Misplaced Pages

Talk:Leo Frank

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shrike (talk | contribs) at 18:06, 31 August 2012 (→because Jim Conley admitted in 1913, moving the dead body of Mary Phagan to the basement). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:06, 31 August 2012 by Shrike (talk | contribs) (→because Jim Conley admitted in 1913, moving the dead body of Mary Phagan to the basement)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconGeorgia (U.S. state): Atlanta Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Georgia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (U.S. state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Template:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Georgia (U.S. state)
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Atlanta task force (assessed as Low-importance).
Atlanta task force To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Former featured article candidateLeo Frank is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 14, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted

Archiving icon
Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10


This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on August 17, 2007, August 17, 2008, and August 17, 2011.

leo frank teeth xrays and teeth bitemarks on mary phagan's neck and shoulder (fake or real?)

The state's files on the case were lost (state and federal court records on LF all survived, including brief of evidence) and with them the opportunity to apply modern forensic techniques, such as comparing Frank's dental records with photographs of bite marks on Phagan's body.

Alphin, Melnik, Oney, Dinnerstein, and others make the conviction-overturning statement there were teeth bitemarks on Phagan's neck and shoulder and xrays were taken of Frank's teeth that didn't match them. There seems to be nothing about this recorded in the brief of evidence (police, doctors, medical examiners), Leo Frank's appeals (1913, 1914, 1915) or any Atlanta/Georgian newspapers. The citation comes from Pierre Van Paasen in 1964 about a claim in 1922. What do we do when a secondary source makes statements not supported or passing minimum scrutiny? 'To Number Our Days' by Pierre Van Paasen (1964), page 237 and line 27, and page 238.

The Jewish community of Atlanta at that time seemed to live under a cloud. Several years previously one of its members, Leo Frank, had been lynched as he was being transferred from the Fulton Tower Prison in Atlanta to Milledgeville for trial on a charge of having raped and murdered a little girl in his warehouse which stood right opposite the Constitution building. Many Jewish citizens who recalled the lynching were unanimous in assuring me that Frank was innocent of the crime. I took reading all the evidence pro and con in the record department at the courthouse. Before long I came upon an envelope containing a sheaf of papers and a number of X-ray photographs showing teeth indentures. The murdered girl had been bitten on the left shoulder and neck before being strangled. But the X-ray photos of the teeth marks on her... continuing on page 238... body did not correspond with Leo Frank’s set of teeth of which several photos were included. If those photos had been published at the time of the murder, as they should have been, the lynching would probably not have taken place. Though, as I said, the man died several years before, it was too late, I thought, to rehabilitate his memory and perhaps restore the good name of his family. I showed Clark Howell the evidence establishing Frank’s innocence and asked permission to run a series of articles dealing with the case and especially with the evidence just uncovered. Mr. Howell immediately concurred, but the most prominent Jewish lawyer in the city, Mr. Harry Alexander, whom I consulted with a view to have him present the evidence to the grand jury, demurred. He said Frank had not even been tried. Hence no new trial could be requested. Moreover, the Jewish community in its entirety still felt nervous about the incident. If I wrote the articles old resentments might be stirred up and, who knows some of the unknown lynchers might recognize themselves as participants in my description of the lynching. It was better, Mr. Alexander thought, to leave sleeping lions alone. Some local rabbis were drawn into the discussion and they actually pleaded with Clark Howell to stop me from reviving interest in the Frank case as this was bound to have evil repercussions on the Jewish community. That someone had blabbed out of school became quite evident when I received a printed warning saying: Lay off the Frank case if you want to keep healthy. The unsigned warning was reinforced one night, or rather, early one morning when I was driving home. A large automobile drove up alongside of me and forced me into the track of a fast-moving streetcar coming from the opposite direction. My car was demolished, but I escaped without a scratch.

X-ray photographs are unable to show teeth indentures on skin in 1913 and 2013. X-ray technology was not used in 1913, 1914 or 1915, on teeth anywhere in Georgia. No defense autopsy reports in brief of evidence mention teethmarks on Phagan's neck and shoulder, or LF teeth x-rays, nor is it mentioned in any of numerous appeals or newspaper articles. Why are we trusting someone (P. Van Paasen) who said LF's appeals lawyer, said LF didn't have a trial yet. LF was not lynched on a train to prison work farm in June 1915 either. Head-on car wreck in 1922, with no scratches? What do we do when a statement does not pass minimum scrutiny, but is added in the lf wiki entry?Carmelmount (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

At wikipedia we rely on reliable secondary sources and the info in question has passed "minimum scrutiny" from these sources. Has a reliable secondary source noted the problem with the dental records that you cite above. I did a quick Google search and couldn't find anything. I did find this at Amazon -- a reviewer that seems to be on a crusade against all reliable sources on the Frank trial. And of course the claim is made at leofrank.org by whoever organzed the website. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Did you do a google search and study xray technology and forensics for 1913. It is not possible to X-ray teethmarks on skin then or now. Journalists and authors are prone to cite erroneous information from time to time. It doesn't make the book or author invalid, just the citation. Wiki editors should check statements for their validity, not just insert anything that tickles their fancy. This particular example about xray photographs of teethmarks on skin doesn't pass the science class and is not mentioned in trial or appeals documents or newspapers of the time. What do others have to say about this problem.Carmelmount (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
The point is that "Alphin, Melnik, Oney, Dinnerstein" (your list -- I only verified Oney) read Van Paassen's work and judged it credible enough to include in their works. As Misplaced Pages editors, we don't have the luxury of second guessing their judgement in evaluating the source. They could very well have concluded that Van Paassen did not fully understand what he saw (i.e. did he actually see a photograph of Phagan instead of an x-ray and an x-ray of Frank's teeth instead of a photograph?). They could have judged that any errors made were not significant enough to dismiss everything else contained in the book. This of course is assuming that the transcription from the book is accurate -- where did you get it from?
You would have a better case is our article relied on van Paassen's book alone and nobody else choose to use it as a source. However that's not the case. To repeat an earlier question, Does any reliable source question Oney's use of this material?
The wikipedia article on Pierre van Paassen and the list of his works does not suggest that van Paassen is a crackpot given to making stuff up. Of course we can't really tell what he saw because the actual records mysteriously disappeared. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Carmelmount, you are misrepresenting what's in the article. The article contains no information sourced to van Paassen and says nothing about x-rays. None of the information in the paragraph you reproduce above is in the article. It merely says that when the parole board reviewed the case in the 80s the case files were missing and consequently they had no way of comparing Frank's dental records to photographs of the bite marks on Phagan's body. This statement is sourced to Oney. If you have any reasonable challenge to those facts as cited by Oney or to Oney's reliability as a source, you're welcome to bring it, but so far all you're doing is whining about something that isn't even in the article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Oney made a mistake including this erroneous/false claim in his book. Several doctors testified at the LF trial for LF and the State. The defense/state doctor autopsy reports at the LF trial and appeals mention no teethmarks or bitemarks on Phagan's shoulder and neck. None of the newspapers of the era 1913-1914-1915 mention teethmarks / bitemarks on Phagan. Authors/journalists do make mistakes from time to time, it doesn't invalidate the author or book. The origin of Oney's citation about teethmarks / bitemarks on Mary Phagan comes from Pierre Van Paasen 1964, clearly an unreliable source. Mary Phagan was evaluated by several doctors, buried, exhumed, evaluated by doctors and buried again. There are no bitemarks / teethmarks on the neck or shoulder of Mary Phagan's embalmed body. You should read the brief of evidence, appeals and newspaper reports to know there are no teeth or bitemarks on Phagan.Carmelmount (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

