particularly applies to the Appeals and Commutation sections which have been a continuing source of dispute in the article's talk pages. The following is my suggested reorganization.

Background

1. Social and economic conditions This is a new section -- these issues are mentioned in the lede but are not really covered in the body of the article. The relationship between the Jewish and Gentile populations in Atlanta should be covered.

1. Biography Place the existing biographical info here in two subsections.

1.1 Leo Frank

1.2 Mary Phagan

Murder of Mary Phagan

1. Discovery

2. Newspaper coverage -- This section disrupts the narrative and covers the entire period up to Frank's lynching. Move most into trial section.

3. Suspicion falls on Frank Needs renaming. No mention of Frank being arrested. Third paragraph is out of sequence. Much of the info should be incorporated into the trial section and subsections "Atmosphere" and "Timeline".

4. James "Jim" Conley Needs transition info at start. Move to trial section and explain importance of his testimony. Needs to be obvious to a reader why Conley is given so much coverage.

Indictment, trial, and sentencing

1. Indictment First three sentences are about Watson and have nothing to do with this subject. The rest is a thinly disguised effort to deny the existence of antisemitism and is better addressed in a separate section on antisemitism. The story here should be how Dorsey presented the facts and questions raised by the grand jury.

2. Trial This needs to be expanded and include subsections. For the reader, there needs to be a clear reference to elsewhere in the article for info on evidence not presented at trial and info on perjured testimony. The subsections I suggest are:

2.1 Atmosphere Discuss here the pretrial publicity caused by sensational newspaper coverage.

2.2 Jim Conley As discussed above.

2.3 The attorneys Discuss who they were and their strengths and weaknesses. Defense mistakes. Pressures on Dorsey to secure a conviction. Appeals to racism by both sides.

2.4 Charcter issues

2.5 Physical evidence Was there a rape? Where did the murder occur (i.e hair evidence). Missing purse.

2.6 Timeline Phagan and Stover -- who arrived first? Frank's alibi and testimony. How long to cover up the murder.

2.7 Conviction and sentencing Eliminate "closing arguments" section. Emphasize fear of disorder and Judge Roan's reservations.

Appeals and commutation The current section has a large paragraph on newspaper coverage and a smaller paragraph on the actual appeals which has precious little on the issues raised and the restrictions placed on what could be appealed. I would eliminate the first paragraph and move its material into a section right after the new antisemitism section.

1. Appeals This needs to be greatly expanded with subsections added. My suggested subsections:

1.1 Reconsideration by Trial Judge Point out that only legal issues can be raised. Transition from Roan's doubt expressed at trial and describe issues which carry through into the other phases of the appeal process.

1.2 Georgia Supreme Court Original motion for a new trial on the issues raised with Roan.

1.3 Extraordinary Motion before Georgia Supreme Court Describe new evidence and perjury allegations. Explain why appeals base on perjury require prior convictions of the alleged perjurer.

1.4 United States Supreme Court Explain that only two issues, jury intimidation and Frank's absence from the verdict hearing were presented to the court.

2. Governor Slaton's commutation of sentence A key section and the focus of much controversy in the lead. It should be divided into sections to facilitate readers who might be looking for specifics (i.e evidence, conflict of interest). Sections should correspond to Slatons's organization of the decision. Slaton should be given billing in the title since many readers will be looking for it.

2.1 Background Describe the association with Rosser. Describe the circumstances on why Slaton as a lame duck heard the case. Describe Watson's efforts to get Slaton to rule against Frank. Describe Slaton's efforts to investigate and his own recognition of the political implications for him.

2.2 Summary of the case Slaton provides summay of the case with some reflections on the conduct of the case. Supportive of the jury and denial of prejudice.

2.3 Conley testimony credability

2.4 Murder notes

2.5 Timing and physical evidence

2.6 Conclusion Include Slaton's statements outside this written record that expresses his expectations on further appeals.

2.7 Reaction of the public Address both local and national.

Criticism of the trial and the verdict This is a better location for this section. It explains the consensus that Frank was innocent and follows naturally from Slaton's commutation.

Antisemtism and local and national newspaper coverage Explain limited role of atisemitism in trial, use by defense in the trial, reluctance of Jewish community to get involved and their reaction, Watson's attacks and people's acceptance of it, and role of NY Times and other national reaction.

Much of the existing language will be incorporated and needed details can be obtained from earlier versions of the article. Some new language and sourcing will be needed. I am not proposing any reorganization for the rest of the article.

Comments? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I think this looks good, in addition to your other edits you just made to the article. If you're ready, go ahead and make these changes as well as the rewrite of the lead. That way, it will be live for a couple days before the final GA decision on Wednesday. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll see what I can get done by the end of the day. I'm finding that there is more missing material than I thought and some of the old material is not as well sourced as the current material. Whatever is present by Wednesday may not be in a final form. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Police investigation

The above title would replace the current "Suspicion falls on Frank". This section would follow the "Discovery" section and would fit in with the proposed reorganization described above. The main intent of the changes is to fill in details and make it clear why Frank was arrested. I've generally used the names of the days rather than the dates in order to make it clear the short period of time between the murder and Frank's arrest. I've also not used the names of specific people to simplify the narrative. The proposed section:

Police investigation

In addition to Lee, the police also arrested a friend of Phagan's for the crime. Gradually they became convinced that they were not the culprits. By Monday police had theorized, based on hair found on a lathe and what appeared to be blood on the floor, that the murder occurred on the 2nd floor (the same floor as Frank's office).