North Shoreman, Re your edit summary "revert -- the source cited (Oney p. 647) specifically mentions 'Frank's dental X rays' and 'photograhps of the bite wounds' " — Could you give the excerpt from Oney p. 647 that includes these two phrases that you quoted, and any references that Oney gives for the excerpt? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the paragraph from which the quotes are taken (you can access it yourself by using the green link to the book in the article's bibliography):
Conley's disappearance from the scene was not the only factor complicating the Board of Pardon and Paroles' attempt to delve back into the Phagan mystery. Also gone were the state's files. In 1947, an Atlanta lawyer and writer named Allen Lumpkin Henson visited Hugh Dorsey in his office to discuss the possibility of writing about the case. "Magazines all over the country keep on distorting the facts," Dorsey told Henson before directing his attention to a large cabinet packed with the documents and pieces of physical evidence that had factored so large during the summer of 1913. "Every scratch of the pen, including my notes and memoranda made during the trial" were there, the former solicitor remarked. Not long after this meeting, Dorsey was dead. Seventeen years later, his oldest son, James, wrote historian Leonard Dinnerstein: "During the years since my father's death I am afraid that any old papers which he might have preserved have been lost or destroyed." As a result, the men looking into the matter in 1983 were unable to apply the tools of contemporary forensic science to such items as Frank's dental X rays and the photographs of the bite wounds supposedly covering Mary Phagan's body. Simply put, the argument would never move beyond that of Conley's word versus Frank's.
The reference in the "Notes" section of Oney's book is to Van Paasen.
PS There is a specific discussion of van Paassen on page 617. Oney specifically quotes van Paassen:
The photos of the teeth marks on her body did not correspond with Leo Frank’s set of teeth.
Note that Carmelmount slightly changes the quote to:
But the X-ray photos of the teeth marks on her... continuing on page 238... body did not correspond with Leo Frank’s set of teeth of which several photos were included.
Carmelmount makes much of the inclusion of the word "X-ray", but the question is now whether Oney or Carmelmount is accurately quoting van Paassen (shame on Oney, however, if he failed to use ellipsis).Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Sections of the Jewish community may well have been cautious about re-opening the case, but I am cautious about assuming that this feeling was as strong as this quote makes out, given that there was a lot written about the case in the 20th century e.g. Harry Golden, a leading Jewish journalist, wrote a book about the case in 1966, arguing strongly for Frank's innocence. PatGallacher (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The reluctance on the part of the Jewish community to reopen the case refers back to the 1920s, not the 1960s. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is the excerpt from Oney's book that quotes Paassen (presumably Paassen's 1964 book), and the corresponding part of Paassen's book that was provided by Carmelmount.

Oney — There, he discovered what seemed to be a critical new evidence — Frank's dental X rays and photographs of Mary Phagan's body "showing teeth indentures." Confirming long-standing speculation, Van Paassen later wrote: "The murdered girl had been bitten on the left shoulder and neck before being strangled." What was truly startling, however, was this: "The photos of the teeth marks on her body did not correspond with Leo Frank's set teeth ... If those photos had been published at the time of the murder ... the lynching would probably not have taken place."
Van Paassen via Carmelmount — Before long I came upon an envelope containing a sheaf of papers and a number of X-ray photographs showing teeth indentures. The murdered girl had been bitten on the left shoulder and neck before being strangled. But the X-ray photos of the teeth marks on her body did not correspond with Leo Frank’s set of teeth of which several photos were included. If those photos had been published at the time of the murder, as they should have been, the lynching would probably not have taken place.

Comparing the excerpt from Oney's book that quotes Van Paassen's book, with the excerpt that Carmelmount got directly from Van Paassen's book:

  • Oney mentions Van Paassen's use of the term X-ray but doesn't give a quote of Van Paassen using the term X-ray.
  • Carmelmount gives the corresponding excerpt from Van Paassen's book that uses the term X-ray.

Oney might have thought that Van Paassen's memory got mixed up about what were X-ray photos and what were ordinary photos, and Oney may have been correcting Van Paassen's mistake. That would explain the selective quoting by Oney that didn't include quotes with the term "X-ray". --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You are assuming that Carmelmount took the info from the book. I asked him/her above where the excerpt came from and have not received a reply. It is more likely that the quote came from leofrank.org (see, for example ). While the website does have links to legitimate websites, much of the material (see discussion above) that is original commentary is extremely unprofessional and antisemitic. On the portion of the website that I linked, the following commentary occurs right before the van Paassen material is quoted:
Pro Leo Frank revisionists and partisan authors have been intentionally perpetuating a known fraud called the “1964 Mary Phagan Bitemark and Leo Frank X-Ray Hoax” for the specific purpose of tricking the general public into thinking Leo Frank was an innocent White man wrongfully convicted for the murder of Mary Phagan by an evil Goyim conspiracy orchestrated by the people of Georgians who knew he was innocent, but were bent on framing him because Leo Frank was Jewish. The fraud has been perpetuated by Pseudo-Historian Leonard Dinnerstein, Emeritus Professor of History, University of Arizona; Tabloid journalist-author Steve Oney; Pseudo-Scholar Donald E. Wilkes, Jr. Professor of Law, University of Georgia School of Law; and children’s book author Elaine Marie Alphin, along with many other members of the Jewish community.
I don't think it is reasonable to accept w/o question that van Paassen is quoted accurately by this website. Of course, the bottom line, regardless of my opinion or what the actual language is, is that reliable sources have found van Paassen to be a reliable source for their works. If I seem to be beating a dead horse, it is because a little over a year ago the article was attacked by an editor using numerous sock puppets and Carmelmount and Manson48 are using the exact same arguments and sources used by the other editor. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I trust Oney to quote van Paasen accurately more than I trust Carmelmount or leofrank.org. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
If an editor gives an excerpt from a book that is available to the public, it seems reasonable to get the book from a library and check the excerpt if there's some doubt about the authenticity of the excerpt. Here's a link for finding nearby libraries that have it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Oney's citation about teethmarks on Phagan comes from Pierre Van Paasen (1964), 'To Number Our Days'. The copied quote from Pierre Van Paasen's book is accurate, and if anyone has any doubts about the accuracy of the quote they can purchase the book from Amazon, or borrow a copy through the US inter-loan library system. No where in the LF trial brief of evidence, appeals or slaton commutation hearings is there any mention of teethmarks on Phagan's neck and shoulder, or photographs of teethmarks anywhere on Phagan. None of the three local Atlanta newspapers, Constitution, Journal or Georgian mention anything about teeth marks on Mary Phagan.Carmelmount (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Re "No where in the LF trial brief of evidence, appeals or slaton commutation hearings is there any mention of teethmarks on Phagan's neck and shoulder, or photographs of teethmarks anywhere on Phagan. None of the three local Atlanta newspapers, Constitution, Journal or Georgian mention anything about teeth marks on Mary Phagan." — Do you have a link to any reliable sources that made these claims? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Please search on 'Leo Frank' once inside the Georgia State Virtual Vault. There are three links of Leo M. Frank vs. The State of Georgia. The state archive contains three identical copies of the LF trial brief of evidence (28th of July, 1913, to 26, of August, 1913) http://cdm.sos.state.ga.us/index.php some versions are clearer than others (2nd copy of the brief of evidence is clear with the motion for new trial). State and defense doctors who examined Phagan testified to what they found on Phagan's body in the brief of evidence. I checked again for the fourth time to be sure and nowhere does it mention teeth marks on Phagan's neck and shoulder (or anywhere on her body). American State Trials v. 10 by JD Lawson LLD, has the closing statements of State / Defense attorneys http://www.archive.org/download/AmericanStateTrials1918VolumeXleoFrankAndMaryPhagan/american-state-trials-1918-volume-X.pdf nothing by Dorsey, Hooper, Rosser or Rube Arnold about teeth marks on Phagan. Leo Frank and his counsel filed a motion for a new trial on more than 100 grounds, and nowhere in those 100 grounds does it mention teeth marks on Mary Phagan. The motion for a new trial is also available to read on http://cdm.sos.state.ga.us/index.php see Leo Frank vs State (second example Leo Frank vs. The State of Georgia). There is a bill of exceptions on http://cdm.sos.state.ga.us/index.php and nothing about teeth marks on MP. The original 30 page clemency order of Gov. J.M. Slaton is listed on http://cdm.sos.state.ga.us/index.php and again nothing about teeth marks on Phagan. I found a 1818 page GA supreme court file on LF on the unreliable source called the Leo Frank library http://www.leofrank.org/images/georgia-supreme-court-case-files/ it appears to be authentic when compared against Georgia State Archive documents. The newspaper articles taken from proquest on http://www.leofrank.org/newspapers/ appear to be authentic as well. The Internet Archive http://www.archive.org contains numerous books on the Leo Frank case, eg. CP.Connolly The Truth about the Leo Frank Case http://www.archive.org/download/TheTruthAboutLeoFrankCase/the-truth-about-the-leo-frank-case-1915.pdf Night fell on Georgia http://www.archive.org/download/NightFellOnGeorgia/Night_Fell_on_Georgia.pdf The case of Leo Frank by Rascoe Burton http://www.archive.org/details/TheCaseOfLeoFrank and none of the legal docs, or books before 1964 describe teeth marks on Phagan. 1964 appears to be the birth of this fabrication.Carmelmount (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry that you went through all that effort with your last message, but that doesn't seem to be what I was asking, although I appreciate your effort. I was asking for a reliable source that came to the same conclusions that you made in your previous message that I quoted.
Also, what concerns me is that it is difficult to say that evidence regarding bite marks never existed. There seemed to be an atmosphere around the time of the trial that may have suppressed exculpatory evidence and kept it from the defense attorneys. It's my understanding that Van Paassen claims to have come across the bite marks evidence in 1922, 9 years after the trial when things may have settled down somewhat. I can only speculate that he may have been able to find the evidence when others during the trial didn't, because it wasn't as carefully guarded and hidden anymore. Do you think that's a reasonable possibility? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
So much of what Van P says misrepresents facts of the LF case. He provides incorrect information about the trial, lynching, Henry Alexander. Most amusing he claims while driving his car in 1922 he was forced into a head on collision, but he escaped with out a scratch. The airbag must have saved him. Autopsies were performed on the naked and embalmed body of Mary Phagan by LF Defense doctors and their reports http://cdm.sos.state.ga.us/index.php are in the LF brief of evidence. None of the Lf defense doctors describe teeth marks on Phagan or xrays of LF mouth proving him innocent. The LF teeth xrays and Phagan bodily teeth marks are made up. Had there been teeth marks on Phagan, it would have been reported.Carmelmount (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Re "Autopsies were performed on the naked and embalmed body of Mary Phagan by LF Defense doctors and their reports http://cdm.sos.state.ga.us/index.php are in the LF brief of evidence." — I went to the link you provided and only got the home page. Could you give the link to the webpage that has the autopsy reports by the LF defense doctors? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I checked again for teeth marks on MP or LF mouth xrays/photos at Georgia Virtual Vault http://cdm.sos.state.ga.us/index.php search on Leo Frank, look for three items Leo Frank vs. The State of Georgia. The second and third copy of the brief of evidence are clear to read. The State made it's case first, then the Defense made it's case. You can find the Defense's case in the second half of the trial portion brief of evidence. Then comes the exhibits at the end. No defense doctors who examined MP's naked and embalmed body and reported teeth marks on Phagan's neck or shoulder, they reported nothing about LF xrays, mouth indenture molds or photos of his mouth. I checked again LF made a motion for a new trial on 107 grounds http://cdm.sos.state.ga.us/index.php nothing in their either about teeth marks on MP's shoulder or neck, nothing in their about xrays, denture molds or photos of LF mouth. Same with all of LF appeals, nothing about teeth marks on MP shoulder and neck, or LF mouth xrays, photos or mouth molds. I downloaded and checked the agonizing long http://www.leofrank.org/images/georgia-supreme-court-case-files/ supreme court of georgia file on LF, nothing in their either. Gov. JM Slaton says nothing about teeth marks either in his 30 page clemency order. I checked every book written about the LF case before 1964, none mention teeth marks anywhere on MP. Van P is an unreliable source and his claims can not be verified.Carmelmount (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that but you didn't give the requested link. Could you give the link to the webpage that has the autopsy reports by the LF defense doctors? --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I went through the brief of evidence, 1913, and focused on defense doctors. Page 154 Prof. Geo Bachman, p. 143 Dr. Owens, p. 156 Dr. Thomas Hancock, p.159 Dr. Thomas Hancock, p. 159 Dr. Willis F. Westmoreland, P. 161 Dr. J.C. Olmstead, p. 162 Dr. W.S. Kendrick, p165 Dr. Leroy Childs, p228 Dr. SC Benedict, p. 236 Dr. Clarence Johnson, P. 238 Dr. George M. Niles, p240 Dr. John Funk. The central argument by defense doctors seems to be over things like stomach digestion, cause of the black eye on Mary Phagan, inflammation found in her vagina, LF penis examinations. The examinations of Phagan were primarily conducted by undertaker Gheesling and Dr. Harris, probably Atlanta police, not defense doctors as far a I can see. However, there is still no mention of Leo Frank teeth examination, photos, molds, xrays or teeth marks on Phagan by defense doctors. Can someone please provide evidence before the Van P claim in 1964 that there were teeth marks on phagan and xrays or photos taken of LF mouth. Otherwise there is no proof of it and Van P is not a reliable source because he gets everything wrong about the frank case.Carmelmount (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