The police had unsuccessfully attempted to telephone Frank by phone just after 4 A.M on Sunday; Newt Lee had also tried to call Frank soon after the discovery of Phagan's body. Later that morning they were successful and Frank agreed to accompany them to the factory. When the police arrived after 7 A.M. without telling the specifics of what happened at the factory, Frank seemed extremely nervous, trembling, pale, his voice was hoarse, he was rubbing his hands and asking questions before the police could answer. Frank said he was not familiar with the name Mary Phagan, but would need to check his payroll book. The detectives took Leo Frank to the morgue to view the body of Mary Phagan and then to the factory. Here Frank viewed the crime scene and walked the police through the entire building. Frank returned home about 10:45 a.m. At this point Frank was not considered a suspect.

On Monday morning the police went to Frank's house and walked him to the police station where they were met by his attorney, Luther Rosser. Frank gave a written deposition in which he gave a brief time line of his activities on Saturday. He said Phagan was in between 12:05 and 12:10, that Lee had arrived at 4 p.m. but was asked to return later, and explained a confrontation with an ex-employee James Gantt at 6 p.m. as Frank was leaving and Lee arriving. Frank explained that Lee's timecard for Sunday morning had several gaps (Lee was supposed to punch in every half hour) which Frank had missed when he discussed the timecard with police on Sunday. At Rosser's insistence, Frank exposed his body to demonstrate that he had no cuts or injuries and the police found no blood on Frank's suit which he said he had worn Saturday. The police followed up at Frank's house and found no blood stains in his laundry.

A detective went to Lee's residence at 11 a.m. on looking for evidence and found a blood-smeared shirt at the bottom of a burn barrel. The blood was smeared high up on the armpits and the shirt smelled unused, suggesting to the police that the shirt was a plant. The detectives, without any proof but already suspicious of Frank due to his nervous behavior throughout his interviews, believed that Frank had arranged for the plant.

Frank was subsequently arrested around 11:30 at the factory. Steve Oney stated that "no single development had persuaded ... [the police] that Leo Frank had murdered Mary Phagan. Instead, to the cumulative weight of Sunday's suspicions and Monday's misgivings had been added several last factors that tipped the scale against the superintendent." These factors were the dropped charges against two suspects, the rejection of rumors that Phagan had been seen on the streets making Frank the last person to admit seeing Phagan, a late Monday meeting called by Frank in which he tried to implicate Gantt and mentioned an unidentified Negro seen in building around noon on the day of the murder by a Mr. Darley, and a "shifting view of Newt Lee's role in the affair." The police were convinced he was involved as Frank's accomplice and ... patsy" and that Frank was trying to implicate Lee. Toward the end of proving this, the police staged a confrontation between Lee and Frank while both were still in custody; there were conflicting accounts of this meeting but the police interpreted it as further implicating Frank.

A coroner's inquest was held on Wednesday April 30. Frank testified, explained what he did on Saturday and other witnesses produced corroboration. A young man said that Phagan had complained to him about Frank and several former employees spoke of Frank flirting with other women (one said she was actually propositioned). The detectives admitted that "they so far had obtained no conclusive evidence or clues in the baffling mystery ..." Lee and Frank both ordered to be detained

Jim Conley, the janitor at the factory, was arrested on May 1 and would remain in custody until the trial. The prosecution would base most of their case on his testimony. Specifics of and problems with his assertions are covered in several sections below. Many researchers consider him the actual murderer.

Comments? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I think there's never been a mention in the article about the scribbled notes allegedly left by Phagan. This may be an opportunity to incorporate them into it. One read, "Mam that Negro hire down here did this..." Many decades later, in March 1982, Alonzo Mann who had been a boy at the time of the murder and who had testified, signed a deathbed affidavit to say that he had seen Conley carrying the body. Frank was posthumously pardoned 4 years and 7 days later. The 'Mam' always puzzled me, unless Mann was involved or the note was a fabrication designed to incriminate him. I think this connection amounted to nothing at the trial, but someone out there may find a connection. Akld guy (talk) 03:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The notes are mentioned in the section "Discovery". They should also be mentioned at some point later in the article -- probably in the section on the commutation. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they are mentioned there but what I meant to say was that nobody had highlighted the similarity between Mam and Mann. Scribbling a hurried note in the dark could have resulted in a misshaped 'nn'. As I said, somebody may be able to find a reference mentioning this. Akld guy (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I would avoid saying "in several sections below" at the end. You could just say that there were several retractions and contradictions in his testimony. Also, be sure the formatting for times are consistent - it should be in the "11:30 a.m." format. Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll make those changes. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Indictment

The existing language says very little about the actual indictment. The references to Tom Watson don't really serve any purpose -- it could possible be added back elsewhere in the article as an ironic aside. Likewise, the reference to Jews on the jury and the absence of anti-Semitism in this particular phase is misplaced here and should maybe be introduced later on based on the reorganization that I've proposed and nobody has expressed opposition to. I'm proposing the following language that is based in part on the October 2010 version of the article. I've also added info on later efforts initiated by the Grand Jury to indict Conley. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the restructuring, but I think the Watson material will help clarify why the Frank case brought up questions of "antisemitism in the United States" as the lead puts it. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Suppressing Material Facts Regarding Evidence in the Leo Frank Trial Goes Beyond POV

Content moved from GA review page:

The building of this article has basically been a constant struggle between two types of editors: Those who want to tell the whole story, in order to favor neutrality, and those who want to tell only half the story, in order to favor Frank. I am the first IP who was falsely accused by User Tonystewart14 of being a sockpuppet of User GingerBreadHarlot. Upon investigation, the accusation was rightly shown to be unfounded. Nevertheless, User GingerBreadHarlot was unfairly blocked indefinitely, not for sockpuppetry, but merely for offering her good faith contributions in a strong and assertive manner. I have since witnessed a number of other editors who have also argued against the pro-Frank POV being blocked left and right following opportunistic accusations of being sockpuppets of User GingerBreadHarlot. How convenient for the pro-Frank editors here to have such a mechanism in place with which they may easily force a false consensus by selectively smearing or blocking their intellecual opponents. "It is one of the soundest and most universal principles of the Law of Evidence that an attempt to suppress evidence is itself an evidence of guilt. Frank and his lawyers, and his Great Detective have used every possible means to get the evidence out of the way. We know some of the extraordinary and illegal methods they have used; and we are justified in suspecting that they have done other things that have not come to light - and never will. And all of this was done, for what? To defeat the law, and to save guilt from punishment." The statement above was published on April 30, 1914 by Thomas E. Watson, in his newspaper, The Jeffersonian, Volume 11, Issue 18; Page 10. The original subject of Watson's statement was the unscrupulous antics of "The Great Detective", William J. Burns, and those who hired him to turn up "new evidence" on behalf of the convicted child murderer, Leo M. Frank. Yet it also fully applies to the unscrupulous antics of our more contemporary Frank proponents such as Dinnerstein, Alpin, and others who have similarly worked so hard, and also used every possible means "to get the evidence out of the way". Some of their fellow travelers are responsible for vandalizing this Wikipedia page. If Frank's proponents were really so sure of his "innocence", having the public examine all of the evidence would not be a problem for them, yet it is. This latest act of POV terrorism demonstrates this all too well. 64.134.98.223 (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

---

One cannot, with fairness, honesty, and integrity, provide a proper overview of a case involving the conviction of an individual accused of the commission of a crime without providing a synopsis of the evidence relied upon to support that conviction. Any attempt to do so, especially when that attempt is made with the assertion of an implication that the individual in question was either unfairly, or otherwise improperly convicted, is more than simple POV pushing, it is an obvious, and outright mendacity. It is not only dishonest, but borders upon an additional crime in itself, making those who do so accessories after the fact, by serving to aid and abet the escape from justice of one guilty of the commission of a criminal act.

The suppression or deletion of references to the evidence relied upon by the trial jury to convict, and the appeals courts to subsequently uphold that conviction of Leo Frank is actually tantamount to murdering Mary Phagan a second time. 64.134.98.223 (talk) 03:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

What are the references that you claim have been suppressed or deleted? Akld guy (talk) 04:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

See [THIS] 64.134.98.223 (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

These concerns have been responded to in the GA review. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Timestamps

It should be noted that I commented on the post by 64.134.98.223 timestamped 03:43, 16 September, when it was the only post under the heading. Subsequent to my comment, the post made elsewhere at 03:37 by the same IP was pasted onto the page. I want to make it clear that I commented only on the 03:43 post. Akld guy (talk) 09:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Timestamps vary according to user preference, so only users living in the same time zone as yourself will see the same time stamp as yourself. Talkpage convention is that responses are identified by location: such as, beneath the comment being responded to, and by indentation: for example, if someone else wished to respond to your comment, but not mine, they would have the same indentation as me. If, however, they wished to respond to my comment, they would indent a little further. However, to make it clearer, I have put a line between the earlier comment and the one you responded to. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Timestamps on Talk pages do not vary with user preference. They are always in UTC, which is what I quoted. However, other pages such as Watchlist pages do show the time as set in Preferences. I know this because I changed from local time to UTC not long after posting and the times shown here never changed, although they did in my Watchlist. Thank you for the line delimiter. Akld guy (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

You're correct, the Preferences adjust the time shown in history, not on talkpages. So why am I seeing a different time stamp to you? I'm seeing 4.43, and you're saying 03.43. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I see 03:43 and my local time zone is UTC-5. Tonystewart14 (talk) 08:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah! My time is set up for adjusting for summertime - so I have UTC+1 - this is the time stamp I see: "4:43 am, Yesterday (UTC+1)" - that would account for the 1 hour difference. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I have now adjusted in Preferences so my time is the same as everyone else's! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference formatting

To keep references consistent, and for simplicity, I don't believe we need years after most sources. For example, "Oney 2003" can just be "Oney" since the only reference to Oney in the Sources subsection is his book. At one point we had a "Further reading" section with a separate Oney link, but at this point it's redundant. We should also take care to have commas and periods uniform throughout the article. For example, a reference might look like "Oney p. 123." or "Oney pp. 123-125." with no comma after the name (assuming there is no year, in which case it would be "Dinnerstein 1987, p. 12."). There is also a period after each page number.

It might seem trivial, but I noticed it's started to become inconsistent, although the new material overall is good for the article. If anyone feels the formatting should be different, feel free to reply below. Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

That's not going to impact on the GA as it's not a requirement, but if people wish to later take Leo Frank to FA it has been difficult to get an article through FA without ensuring that each reference citation has the same syntax. Better to do that as you go along than try to fix it later. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

When did Mary Phagan arrive in Leo Frank's office?

Leo Frank actually changed the timing four times that he told people 13-year-old Little Mary Phagan allegedly had had entered his second floor window-front business office at the National Pencil Company on Georgia Confederate Memorial Day, Saturday April 26, 1913. Which one should we use for the article? What do we do in a situation where the protagonist gives us 4 distinct times? Do we pick the one that benefits or incriminates him?

1. On Sunday morning, April 27, 1913, standing in his office, Frank told first responders (Atlanta police) that Phagan had had arrived in his office yesterday at 12:03 p.m. April 26, 1913. (see: People v. Leo Frank documentary by Ben Loeterman and Steve Oney; Leo Frank trial brief of evidence, 1913).