All of the discussion concerning YOUR analysis of primary sources and YOUR analysis of Van Paassen's book are irrelevant. What is relevant is that ACTUAL RELIABLE SECONDARY SOURCES have accepted Van Paassen's claim regarding dental records as credible and NO RELIABLE SECONDARY SOURCES question it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Carmelmount, Re your comment, "The examinations of Phagan were primarily conducted by undertaker Gheesling and Dr. Harris, probably Atlanta police, not defense doctors as far a I can see." — Thanks for correcting your previous comment, "Autopsies were performed on the naked and embalmed body of Mary Phagan by LF Defense doctors..."
Re your comment, "However, there is still no mention of Leo Frank teeth examination, photos, molds, xrays or teeth marks on Phagan by defense doctors." — Couldn't that be because the exculpatory evidence related to bite marks was withheld from the defense doctors and they didn't know about it since they didn't examine the body themselves? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
A number of sources suggest at 3 AM-ism on Aug. 27, 1913, when the Nightwatch Newt Lee found Phagan in the basement she was fully clothed. Could someone have take off her dress, bit her shoulder and then put the dresss back on? Possibly, but there is no evidence about teeth marks on MP except from an unreliable journalist Van P. in 1964. Leo Frank was not arrested until Tuesday, so between Sunday and Monday, nobody reported teeth marks on Phagan's neck and shoulder. Had someone bitten Phagan they would have reported it and taken teeth molds of Lee, Gantt, Frank, Bailey, Mullenaux (sp) and all the other people suspected. The media would have likely reported the police where looking for the suspect whose teeth marks were on Phagan. To suggest Gheesling, Dorsey, Harris, Atlanta Police, others knew of teeth marks on Phagan and they took xrays of Leo Frank's mouth and they didn't match, but prosecuted him anyway, amounts to intentionally murdering an innocent man. This is nearly impossible to reconcile with the evidence, when considering Leo Frank told the police on he never left his office between noon and 12:45. Monday the 28 of April, Frank said miss Phagan came into his office between 12:05 to 12:10PM (states exbht b), but at the trial (aug. 18) he changed his story and said he was using the toilets in the metal room during this time to account for his office being empty (Monteen Stover). According to one site, in a prison interview, Atanta Constitution, March 9, 1914, Frank one more time confirmed his presence at the toilets in the metal room regarding Monteen Stover, this again during the time he once said Phagan was in his office. Apparently the only toilets on second floor / office floor are in the metal room based on defendents exhibits and states exhibit A. Pretty incriminating to put yourself so near the crime scene at the time claimed for Phagans arrival. About the teeth marks, I'm not saying Oney is an unreliable source, but journalists do make mistakes from time-to-time, and the question arises, should we include their unverifiable mistakes in the wiki entry.Carmelmount (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I went to a library and photocopied the part of the Van Paassen 1964 book on pages 237–8 that discussed the Leo Frank case. I compared it with Carmelmount's excerpt, word for word. With regard to the teeth marks part, Van Paassen's book was identical to that part of Carmelmount's excerpt. There were some minor transcription errors in other parts of Carmelmount's excerpt. Those transcription errors were also found in the excerpt that was at http://www.leofrank.org/steve-oney/.