2. On Monday morning, April 28, 1913, at the Atlanta stationhouse in an interrogation room, surrounded by police detectives and witnessed by his elite attorneys Luther Rosser (Governor John Slaton's lawpartner) and Herbert Haas, that Frank said Phagan had had arrived in his office on Georgia Confederate Memorial Day between 12:05 p.m. to 12:10 p.m. maybe 12:07 p.m. This unsworn statement was stenographed by Gay C. Febuary and became State’s Exhibit B at the Leo Frank trial (Q and A published in Atlanta Constitution, August 2nd 1913 at The Internet Archive).

3. On Monday, May 5th and Thursday May 8th, 1913, Frank told the Coroner’s jury that on the day of the murder, Phagan had had arrived in his office between 12:10 p.m to 12:15 p.m. (Atlanta Constitution, Atlanta Georgian & Atlanta Journal, May, 1913).

4. On Monday, August 18, 1913, Frank mounted the witness stand at his trial, made an unsworn oral statement to the jury and said that Phagan had had arrived in his office between 12:12 p.m to 12:17 p.m. (Leo Frank’s statement to the jury on August 18, 1913, trial brief of evidence, 1913).

Which one should we use for the article? or all of them? SmittyLiver (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable secondary sources that say any of the above was seen as significant at the trial by anyone involved? The 12:03 time as far as I can tell did not appear in Oney's work (see p. 29). Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Where sources differ on significant points, such as date of birth, we tend to give all variations, citing the sources: "According to X it was Wednesday, according to Y it was Thursday"; if most sources say Wednesday, and only a few say Thursday we will follow guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Where it's not immediately clear the significance of variations, and in the absence of a reliable source commenting on the variations, then it is appropriate to raise the question and discuss the matter. What we couldn't do in any article is make any inference from variations in sources if no reliable sources do, as that would be WP:SYNTHESIS. What we're doing with this Leo Frank article is summarising what reliable sources have said about the trial. What we are not doing is conducting a trial of Leo Frank. Nor are we weighing in on if the subject was guilty or innocent. If the court found him guilty, we say the court found him guilty. If commentators say that they feel the verdict was wrong, we say that commentators say they feel the verdict is wrong. But we don't get involved in the debate itself, and we don't weight the article in any direction. We can use primary sources such as court documents to provide factual statements, such as the points you describe. However, in any article there is an editorial decision on what material to include and what material to exclude. To get involved in meticulously detailing every statement made in order to list minor discrepancies is beyond the scope of a general encyclopedia article and belongs more appropriately in a full book on the subject. We would also need to be aware of WP:UNDUE which would prevent us from giving extraordinary detail to one point if no reliable sources have done so. It could be suggested that the reason for wanting to give such extraordinary detail is to present material to suggest that Leo Frank was guilty. I want to stress that not only is that not our role, but that anyone who has a serious interest in Leo Frank being guilty or innocent should not be editing this article. We as Wikipedia editors should not care if he was guilty or not. What we care about is reporting the facts. A man called Leo Frank was arrested, tried, and found guilty of murder. His death sentence was commuted to a life sentence. He was subsequently lynched. The trial and the lynching provoked interest which continues to this day. That's it. Wanting to get involved in this article to prove Frank's innocent or guilt is a conflict of interest which would likely result in a distortion of the facts, whether intentional or not. For Wikipedia editors it is almost immaterial if he was guilty or innocent. By all accounts he was given an inadequate trial (though it is quite normal for trials from that date not to be up to the standards of modern trials), so we will never know the truth of his guilt, but what we do know is the impact it had, and that's why we have an article on it. We don't have articles on every murder case ever heard, we do on this because of the interest it stirred. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe this is just like the other time discrepancy in the section below this one where the 11:00 time is disputed. If there are in fact contradictory times between major secondary sources, it might be advisable to include a note, as there currently is for Phagan's birth year. In that case, most secondary sources say she was born in 1899, but her headstone says 1900, so we explain that in the note. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Based on some googling, I'd guess that the 12:03 comes from the American Mercury and the 11:30 comes from leofrank.org. Both of these "sources" appear to be guesses based on actual statements that do not mention specific times. How do you get from Coleman's (Phagan's mother) testimony that Phagan "got up about 11:00 and had breakfast right afterwards" to eating at 11:30? The 11:30 supports the prosecutors case better than a guess that "about 11:00" meant 10:57 and Phagan bolted down her food because she had plans that day and finished her meal by, say, 11:07. I've suggested below using Coleman's exact words (I should not have focused on 11:00) and we should probably also be more specific about what the defense's experts said since this is apparently an area of significant dispute. I propose changing:

The prosecutions analysis of stomach contents (Phagan had eaten cabbage and biscuits at 11:00 a.m.) placed the time of death at thirty to forty five minutes after the last meal. The defense expert witness contested both the methodology and the conclusions.

to (see Oney p. 262):

Phagan's mother testified that Mary "got up about 11:00 and had breakfast right afterwards." The prosecutions analysis of stomach contents placed the time of death at thirty to forty five minutes after the last meal. The defense expert witness testified that he could not accurately estimate a time of death based on stomach contents that came from a body that had "been interred nine days". He also said that he had "seen cabbage less digested than that [referring to the jar of contents presented by the prosecution as evidence] which had been in the stomach for twelve hours.