Excerpt from Van Paassen 1964, pages 237–8, that discusses Leo Frank case

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

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

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

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

--Bob K31416 (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Van Paassen claims, Leo Frank was lynched on his way from the Atlanta tower to Milledgeville for a murder trial, but Leo Frank had his trial in 1913, and was lynched 2 years later in Marietta August 17, 1915. Van P also claims, he went to the courthouse and found records concerning teeth marks on Phagan and photos of LF's teeth, how come no one else ever saw these records? How did they get there? How do we know they are real? What ever became of the evidence? Why did LF never mention his teeth were photographed to compare them with teeth marks on Phagan? Van Paasen claims, "Mr. Harry Alexander, whom I consulted with a view to have him present the evidence to the grand jury, demurred. He said Frank had not even been tried. Hence no new trial could be requested". Why would Frank's appeals lawyer Henry Alexander be talking about presenting evidence to a grand jury and that Leo Frank did not have a trial yet? Van Paasen claims he was in a head on collision and escaped without a scratch, "A large automobile drove up alongside of me and forced me into the track of a fast-moving streetcar coming from the opposite direction. My car was demolished, but I escaped without a scratch....". Van Paasen is indisputably a crackpot and any references to his unverifable and unreliable teeth mark claims by sources such as Dinnerstein or Oney should be added to the wiki entry if it is to maintain scholarly integrity.Carmelmount (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Much of your message is off the topic of this section which is evidence related to teeth marks. Regarding the questions you are raising about the credibility of Van Paassen's recounting of the teeth mark evidence, I don't think those questions are enough reason to exclude the material from the article. See my comments of 23:53, 13 January 2012 in the section below. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Comparison of excerpts from Oney and Van Paassen

From Oney p. 617,

Shortly after landing a job at the Constitution, Pierre Van Paassen immersed himself in the records at the Fulton County Courthouse. There, he discovered what seemed to be a critical new evidence — Frank's dental X rays and photographs of Mary Phagan's body "showing teeth indentures." Confirming long-standing speculation, Van Paassen later wrote: "The murdered girl had been bitten on the left shoulder and neck before being strangled." What was truly startling, however, was this: "The photos of the teeth marks on her body did not correspond with Leo Frank's set of teeth ... If those photos had been published at the time of the murder ... the lynching would probably not have taken place."

From Van Paassen pp. 237–8,

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

Oney misrepresented and misquoted Van Paassen's book regarding X rays.

  1. Misrepresentation — Oney referred to X rays of Frank's teeth, and photographs of teeth marks (indentures) on Phagan's body, whereas Van Paassen wrote the opposite, i.e. there were X rays of teeth marks (indentures) on Phagan's body, and photos of Frank's teeth.
  2. Misquoting — Oney quote of Van Paassen, "The photos of the teeth marks on her body did not correspond with Leo Frank's set of teeth ..."
Van Paassen actually wrote, "But the X-ray photos of the teeth marks on her body did not correspond with Leo Frank’s set of teeth of which several photos were included."

Oney summarized his comments later in his book on p. 647,

...Frank's dental X rays and the photographs of the bite wounds supposedly covering Mary Phagan's body.

The corresponding material currently in the Misplaced Pages article is,

...comparing Frank's dental records with photographs of bite marks on Phagan's body.

Before considering whether to do anything about this, I would like editors' thoughts on whether Oney misrepresented and misquoted what Van Paassen wrote. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