Regarding 12:03, Frank's actual statement was "My stenographer left about [there's that word again] twelve o'clock, and a few minutes after she left the office boy left and then Mary came in and got her money and left." Once again 12:03 is a guess that would support that Frank was guilty. However the actual issue is how reliable sources treated these alleged discrepancies and whether it was an issue at trial. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Gang, I'm still trying to figure out is the Leo Frank documentary 'People v. Leo Frank' considered a secondary reliable source? It seems to put the time of Mary Phagan's entering Leo Frank's office at or about 12:03 p.m to 12:05 p.m. on the day of the murder in an early scene (click the link). Or do we go by Leo Frank's second account of when Mary Phagan arrived in his office (State's Exhibit B at Frank trial; Atlanta Constitution August 2nd, 1913) 12:05 p.m. to 12:10 p.m., maybe 12:07 p.m (American State Trials Volume X, 1918 puts the time at 12:05 to 12:10pm, maybe 12:07pm, Oney does as well, 'And the Dead Shall Rise').

Steve Oney, 'And the Dead Shall Rise, The Murder of Mary Phagan and Lynching of Leo Frank, page 50 "Frank's deposition [State's Exhibit B, April 28, 1913] took the form of a straightforward chronology of his version of the events of Saturday, April 26. He reiterated that he'd been alone in his office when Mary Phagan "came in between 12:05 and 12:10, maybe 12:07 p.m. References at the back of Oney's book "50 "came in between 12:05 an d 12:10": Frank's deposition for Chief of Detectives Newport A. Lanford State's Exhibit B, BOE, p. 243."

Dinnerstein page 91 (The Leo Frank Case PhD Thesis Dissertation by Leonard Dinnerstein), page 40 of his book The Leo Frank Case, 2008, "on April 28, Frank had told Chief Detective Lanford that Mary Phagan arrived between 12:05 p.m. and 12:10 p.m., and that he had not left his office between 12:00 and 12:30 p.m."

Stephen Brown PhD Thesis WHEN MIDDLE-CLASS AMBITION MET SOUTHERN HONOR: A CULTURAL HISTORY OF THE LEO FRANK CASE 1999, Page 29, "At approximately 12:05 P.M., Phagan entered Frank's office"

Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean, 1987 Page 57 "Leo Frank was arrested on Tuesday, April 29, and incarcerated in the Fulton Tower. The police said his hands were quivering and that he was pale. He again reported that Mary Phagan came in "between 12:05 and 12:10, maybe 12:07, to get her pay envelope, her salary." He stated

I'm worried if we go by the 5 to 6 reliable secondary source in their consensus that Leo Frank's own statement (State's Exhibit B, April 28, 1913, Atlanta Constitution August 2, 1913, Atlanta Constitution March 9, 1914) that Mary Phagan was in his office between 12:05 to 12:10pm, that it incriminates him and makes him look guilty of murdering her. Monteen Stover testified Leo Frank's office was empty during this time 12:05pm to 12:10pm (Oney, Dinnerstein, Phagan Kean, etc..) This tends to make Leo Frank look like he fibbed about Mary Phagan being alone with him in his office and was instead with her in the metal room, if Stover is telling the truth. The problem with this whole thing is that Leo Frank countered Stover's testimony by supposing himself at the men's toilet (the place the prosecution built the theory of where Phagan was found dead, according to Jim Conley's testimony). The men's toilet was in the metal room where the prosecution built the theory that Mary Phagan was murdered between noon and 12:15pm. SmittyLiver (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion notwithstanding, it appears by your failure to provided the asked for information that you know of no reliable sources that share your belief that the alleged discrepancies "incriminates him and makes him look guilty of murdering her" and that you know of no reliable sources who report anybody at trial claiming that the alleged discrepancies "incriminates him and makes him look guilty of murdering her." That being the case (did you read what SilkTork wrote), there is no reason to add any of the material you are promoting into the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

My Bad, I thought you were more familiar with all the accepted secondary sources mentioning the timeline conflict with Stover who claimed Leo Frank's office was empty between the whole time segment from 12:05pm and 12:10pm. The topic is about the time Leo Frank said Mary Phagan entered his office, but I guess it should be expanded to include Stover's testimony that put Frank's alibi into dispute. Steve Oney, page 141, we learn that Conley claimed to have found Phagan dead in the area of the men's toilet located in the metal room. "With all eyes now on him, Conley led his auditors to the rear of the metal department. There, he pointed out a spot near a men's toilet where he maintained he'd discovered Mary Phagan's body lying doubled up".

Dinnerstein PhD Disseration, page 92 states, "The state also introduced, one of the factory employees, who had arrived to collect her pay on the day of the murder at 12:05 pm, looked into Frank's office, did not see him, waited five minutes, and then left the building. This employee's testimony was especially damaging because at one of his first interrogations, on April 28, Frank had told Chief of Detective Newport Lanford that Mary Phagan arrived between 12:05 pm and 12:10pm, and that he had not left his office between 12:00 and 12:30pm. The state's case appeared clear--the prosecution would try to prove that Leo Frank murdered Mary Phagan at the very time Monteen Stover had waited for her pay [in his office]."

Dinnerstein PhD disseration page 93 Dinnerstein states, "Conley then related how Mary Phagan arrived and went upstairs. After that he heard footsteps going back to the metal work room (where the prosecution contended that Mary Phagan had been murdered), a girl scream[ed], and then [he] saw Monteen Stover enter the building and go up to the second floor [Frank's office]. "She stayed there a pretty good while, " and then left the building. Reading further we learn that Conley states that Leo allegedly admitted to assaulting Mary Phagan in the metal room because she would have sexual intercourse with Frank.

Dinnerstein page 104, states, "Leo Frank climaxed the defense presentation with a four hour effort to convince the jurors of his innocence. He briefly outlined his life history, his reasons for coming to Atlanta, and his actions on the day of the murder. At times he specifically touched on points that the prosecution had scored against him. He explained that Monteen Stover may not have seen him in his office when she arrived because when he sat at his desk "it is impossible for me to see out into the outer hall when the safe door is open, as it was that morning, and not only is it impossible for me to see out, but it is impossible for people to see in and see me there." On the other hand, he thought he might have been out of his office momentarily because of "a call of nature."

Leo Frank precisely placed himself at the prosecution's theory of where Mary Phagan was murdered and at the exact time they theorized she was being killed. There was only one bathroom on the second floor and it was in the metal room. Page 93+, Conley stated that Leo Frank allegedly admitted to killing Phagan in the metalroom for refusing sex. Can you see how that might be incriminating, that Leo Frank claimed (State's Exhibit B) that he was alone with Mary Phagan in his office between 12:05 and 12:10pm (Oney, Brown, Dinnerstein, Phagan-Kean), and then when Monteen Stover says his office is empty during that time 12:05-12:10pm (Oney, Dinnerstein, Kean), Frank supposes himself in the men's toilet, the very same area Jim Conley stated in his testimony and affidavits he found Mary Phagan dead, which Dinnerstein shows in his PHD dissertation and book. See page 138 and 139 of Steve Oney's And the dead shall rise, "I got a big wide piece of cloth and come back there to the men's toilet where she [Mary Phagan] was".

Burton Rascoe 1947, page 27, provides the Leo Frank trial statement segment that Dinnerstein distilled, "Now gentlemen, to the best of my recollection, from the time the whistle blew for 12 o'clock until a quarter to one, when I went upstairs [to the fourth floor] and spoke to Arthur White and Harry Denham, to the best of my recollection, I did not stir out of my inner office [at the front of the second floor], but it is possible that to answer a call of nature or to urinate I may have gone to the toilet [in the metal room located at the back of the second floor]. Those are things a man does unconsciously and cannot tell how many times nor when. In my office with the [4 foot tall] safe door open it is impossible for me to see out but it is also impossible for people to see me inside [my office].

Steve Oney, page 333, states about Dorsey's closing argument "Ah, gentlemen, then Saturday comes, Saturday comes," Dorsey thrillingly intoned. Following a sketch of Frank's alleged activities during the morning hours, the solicitor asserted that Mary Phagan reached the factory at 12:05 and that the superintendent escorted her to the rear of the second floor "to see whether the metal had come." That said, Dorsey turned toward the accused and with the full force of his being leveled his initial accusation: You assaulted her, and she resisted. She wouldn't yield. You struck her and you ravished her and she was unconscious." Here we can see the significance of the claim by Frank that Phagan was with him between 12:05 and 12:10pm, the prosecution's theory is that Frank was 200 feet away in the metal room strangling her at this time. Conley testified that he found Phagan dead in the men's toilet area of the metal room (Oney, page 141). SmittyLiver (talk) 04:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

You still don't answer the question I asked. Instead you provide a long, long narrative on a subject that is not in dispute. You ignore that the "Timeline" section already discusses the discrepancy between Frank and Stover. What you apparently missed:

The prosecution produced a witness, Monteen Stover, who had come into the office to get her paycheck between 12:05 and 12:10. She said that she had looked for Frank in his office and did not find him. This contradicted Frank's initial statement to police that he had not left the office between noon and 12:30.[99][100]

Conley's testimony was that Phagan arrived before Stover; the prosecution theory was that Stover did not see Frank because he was busy murdering Phagan. However other testimony indicated that Phagan exited the trolley between 12:07 and 12:10. From the stop it was a two to four minute walk. This suggested that Stover arrived first, making Stover's testimony and its implications irrelevant; Frank could not be killing Phagan because she had not yet arrived.[101]

I had decided that it wasn't necessary for the reader to know more about why Stover's testimony might be inaccurate (the open safe door) or that Frank acknowledged that he may have taken a potty break he forgot about. If there is a consensus to add this material we can. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

You say to User SmittyLiver, "You still don't answer the question I asked."

This is not true. In regard to the significance of the arrival times of Mary Phagan and Monteen Stover, User SmittyLiver fully answered your question, and in the affirmative, that question being:

"Do you have any reliable secondary sources that say any of the above was seen as significant at the trial by anyone involved?"

User SmittyLiver then proceeded to cite numerous quotes and references which directly addressed the subject of your question.

So how do you then deny that your question was answered? 64.134.98.223 (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

"Character issues" and "Physical evidence"

I provided rewrites for these two sections to provide more details based on previous discussions. Like my previous edits, my feelings won't be hurt is the decision is made to condense the material. There was no "smoking gun" in either section and the sections should reflect that. I went through Oney's account of the trial page by page in order to write these sections -- many, many details are omitted that reflect the back and forth that inevitably occurs in a contested murder trial. Most factual issues were contested and many of the witnesses' integrity was questioned. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

You made a good choice removing Dinnerstein's fallacious claim from the Frank article "The prosecution called witnesses who testified to the blood stains and strands of hair found on the lathe in the second floor machine room, the purported murder scene. This evidence would be questioned after the trial, but Frank's attorneys failed to effectively cross examine these witnesses. For example, no scientific comparison between the hair on the lathe and Phagan's hair was made." Because scientific analysis was conducted on the hair. Though to be fair, hair forensic science was in its very early beginnings at the early 20th century.

1. (Phagan had eaten cabbage and biscuits at 11:00 a.m.) the item in parenthesis is incorrect. Phagan had eaten her brunch at 11:30 a.m., not 11:00 a.m.