To me, "misrepresented" suggests intentionality (for example see ]. There is nothing to suggest that there was any attempt by Oney to deceive anybody. Did he "misquote"? It seems likely that he did, but it probably was nothing but sloppy note taking or sloppy editing. It should be noted that Dinnerstein (page 158) also used van Paassen.
Does any of this suggest that van Paassen did not see something that he concluded were Frank's dental records and bite wounds on Phagan?
I would suggest rewriting the paragraph as follows (bold print indicates new language and strike out indicate deleted material):
Mann's deposition was the basis of an attempt to obtain a posthumous pardon for Frank from the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles. The effort was led by Charles Wittenstein, southern counsel for the Anti-Defamation League, and Dale Schwartz, an Atlanta lawyer, though Mann's testimony was not sufficient to settle the issue. The board also reviewed the files from Slaton's commutation decision. It denied the pardon in 1983, hindered in its investigation by the lack of available records. Conley had died in 1962. The state's files on the case, which were last in the possession of lead prosecutor Hugh Dorsey, were lost or destroyed and with them the opportunity to apply modern forensic techniques, such as comparing Frank's dental records with photographs bite marks on Phagan's body. It concluded that, "After exhaustive review and many hours of deliberation, it is impossible to decide conclusively the guilt or innocence of Leo. M. Frank. For the board to grant a pardon, the innocence of the subject must be shown conclusively." At the time, the lead editorial in the Atlanta Constitution began, 'Leo Frank has been lynched a second time'.
  1. Oney 2003, p. 684.
  2. Oney, pp. 647–648. The existence of the dental records come from Pierre van Paassen's 1964 memoir "To Number Our Days"
  3. Leonard Dinnerstein, "The Fate Of Leo Frank", American Heritage (magazine), October 1996, Vol. 47, Issue 6, accessed 15 May 2011
Absent any discussion in reliable sources regarding the x-ray/photograph discrepancy, I don't see where any attempt to speculate on it in the article is warranted nor is it sufficient to justify exclusion. What would be inappropriate is to claim that evidence proved Frank's innocence but we don't do that.
I do think it is appropriate to explain, as Oney does (page 647), who had the evidence before it was lost or destroyed. I also think that elsewhere in the article it is necessary (since the issue of forensic evidence is being raised) that more details be added on the evidence reviewed by Governor Slaton which includes the shit in the shaft, the lack of blood where it should have occurred, the language of the murder notes and the location of the pads, the faulty hair analysis, etc. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
(Let's first settle the Van Paassen/Oney teeth marks issue before going onto something else.)
The teeth marks info looks unreliable. It comes from the 1964 memoirs of a journalist who makes the uncorroborated claim to have seen X-ray photographs of teeth marks 42 years previously in 1922. So far, there hasn't been presented on this talk page even a hint of this evidence from any other independent source. Oney's report of Van Paassen's account was carefully crafted, not sloppy, with the result that a part of Van Paassen's recollection that casts doubt on its credibility, was changed. Editors can read the excerpts from Oney and Van Paassen at the top of this section and judge for themselves. In any case, sloppy or otherwise, wouldn't you agree that Oney incorrectly reported and misquoted Van Paassen's account with respect to the X-ray photos?
I don't think we should propagate in Misplaced Pages clearly erroneous reporting (e.g. Oney's report of Van Paassen's X-ray info) or present info in a way that is not NPOV. However, if you think the Van Paassen account is worthwhile information for the article, then for NPOV why not put its information in the article with its problems? (Note that Van Paassen's book is a secondary source for the information in the X-ray photos and photos, and thus OK in that regard.) One possibility is the following,
The state's files on the case were lost and with them the opportunity to apply modern forensic techniques, such as comparing Frank's dental records with photographs of bite marks on Phagan's body.
1. For example, a journalist claims in his 1964 memoirs to have seen in 1922, records containing X-ray photos of teeth marks on the corpse of Mary Phagan, and photos of Leo Frank's teeth which did not match the teeth marks. Van Paassen, Pierre (1964). To Number Our Days. New York, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. pp. 237–8. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with most of your comments. Memoirs certainly are primary sources -- see ] and ]. While the lines may blur depending on the scope of the memoir, this memoir is a primary source for the salient issue (i.e. what van Paassen saw). As far as corroboration, van Paassen's work was published in 1964, after the records were lost or destroyed. The basic charge by van Paassen (i.e. that the prosecution improperly handled and interpreted evidence) is certainly not extraordinary -- there are numerous examples of this happening. With regard to autopsy results, see Oney pages 91-92 -- Dorsey (the last man known to have the records in his possession before they disappeared) placed very tight restrictions on the release of evidence from the autopsy. You ignore the fact that it is not just Oney who relied on van Paassen but numerous other authors. The most significant scholarly use of the material was the book by PHD Leonard Dinnerstein.
I really object to you statement, "I don't think we should propagate in Misplaced Pages clearly erroneous reporting (e.g. Oney's report of Van Paassen's X-ray info) or present info in a way that is not NPOV." There is nothing POV about the existing language -- it is properly sourced and uncontradicted by any reliable source. Perhaps you can show us what part of Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view has been violated. I think the error would be to ignore evidence reported in the two most significant works on the subject.
Having said all that, your proposal merits consideration. I object to the use of the weasel word "claim" (see WP:CLAIM. I also believe, as I suggested earlier, that specifics on who last had the evidence is significant. I suggest the following:
The state's files on the case were lost and with them the opportunity to apply modern forensic techniques, such as comparing Frank's dental records with photographs of bite marks on Phagan's body.
1. Oney 2003, p.647. Hugh Dorsey admitted to having the records in his possession in 1947, but after his death Dorsey's son replied in 1964 to historian Leonard Dinnerstein's request that the records had "been lost or destroyed".
2. For example, a journalist claims states in his 1964 memoirs to have seen that he saw in 1922, records containing X-ray photos of teeth marks on the corpse of Mary Phagan, and photos of Leo Frank's teeth which did not match the teeth marks. Van Paassen, Pierre (1964). To Number Our Days. New York, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. pp. 237–8. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Since we disagree on a number of peripheral items but seem to be moving towards agreement about what should be in the article, I'll focus on the latter.
Here's a version that edits your latest version (including a part which was also in my previous version), mainly by changing to the relevant quote from Van Paassen's book and the relevant quote of Dorsey's son in Oney's book.
The state's files on the case were lost and with them the opportunity to apply modern forensic techniques.
1. Oney 2003, p.647. In 1947 shortly before his death, Hugh Dorsey admitted to having said he had the records in his possession in 1947, but after his death Dorsey's son replied in 1964 to historian Leonard Dinnerstein's request that the records had "been lost or destroyed". Seventeen years later, Dorsey's son James wrote in a private communication, "During the years since my fathers death I am afraid that any old papers which he might have preserved have been lost or destroyed." Oney 2003, p.647.
2. For example, a journalist states in his 1964 memoirs that he saw courthouse records in 1922, records containing X-ray photos of teeth marks on the corpse of Mary Phagan, and photos of Leo Frank's teeth which did not match the teeth marks. evidence relating to teeth marks on Mary Phagan's body. "But the X-ray photos of the teeth marks on her body did not correspond with Leo Frank's set of teeth of which several photos were included." Van Paassen, Pierre (1964). To Number Our Days. New York, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. pp. 237–8. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
And here's the same version without the struckout text and underlines.
The state's files on the case were lost and with them the opportunity to apply modern forensic techniques.
1. In 1947 shortly before his death, Hugh Dorsey said he had the records in his possession. Seventeen years later, Dorsey's son James wrote in a private communication, "During the years since my fathers death I am afraid that any old papers which he might have preserved have been lost or destroyed." Oney 2003, p.647.
2. For example, a journalist states in his 1964 memoirs that he saw courthouse records in 1922, containing evidence relating to teeth marks on Mary Phagan's body. "But the X-ray photos of the teeth marks on her body did not correspond with Leo Frank's set of teeth of which several photos were included." Van Paassen, Pierre (1964). To Number Our Days. New York, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. pp. 237–8. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
--Bob K31416 (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Works for me. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Let's wait awhile before making the edit to see if anyone else would like to comment. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
It was not scientifically possible to xray teeth marks on the surface of someone's skin in 1913. I ask for proof it was forensically possible. Other than Van P's 1964 fabrication, can anyone show any evidence their were teeth marks on Phagan's neck and shoulder before 1964? Before LF was arrested on the 29th of April, 1913, there are no reports of teeth mark's on Phagan, or immediately afterwards. Phagan was exhumed and May 5th Dr. Harris performed an autopsy, their are no reports of teeth marks on her from any of the police, the undertaker or Dr. Harris. Why between 1913 till the trial transcripts disappeared in the 1960's does no one else report xrays / photos of teeth marks on Phagan and xrays / photos of LF's teeth? The claims are unverifiable and the original source of the claims is an unreliable source.Carmelmount (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
As I mentioned before, the teeth mark evidence wouldn't be known beyond the police or prosecutors if they suppressed it. They may have thought it would help free a man they "knew" to be guilty. Regarding the x-rays, Van Paassen's memory might have been faulty and there may have been just ordinary photographs of both the teeth marks and Frank's teeth, which may have been enough to see whether they fit or not. Another possibility is that Van Paassen viewed the negatives of the teeth marks photos and thought they were X-ray photos since X-ray photos look like negatives of regular black and white photos.
Although I think Van Paassen's account is flaky, the basic point that there was teeth marks evidence may be true. You and I don't know for sure one way or the other. I also think Van Paassen's account is notable because of its use by historians and other reputable writers after 1964. Considering both these aspects, flaky (IMO) and notable, I think the above proposal is appropriate, i.e. a footnote that quotes the unsanitized sentence from Van Paassen's book. I don't think there's enough reason to exclude the material completely. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Tom, did Van Paassen go to the courthouse when he found the non-existent xrays of teeth marks on Phagan or did he go to Dorsey's office (not in the courthouse) and find them?Carmelmount (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Bob, calling Van Paassen flaky does not accurately describe him, he is an outright crackpot and con artist extraordinaire (read his 1964 book 'To Number Our Days'), his claims of finding evidence at the courthouse showing teeth marks on Phagan amounts to an indisputable fraud and hoax of the worst kind. Van Paassen's claims are unverifiable when compared against the official records and newspaper articles of the time, and just because some notable authors quote him doesn't mean we should put in the wiki entry when we know his claims are patently false. This is really POV and bad cherry picking to the benefit of Leo Frank. With all the volumes of evidence out there to exonerate Leo Frank, why do we have to use this fabricated evidence in the wiki entry? Are we really that hard up for evidence to show Leo Frank was innocent, that we have to use made up stuff to achieve this position?Carmelmount (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The proposed change moves the teeth mark material from the more prominent place in the main text, to the less prominent place in a footnote. With the understanding that you want it completely removed from the article, and with the understanding that accepting the proposal does not preclude your continued attempts to argue for its removal completely, would you agree to have the proposal implemented? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Bob, the problem here is vaster than the perpetuation of an indisputable 1964 manufactured fraud about teeth marks on Phagan's neck and shoulder by notable authors like Oney, Dinnerstein, Aphin, Wilkes and others, who use this fraud trying to convince people into thinking LF was indisputably innocent. Wiki editors here feel that because a "reliable" or "notable" author writes something it should be cherry picked and included in the article if it favors LF, even if there is no question it is an unverifiable fabrication. It should be mandatory that any editor who wants to contribute to the LF wiki entry should be required to learn the LF trial brief of evidence and appeals, and end this practice of just adding anything they find in secondary sources favoring LF. This wiki entry suffers from the problem of having a group of editors who are bent on working together to add anything they can find favoring Leo Frank and removing anything incriminating against him. If the end goal of the group of editors who hang out on the LF entry is to blame Antisemitism for Leo Frank's conviction and lynching use real evidence not fabrications, frauds, rumors and hoaxes. If the goal of this same group is to make Leo Frank innocent of the murder then use secondary source materials backed up by original evidence, not unverifiable claims by authors. Recently put down the memory hole in the LF wiki entry is the fact about Governor John Marshall Slaton being a lawpartner of Luther Rosser in the lawfirm Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips, the firm representing Leo Frank at the trial. Now no one will know that it was this gross conflict of interest that lead to the lynching of Leo Frank, not Antisemitism. So with that down the memory hole, I guess the next step is to insert Antisemitism as the cause of Leo Frank's lynching? or do we just leave that as the conclusion people can draw themselves, now that they don't know Slaton commuted the death sentence of his lawfirm client Leo Frank (while siding with the judge, jury and appeals courts sustaining LF's guilt, last page of the 29 page clemency order, June 21, 1915).Carmelmount (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that but you didn't answer the question in my last message. Would you agree to have the proposal implemented? --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Bob is showing remarkable patience in staying on point. All of Carmelmount's arguments have been rejected in the past when made by a banned user and his/her numerous sock puppets. I have generally avoided going into detail and refuting Carmelmount's repetitive claims, but I am making a one-time exception to his/her latest effort.

Carmelmount: Bob, the problem here is vaster than the perpetuation of an indisputable 1964 manufactured fraud about teeth marks on Phagan's neck and shoulder by notable authors like Oney, Dinnerstein, Aphin, Wilkes and others, who use this fraud trying to convince people into thinking LF was indisputably innocent.

Response: Conspiracy theory? So Oney, Dinnerstein, and law professor Wilkes have deliberately “manufactured fraud.” Of course this conspiracy theory is exactly the claim made by leofrank.org which attributes it to a Jewish conspiracy. Do you accept the Jewish conspiracy charge or is their some other reason why these people “manufactured fraud”.

Carmelmount: Wiki editors here feel that because a "reliable" or "notable" author writes something it should be cherry picked and included in the article if it favors LF, even if there is no question it is an unverifiable fabrication.

Response: Not true. Misplaced Pages policy fully supports including information widely reported in reliable secondary sources.

Carmelmount: It should be mandatory that any editor who wants to contribute to the LF wiki entry should be required to learn the LF trial brief of evidence and appeals, and end this practice of just adding anything they find in secondary sources favoring LF.

Response: Bad idea. Misplaced Pages relies on reliable secondary sources. We have established in these discussions that no reliable secondary sources support your interpretation.

Carmelmount: If the end goal of the group of editors who hang out on the LF entry is to blame anti-Semitism for Leo Frank's conviction and lynching use real evidence not fabrications, frauds, rumors and hoaxes.


Response: So now the editors of this article are involved in your conspiracy. And the conspiracy is to find anti-Semitism where it doesn’t exist? This is straight out of leofrank.org. In fact, the existence of anti-Semitism as a factor in the Leo Frank case is widely accepted by historians.