2. " the defense argued that the inflammation around Phagan's vagina could have been caused by the original post mortem examination." Do we risk causing people to think the Frank defense was lacking scientific credibility concerning Phagan's rape? People don't get inflammation after they are dead. It was known even in 1913 and centuries before that people don't get inflammation after they are dead.

3. There is an over repetition of the word conflicting and contested, this seems to be biasing the reader. Let the reader decide what is conflicting or what is to be believed or not. All trials are conflicting. All evidence, testimony etc... is argued against. Over using the word conflicting makes it seem like we are trying to convince the reader that there was no case against Frank because the defense challenged their claims. That's the impression it gives.

4. Was the defense arguing Conley dropped Phagan through the scuttle hole located at the side of the elevator at the lobby? I would spell that out, most people will have no clue what you are referring to unless it is explained.

5. First responders (police) testified their were drag marks from the elevator shaft entry way (not the ladder) all the way to the back of the factory where Phagan was dumped. Is interpreted the right word? It seems weaselish (weasel words).

6. Dinnerstein and Oney cited quote is incorrect in suggesting "This evidence would be questioned after the trial, but Frank's attorneys failed to effectively cross examine these witnesses." The evidence was questioned during the trial, not just after it. Phagan's 5 inch wide blood spatter on the floor (smeared with the white powder machine lubricant haskolene) diagonal to the bathroom door in the metal room (Phagan was alleged to have been found dead by Conley in the men's toilet closet) was claimed to be "varnish" by the defense. Phagan's hair with dried blood on it (sworn Coroner's Inquest testimony) found tangled on the lathe in the metal room was claimed by the defense to have been girls curling their hair with hot irons 10 or 20 feet away and a draft blew it from there onto the lathe. Thus the claim of after the trial is incomplete, the forensic evidence of Phagan's murder in the metal room was questioned during the trial. SmittyLiver (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Reliable secondary source for 11:30? Phagan's mom at trial said Phagan :... got up about 11:00 and had breakfast right afterwards." (Oney p. 196) If others feel we should substitute the actual quote we certainly can. You miss the word "effectively". My judgment is to not go into greater detail regarding the blood and hair since it will be referred to in more detail in the commutation section based on the proposed reorganization. If there is consensus to do so or if the reviewer feels it is significant for the review then we can add it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Steve Oney made a typo, I checked the Frank trial transcript and Phagan Kean's book has the time correctly stated. Mary Phagan Kean page 17 "At 11:30 a.m. she ate some cabbage and bread for lunch. She left home at a quarter to twelve to go to the", page 76 "The State showed that Mary Phagan had eaten her dinner of bread and cabbage at 11:30 and had". SmittyLiver (talk) 04:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Kean leaves a lot out. If Oney simply made a typo, changing 11:30 to 11:00, this means Phagan rolled out of bed, ate a meal, got dressed for her holiday activities, did whatever personal care things they did back then, peed (?), and left the house all in fifteen minutes. Perhaps you can point us to exactly where the "Frank trial transcript" has a different version of the quote (as opposed to a summary of what was said) provided by Oney. Based on the first note in chapter 10 by Oney (page 666) and the failure of Oney to note the source of the quote, I am assuming that Oney used his professional judgment in this case to use a quote provided by a newspaper rather than the summary from the Brief of Evidence which is also subject to typos (or inattention when the document was created) and which leaves out the mention of when Phagan woke up. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

No, Tom. What it actually means is that Mary Phagan rolled out of bed around 11 am, did whatever personal care things they did back then, peed (?), got dressed for her holiday activities, ate her meager breakfast at 11:30, and left the house to catch her trolley at 11:45. 64.134.98.223 (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

James "Jim" Conley photo

Unless I am mistaken, wasn't there a photo of Jim Conley in the article at one point? Was it removed? If not shouldn't one be added? Would it also benefit the article to add an image of Alonzo Mann? SmittyLiver (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

There seemed to be a sentiment at one point that there were too many images in the article, although with the additional content the article now has (from 80KB to 100KB) it might make sense to add Conley, as he was a major character in the Frank case. As far as Mann goes, there is some space in the first part of the Aftermath section where there are two paragraphs on the affidavit that could include a photo of him. I would agree that Conley should be added back, and probably Mann as well now that there is enough written content to justify it. Tonystewart14 (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

It's my recollection that the previous photo was deleted from the available photos for copyright or some such reasons. This version [1] of the article shows a red link where the photo was previously located. However if someone finds a photo it should certainly be added. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I found a bunch of pictures of James "Jim" Conley and Alonzo "Lonnie" Mann at Flickr.com Leo Frank case photos and images. Grainy picture of Jim Conley, Clear Picture of Jim Conley from the Adolph Ochs collection, Jim Conley from Watson's Magazine, Jim Conley in an Atlanta Newspaper and Jim Conley at the trial. Alonzo Mann in the 1980s before he passed away, Alonzo Mann in the Tennessean, 1982 and a whole lot of Alonzo Mann. There are also lots of pictures of these two significant people from The Mary Phagan and Leo Frank Research Library, but this archive is promoting pernicious Antisemitism (otherwise the image library is pretty good). SmittyLiver (talk) 04:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Appeals

I have just added a reorganized appeals section. This will allow the reader to recognize that the process was not simply a rehearing over and over again of the same facts -- it shows that specific issues were examined at each step of the process. It also shows that the evidence produced at the original trial in many cases may be either complete or inaccurate. Some of the material in the old section is more appropriate for the to-be-written section "Antisemtism and local and national newspaper coverage." Once again, this is a lot of detail but much is still left out. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again Tom for your work. Some notes:

• Sourcing: Some references include multiple works inside the same reference, but I think it's better to have each of them separate unless there is a comment within the reference following it. That way, it's more apparent that multiple sources are being cited.
• Latitude for defense: You mentioned at the beginning that the defense was limited by Georgia law in what they could appeal on, but don't cite a source for that line. Is it already cited elsewhere? If not, this should be cited as it's a major point.
• SC appeals: You quote the State as saying "as dangerous to permit a judge to impeach the integrity of his official finding after is concluded as it would be to permit the jury..." (emphasis added). I believe the word 'is' is a typo, but not sure what it's supposed to be.
• Extraordinary motion: In the second paragraph, you have a line that says, "The murder notes, which had only been addressed in any detail in the closing arguments...". I believe this should say "had not been addressed", but I want to make sure.

I've also done the regular copyediting work. I think the new material here and elsewhere is great and will help the article attain GA status. If you know of anything else that needs to be done, feel free to do so. Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words and corrections. I added the footnote for the restriction on the appeals at the end of the paragraph. If you want to add a separate note for the specific sentence it would be page 77. The statement about the murder notes is correct. Oney (page 378) said that until this point the notes had received "scant critical attention" and that at trial there was only a brief discussion in closing about the actual language. I'll revisit it tomorrow and maybe clarify it better. I left out a couple words in the "as dangerous" quote which I've now added. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and added that source to the first sentence as it's a major point and the first sentence of the section. The ref at the end of the paragraph is basically ibidum, but I think it's good to be on the safe side. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Commutation

I've added an expansion of this section based on the proposed reorganization above. This should give the reader a better picture of how the general knowledge of the evidence continued to evolve from the original trial and appeals. Some material sourced directly to Slaton's message was rewritten and sourced to secondary sources that said the same thing. I also changed the section levels based on a suggestion by Tony. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Trial

I went ahead and made the modifications in the trial section according to the proposed reorganization. The trial section still needs two additional sections which should be added tomorrow. These edits, along with earlier edits, should give a good preview of the type of detail that is being returned/added to the article. Other editors may wish to start consolidating language and shortening it. In particular, I'm not sure that the last part of the "Timeline" section can't be reduced. The reviewer has suggested more detail might be beneficial -- we might want to start discussing how detailed to go. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a good point - more content is good, and your work looks great, but we now have enough to be able to take stuff out and leave the best material in. Also, for the third section, I think the Trial subsection could be eliminated and everything below it could be their own subsections. That way, you don't have seven 4th-level headings under it. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

And on that note, since Appeals and Commutation is supposed to be the same way, perhaps these two could be separate sections. I should have noticed this before, but it was a lot more apparent once it was actually in the article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

GA Status is Still Undeserved

This article should not receive GA status before the following issues, among others raised here are properly addressed and rectified in re GA criteria:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

No. References appearing in the article are heavily weighted toward sources which promote the idea that Frank was "wrongfully convicted", and which themselves have been repeatedly shown to fail the test of fact-checking and accuracy.

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary

No. The inclusion of reliable sources, especially primary sources, which support Frank's conviction have been consistently attacked, branded "unreliable", and removed from the article by pro-Frank editors in order to promote the fringe idea that he was "wrongfully convicted".

   C. No original research

No. At least one editor has involved himself in OR by personally contacting one or more author(s) of secondary source material in order to aquire advice and information to support or bolster the fringe POV that Frank was "innocent".

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias

No. The article continues to be heavily biased in favor of Frank. The evidence, reasoning, and sources which support the official determination of Frank's guilt by every level of the judicial system is repeatedly and relentlessly removed, obscured, mischaracterized, or otherwise attacked throughout the article by pro-Frank editors lobbying for exclusive reliance upon pro-Frank sources who all employ a shameful obfuscation of relevant facts, as well as fabricated nonsense in order to push their common, and all too obvious agenda, which is to promote the idea of Frank's "innocence".

Although a very cleverly worded article, it is full of weasel words, and still pushes an obvious pro-Frank POV.

See [THIS] discussion, and [THIS] discussion as examples of the type of chicanery that has been present in this article for years.

See also [THIS] discussion, as well as this entry from the recent [Aborted Review] as only 2 of many relevant examples of disruptive editing and ownership behavior by one of the most fervently pro-Frank editors of this article:

Tom, you are not allowing any constructive edits. I think you are classic WP:OOA showing all the WP:OWNBEHAVIOR symptoms. The way the article currently looks is straight WP:POV due to your WP:DRNC, and I am not alone in this thinking. I took a break after your last attack. But as this article is basically being held hostage by you, I can only fail the GA nomination. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc

No. A false "consensus" has only ever been temporarily maintained as a result of the selective, and highly questionable reverting, harassment, or blocking of individual editors who attempt to include factual information and sources which tend to demonstrate the guilt of Frank, a most notable example of which appears [HERE].

This article remains "stable" only when it is "protected" by those who share an interest in preserving it merely as a vehicle to exonerate Frank. No doubt a number of editors seeking a neutral POV have become reluctant to even participate in the building of this article because the concerted efforts of various pro-Frank editors and administrators to push a pro-Frank POV have evolved to the point of lodging accusations of sockpuppetry against editors who attempt to bring the article into a state of neutrality.

Given the huge amount of properly resourced facts and evidence concerning this case that over time have been capriciously and unjustifiably removed from this article, a prime example of which may be found [HERE], and [HERE],has merely served to preserve this article as a POV whitewashing of Leo Frank. To ignore these issues renders any promotion to GA status as nothing less than ridiculous. 64.134.98.223 (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

This has been responded to in the GA review, so I am archiving. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)