Carmelmount: If the goal of this same group is to make Leo Frank innocent of the murder then use secondary source materials backed up by original evidence, not unverifiable claims by authors.

Response: The goal is to create an accurate article that adequately reflects the significant information included in reliable secondary sources. In your arguments you have failed to cite even one reliable secondary source.

Carmelmount: Recently put down the memory hole in the LF wiki entry is the fact about Governor John Marshall Slaton being a lawpartner of Luther Rosser in the lawfirm Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips, the firm representing Leo Frank at the trial. Now no one will know that it was this gross conflict of interest that lead to the lynching of Leo Frank, not Antisemitism.

Response: Not true. What was eliminated was the UNSOURCED claim that a belief in a conflict of interest was related to the spontaneous demonstrations in Atlanta after the commutation was announced. In fact, there is no objection (see “Slaton and Conflict of Interest” below) to including the material in the proper context. Slaton became a partner ONLY because he had an existing law firm that he could not operate while Governor. As Dinnerstein (page 124) states, “After the new law partners commenced operations, Slaton had nothing to do with the defendant: he shared neither the burdens of the work nor the rewards of the fee.” It should also be noted that Tom Watson actually offered to politically support Slaton if he would allow Frank to die.

There’s an interesting story there and I am fine with including everything from the reliable secondary sources.

Carmelmount: So with that down the memory hole, I guess the next step is to insert Antisemitism as the cause of Leo Frank's lynching?

Response: Good idea. We really do need to add further information to show the extent to which secondary sources discuss the role of anti-Semitism in the Frank case. It is interesting that in the Slaton section below that you call Watson a populist while ignoring the anti-Semitism and racism that was found throughout his writings. Higham (pp. 185-186) for example notes that while "overt anti-Semitic sentiment played little part" in the trial phase, during the appeals process "atred of organized wealth reaching into Georgia from outside became a hatred of Jewish wealth. From one end of the state to the other the story went: 'The Jews have said that no Jew has ever been hanged and that none ever will be.'... In the last stages of the Frank Case, anti-Semitism reached the fiercely nationalistic twist it had acquired briefly in the nineties, and it assumed also an explicitly racial tone." The influential Tom Watson wrote, "It is a peculiar and portentious thing, that one race of men -- and one, only, -- should be able to convulse the world, by a system of newspaper agitation and suppression, when a member of that race is convicted of a capital crime against another race. ... from all over the world, the Children of Israel are flocking to this country, and plans are on foot to move them from Europe en mass ... to empty upon our shores the very scum and dregs of the Parasite Race."

Do you (Carmelmount) really disagree that referring to Jews as the "scum and dregs of the Parasite Race" is baltant anti-Semitism?Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is not all the Antisemitism proof being put into the article if the Lead defines the spot light being put on Antisemitism?To borrow Newt Lee's quote, All im seeing is a gas jet lowered to the level of a small lightening bug. Turn the spot light on it in the LF Wiki entry. Where was the Antisemitism during the murder, investigation, coroner's inquest, jail, grand jury, trial, appeals, lynching and aftermath? Please articulate it.

The absolute bottom line is a known hoax that should be called the 1964 Pierre Van Paassens fraud perpetuated by Leonard Dinnerstein, Steve Oney, Elaine Marie Alphin, Melnick, Professor Wilkes (and other notable and reliable authors) perpetuate a known fraud about xray photographic proof concerning teethmarks, bitemarks, indentures, imprints, whatever you want to call vicious biting, on Mary Phagan's neck and shoulder, and Photographic xray photos of Leo Frank's teeth and mouth disproving he strangled Phagan. Hopefully Verifiability is the highest God on wikipedia.Carmelmount (talk) 06:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

bob i have no other choice but to agree to your proposal about the inclusion, im in the minority here about this and outnumbered. The world deserves to know it was a fraud perpetuated by numerous notable and "reliable" authors.Carmelmount (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for recognizing that it is an improvement even though you still question whether the evidence ever existed. And thanks to North Shoreman for coauthoring the proposal. I've incorporated the proposal into the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The origin of the Mary Phagan neck and should bitemark claims. Paassen, Pierre van. To Number Our Days. Origin of bite mark photographic evidence on Mary Phagan's neck and shoulder that did not match Leo Frank's teeth, see pages 237 and 238. Published by Charles Scribner's Sons, NY, 1964. Accessed February, 13, 2012. The description in van Paassen's book is he went to the courthouse, but Dorsey's office was not in the courthouse in 1913 or 1922, so the inclusion of this information is incorrectly formulated in the Leo Frank wiki. Carmelmount (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Hugh Dorsey's office was not in the Fulton County Superior Courthouse, so Tom NorthShoreman's premise is false. Is this odd claim another issue that needs to be brought to arbiters, because I haven't gotten a response from you Tom about it. Carmelmount (talk) 12:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Height (cont.)

(Editors new to the discussion are invited to comment in the above section on the proposal there.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

On page 10, Steve Oney (2003) puts Leo Frank at 5'6" and 120 lbs. (2 demograhic mistakes, not 1), which is not accurate and there is no foot note for this inaccurate info in oney's book. I thought I would mention the weight too as another error made by him. No way was a 5'8" Leo Frank only 120lbs., his year book puts him at 145lbs and we all know people fatten up when they leave college and marry. He was likely 150lbs or more by 1913.Carmelmount (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Have you looked in the Georgia archives for height data? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Robert, I have checked the Georgia Archive for height data and there is no mention of Leo's height at 5'6" or weight at 120lbs. I've also checked the Georgia Supreme Court Case file on the unreliable and antisemitic hate site Leo Frank Archive on http://www.leofrank.org/images/georgia-supreme-court-case-files/ (unfortunately the document file volume 1 and 2 with 1,800 high resolution images of the GA Supreme Court file are indeed accurate from the unreliable http://www.leofrank.org site, because I compared them against the CD you can purchase from the Georgia State Archives with GA Supreme Court Leo Frank file for $130). It appears only unreliable secondary sources put Leo Frank's height at 5'6" (Steve Oney, Elaine Marie Alphin, others) and weight at 120lbs (Oney). There are only 2 reliable sources for Leo Frank's height that have survived into the 21st century after carefully searching the 3 local newspapers for information on his height (AC, AJ, GA). The most reliable source of Leo Frank's 5'8" height is the passport application (notarized Dec 20, 1907, and approved by Government Jan. 13, 1908), and the second most reliable is the college year book, 1906, page 344-5, row #177. Bob, that foot note needs to include the passport application available from Ancestry.com. Bob would you download the Leo Frank passport document that was notarized and published on Ancestry.com and please upload it to wikipedia.org and archive.org if it isn't already there, even though the passport application is indeed correct on LeoFrank.org I dont think we should link to it on that site because of its politically incorrect views are incompatible with wikipedia.org rules against anti-Jewish opinions. Archive.org or Misplaced Pages.org would be a better place to put Leo Frank's PP.Carmelmount (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Re "Bob would you download the Leo Frank passport document that was notarized and published on Ancestry.com and please upload it to wikipedia.org and archive.org " — I'd rather not open an account at Ancestry.com and I have no experience with the uploading process. So at least for those reasons I'll pass. But out of curiosity, what's the upload process for Archive.org?
Re "The most reliable source of Leo Frank's 5'8" height is the passport application ..., and the second most reliable is the college year book..." — For the 5'8" value, but that may not have been his height. For example, the 5'8" might have originated from Frank himself and he might have fudged the number because he was sensitive about his height. A good source for height may have been the arrest record, jail and/or prisons, if they routinely made height measurements back then. The 5'6" value in books may have ultimately come from one of those sources, but who knows where it came from. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
P.S. In looking at some of the books at archive.org that are related to the case, it looks like the accompanying descriptions were written by the person that has the website leofrank.org . --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Concerning Leo Frank's height are you suggesting he lied about it to overcompensate? Are you suggesting Leo Frank suffered from ? It might or might not be true, but that comes off as original research. There are only 2 known primary sources for Leo Frank's height and none other exist that I am aware of, this is including the three local newspapers which are available on Microfilm through the library loan system. Nothing in them mentions Leo Frank's height at 5'6". It is clear that the 5'6" is human error taking the height from row 178 instead of row 177. Bob, I think adding the passport to the footnote in addition to the year book would bring the point home.Carmelmount (talk) 09:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I think just the easily accessible Cornell info is sufficient to raise the question of the 5'6" height value's accuracy, which is all it is intended to do. I don't think the passport info "proves" 5'8" since we don't know that the authorities measured Frank's height. Also, the Cornell info is less of a primary source and more of a reliable secondary source since the yearbook staff probably only reported the height and didn't measure the height themselves, but considered whether or not all the height data had reasonable values when they proof read the yearbook, something like a newspaper would do. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Well then I won't call the Cornell University Senior Class Book of 1906 a primary source anymore, instead calling it a reliable secondary source. The 1907 passport application was actually notarized and executed in Germany, not the United States, it deserves more credence than the sloppy contemporary researchers whose books are filled with errors and omissions. So do we list Leo Frank's height correctly at 5'8" using the reliable secondary source of the 1906 yearbook or do we incorrectly list Leo Frank's height at 5'6" referencing sloppy researchers with reliable secondary source footnotes?Carmelmount (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Other than the anti-Semitic website where you found this info in the first place, please show any reliable source that dismisses Oney, Dinnerstein, et al as "sloppy contemporary researchers". You were right, however, n characterizing the yearbook as a primary source. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
As far as 5'6" being the value for the main text, it may be a matter of observing WP:UNDUE. Although there are two sources for 5'6" specifically given in the article, I have the impression from the discussion here that there are others with 5'6". As a matter of WP:NPOV, the 5'8" value from the Cornell yearbook, which I think satisfies the requirements for a reliable secondary source, is best placed in the subordinate position in the footnote. Are there any objections to adding 5'8" to the footnote while keeping it out of the main text? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes -- I still have the same objections to including the reference to 5'8" in a footnote. This certainly is a matter of WP:UNDUE as you suggest. No sources that we are aware of which are writing about Leo Frank after he became a prominent national figure use the taller height. Why should we give any weight to a list of heights provided by yearbook editors? WP:Reliable sources states, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Do college yearbooks in general or Cornell's in particular have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy on a par with the other sources we are using? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

North Shoreman, How confident are you that the 5'6" value is correct? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I am 100% confident that 5'6" is the proper height to use in this article. The only thing that will change my mind is a reliable secondary source that says otherwise. You obviously are fully conversant on the policy at Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. This clearly states (in boldface), "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Questions of whether it is a primary or secondary source aside, what evidence can you present that demonstrates that the Cornell yearbook of 1906 meets wikipedia criteria for a reliable source? What is this yearbook's "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?"Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Re "I am 100% confident that 5'6" is the proper height to use in this article." — Thanks for that but it didn't answer my question. My question was, "How confident are you that the 5'6" value is correct?" --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Your question is really not relevant. My beliefs (or yours) on the TRUTH of the matter are beside the point and you know it. I have seen nothing in these discussions that justifies adding an alternative height to the article. If I were to conduct independent research on the subject, I would certainly reserve my opinion until I had (1) examined all of the secondary sources on the subject and (2) examined all the available primary sources available rather than just the ones identified by an anti-Semitic website. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the question is quite relevant since it reflects your confidence in the sources that give the 5'6" value, which addresses the reliability of those sources. Evaluating the reliability of sources is what we do. Your reluctance to answer the question suggests you have some doubts regarding the reliability of those sources with respect to the 5'6" value. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think anyone reading my comments throughout this discussion page and its archives or reviewing the edits I've made would question that I consider these sources as fully reliable. You have failed to answer my questions so I will repeat them, "Questions of whether it is a primary or secondary source aside, what evidence can you present that demonstrates that the Cornell yearbook of 1906 meets wikipedia criteria for a reliable source? What is this yearbook's "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?"
What evidence do you rely on (i.e. reviews) in your suggestion that Oney et al are not reliable sources? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Re "Questions of whether it is a primary or secondary source aside, what evidence can you present that demonstrates that the Cornell yearbook of 1906 meets wikipedia criteria for a reliable source? What is this yearbook's "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?" — If I understand your question correctly, there may not be the kind of evidence you are asking for the Cornell yearbook reputation of accuracy. Many, if not most, of the sources in Misplaced Pages don't have specific evidence that they have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," for example, another reliable source saying that the source in question has such a reputation. Here's an excerpt from WP:IRS.

"The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication."

As editors, it is up to us to judge whether a source is reliable for a specific purpose, in this case the height of Leo Frank. I expect that the Cornell senior class yearbook was written by a staff of Cornell seniors and perhaps under the supervision of one or more faculty members. The height of Leo Frank is contained in a systematic table of info for 572 Cornell seniors, where Frank is student #177 with height 5'8". This seems like a reliable source for Frank's height.

Furthermore, we can check whether this 5'8" value of Frank's height is consistent with a group picture of Frank in the Cornell Debate Club. (Left click your mouse over the image to enlarge.) The students in the front row are Lasher 5'8", Peck 5'5½, Frank 5'8", Shaw 5'9", and Perry 5'10". In the picture, Frank is about the same height as Lasher 5'8". Frank is taller than Peck 5'5½". And Frank is shorter than Shaw 5'9" and Perry 5'10". The height of 5'8" for Frank in the Cornell yearbook student info tables is consistent with this picture.

The Oney and Lindemann sources give 5'6" for Frank's height. We don't know where they got this value and the value is not consistent with the picture of Frank in the Cornell Debate Club. This 5'6" value is the height given in the info box of the Misplaced Pages article with the Oney and Lindemann references in a footnote. This I suggest we keep because Oney and Lindemann can be considered reliable sources in general. However, I think it is appropriate to add to just the footnote, the value 5'8" along with the Cornell senior class yearbook as a reference. (Proposed addition to footnote.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You say, "I expect that the Cornell senior class yearbook was written by a staff of Cornell seniors and perhaps under the supervision of one or more faculty members." I also believe that is the likely scenario. This makes clear that the yearbook has nobody outside the Cornell community evaluating it. Clearly the yearbook must be considered a self-published source and as such it is not a reliable source. As the linked section says, "Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so."
You say, "Many, if not most, of the sources in Misplaced Pages don't have specific evidence that they have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," for example, another reliable source saying that the source in question has such a reputation." While this may be true for some areas on Misplaced Pages, it certainly is not true in historical and biographical articles. Oney, Lindemann, et al can be verified as reliable sources by the reviews of their books, the author's credentials, and the degree to which they are cited by other authors. You are attempting to cast doubt on their research by appealing to an unreliable self-published yearbook.
You say, "We don't know where they got this value", but this is only half true. While they don't footnote the specific fact, it is very possible to determine the extent of the sources they consulted. Oney's bibliography is full of primary and secondary sources, published and unpublished. Lindemann's bibliography and footnotes covers a wide array of secondary sources. I don't think any reasonable person could contest either of their efforts to consult the most appropriate sources for their works.
Your analysis of the photographs is OR and irrelevant. You are using one part of an unreliable source to verify another part of that same source -- an unnecessary act since we already have unquestioned reliable sources saying something else. My own OR tells me that Oney's description of Frank as 5'6" and 120 pounds is totally consistent with the Dinnerstein description that I referenced earlier. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
From your message, we still don't know where the 5'6" value of Oney, Lindemann, and possibly other authors comes from. It could ultimately be based on an error that creeped into the literature sometime since the time when Leo Frank lived a century ago and his height of 5'8" appeared in the systematic info tables of the Cornell senior class yearbook. Even so, I suggested that the 5'6" remain in the main text basically for the reason that you give that it appears in more than one source that are overall reliable, to which I would add not perfect.
However, I think that mention of the 5'8" value from the yearbook should be added to the footnote, which is a subordinate role, because there is some reasonable doubt about the 5'6" value, and this is in keeping with WP:NPOV. While the Debate club picture analysis can't be used in the article because of NOR, it is certainly appropriate on a talk page where sources are evaluated for credibility.
The crux of the matter concerns the yearbook's status in Misplaced Pages. It is probably self-published by the Cornell senior class of 1906, as you pointed out, but it should still be used as a reliable source per WP:ABOUTSELF. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. WP:ABOUTSELF contains the qualifier "usually in articles about themselves or their activities." This article is not about the Cornell University Class of 1906. While it leaves room for exceptions, it seems like bad practice to use it to present an alternative to reliable sources.
There is also a further qualifier of when the self-published source should be used -- only when "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity". There obviously is reasonable doubt about the authenticity of the yearbooks height measurements since other sources report it differently. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
This Misplaced Pages article is about a part of the Cornell senior class of 1906, viz. Leo Frank. Regarding "authenticity", that refers to whether the Cornell senior class yearbook is authentic and not a fake. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
You are correct about the latter point, but it is an impossible stretch to conclude that this article is actually about the Cornell Class of 1906. You have still provided no information as to why the yearbook is a reliable source. I would suggest we either take this to the reliable sources notice board or start an RFC here. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The digital Cornell Senior Year Book 1906 PDF scanned by Microsoft and put online at archive.org is accurate when I compared it to an original copy. I would take the issue of the Year Book and the passport to the reliable sources notice board so that once and for all we can settle the issue for all of Misplaced Pages, not just the Leo Frank wiki entry. It's absolutely clear that the authors who claim Leo Frank is 5'6" are unable to provide any reliable sources for this specific height and it was likely as Bob pointed out an error confusing line 178 with 177 on page 345 of the Cornell Senior Year Book, 1906. Garbage-in Garbage-out, most of the authors that take the side of Leo Frank tend to quote and re-quote each other without appropriately checking the primary sources, so it's sloppy research being repeated over and over again until it becomes mainstream Misplaced Pages. If you are going to put Leo Frank's wrong height at 5'6" at least put the footnote about the Cornell Senior Year Book, 1906, p. 344 and 345 where it correctly lists Leo Frank's height at 5'8". I also think that we all know the passport application is an accurate source of one's height, but for political reasons here there seems to be resistance, some people here do not want the passport to be recognized as a reliable source of information for someones height, because it's more proof of the sloppy research conducted by contemporary authors on the Leo Frank case. Carmelmount (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Carmelmount, Thanks for agreeing to the footnote.
North Shoreman, It looks like your only remaining objection to using the self-published Cornell senior class of 1906 yearbook, is your position that it can not be used as a reliable source in an article on an individual member of the class, viz. Leo Frank. I'll try one more time to get your agreement that the yearbook can be used, and if unsuccessful, it looks like we would need more opinions from other editors. First off, please note that the yearbook is already being used as a reliable source elsewhere in the article.
I think the situation regarding the self-published source Cornell Senior Class Yearbook of 1906 is analogous to that of various other self-published sources about organizations or groups, e.g. the self-published source WWW.NFL.com. The latter is a self-published source about the National Football League (NFL) and is used extensively in Misplaced Pages as a reliable source for Misplaced Pages articles on individual players of the NFL, e.g. Eli Manning, etc. That's essentially all we are trying to do with the Cornell senior class of 1906 yearbook, which is using it as a reliable source in a Misplaced Pages article on an individual member of that class, viz. Leo Frank. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The difference with WWW.NFL.COM is that it is quite easy to make the argument that it is a reliable source. It information is verifiable and is accepted by others sources (i.e. newspapers, television broadcasters) as a legitimate source of information. The same cannot be said for the Cornell Yearbook. In fact, it hasn't been shown that any other reliable source has used the yearbook for information and we have at least two, probably more, that directly contradict it. We know at NFL.COM that the heights and weights of players are regularly monitored and reported by objective sources -- we have no such indications with the info. reported by the yearbook.
I don't know how you reached the conclusion that I have only one remaining objection. I have stated my objections throughout the discussion. You are attempting to cast doubt on reliable secondary sources by a selective use of a primary source. I don't think that because something "might be true" (your edit ) is sufficient justification for using an unreliable primary source. I'm also not sure exactly when or why you changed your mind about the yearbook being a primary rather than a secondary source (see your earlier opinion ).
Why are you supporting an effort to move backwards on this article? This inappropriate use of primary sources was a major problem with this article and was reversed over a year ago. The same unsubstantiated attacks on the actual reliable sources were made then as now. There is a very definite POV being argued by Carmelmount and leofrank.org that runs counter to wikipedia policy. Do you really think that your efforts to unintentionally support that POV here are improving the article or wikipedia?Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Re "I don't know how you reached the conclusion that I have only one remaining objection." — From the way the discussion was proceeding. Thanks for clarifying your position. I'll end my participation in this discussion here. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Bob, Since we are on the subject what do you say about adding the notarized and government approved Leo Frank Passport to the foot notes as well. That's two independent sources that say Leo Frank is 5'8" and not Steve Oney's silly 5'6" and 120lbs.Carmelmount (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
It's two votes for the inclusion of the footnote to a more reliable source and one vote against it.Carmelmount (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
It's not about voting but Misplaced Pages:Consensus. We had a long standing consensus to eliminate the excessive reliance on primary sources and most (including the height sourcing you champion) were eliminated. You tried to put it back in without any effort to discuss it. If you want to take this further, I suggest you initiate the appropriate forum from Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Yearbook is considered a reliable source, not just a primary source. Concerning Leo Frank's height, guess what's more reliable, Steve Oney in 2003 mistaking line 178 for 177 in the Cornell Senior year book (1906) on page 345 or the actual line 177 on page 345 in the Cornell Senior Year Book (1906). Concerning Leo Frank's height, guess what's more reliable and accurate, Leo Frank's 1907 passport (Ancestry.com) or Steve Oney (2003) mistaking line 178 for 177 in the Cornell Senior Year Book (1906) on page 345? Steve Oney in 2003 claims Leo Frank was 5'6" and 120lbs., but Leo's yearbook (1906) says 5'8" and 145lbs. Guess which is more likely the truth? Carmelmount (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I put in a dispute request:

There is a dispute on the Leo Frank article between 3 editors concerning Leo Frank's height. Steve Oney (2003) and Lindemann (1991) - both secondary sources - wrote in their books Leo Frank (LF) was 5'6" tall, but do provide any references for this information. There are two reliable sources that put 5'8" as Leo Frank's height, his 1906 Cornell University senior class year book (p344, p345), and his 1907 official U.S. passport (Ancestry.com). I am requesting that a foot note be inserted in the ref, about his height concerning two reliable sources, but Tom Northshoreman seems to be against the footnoting. Is a Cornell University college senior yearbook and U.S. passport considered a reliable source of information about a person's height? What do we do in a situation where a secondary source author makes errors that can be verified as errors with primary sources? I'm requesting a footnote be put in place on the Leo Frank article and need help with this dispute. Carmelmount (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Seriously? You are spending time that you could have spent improving the encyclopedia arguing about this? How about simply not including information about his height? Or in the dubious case that it might be relevant for some reason you could include a statement to the effect that there are contradictory statements in the sources. Either of these should be acceptable even to the most pedantic editor. The reasonable editor would simply say "irrelevant let's move on to something that matters". ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to be a high quality and accurate encyclopedia. It is the principle of the matter that we use high quality and reliable sources. Secondary source authors are sometimes known to make errors, both Oney and Lindemann incorrectly reported Leo Frank's height. I am requesting we allow a footnote to the more reliable sources of Leo Frank's height from 1906 and 1907. If there are no objections, I would like to add the correct information. Carmelmount (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

But there are objections. As has been discussed above, the actual source of your information is the anti-Semitic website leofrank.org. There have been several editors/sock puppets that have been blocked while trying to rewrite the article according to that website. The reason why leofrank.org promotes these sources is because it makes the argument that there was a Jewish conspiracy to make Leo Frank smaller than he actually was in order to make him appear to be too frail to have committed the murder. You are carrying on that "tradition". It is time for you to drop this issue. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The accurate sources of Leo Frank's height at 5'8" are not from the web site http://www.leofrank.org, but Leo Frank's 1906 Cornell Senior Yearbook pages 344 and 345 available on Archive.org and Leo Frank's official passport available on Ancestry.com. Carmelmount (talk) 03:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
No secondary source, other than leofrank.org, has used these sources. You were asked by another editor to provide one and failed to do so. I notice you don't deny that you are pursuing the agenda of that website. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
You seem to be confused or mixed-up. The Cornell Senior Year Book (1906) was scanned and put online by the University of Toronto, not leofrank.org as you claim to be the source. You can verify this by going to The Internet Archive or simply going directly to http://www.archive.org/details/seniorclassbook00cornuoft. Leo Frank's 1907/1908 passport records available at Ancestry were scanned from the United States National Archives, not leofrank.org as you claim to be the source. This can easily be verified by going to Ancestry.com, which offers people free trial access to their massive database of records. The question I would like to pose to administrators and arbiters is whether or not official United States Passports and College Senior Yearbooks can be used as reliable article sources on Misplaced Pages. There is a conflict with official U.S. records and Leo Frank's yearbook, with secondary source authors who provide NO REFERENCES / SOURCES to their claim of Leo Frank's height at 5'6". Is not verifiability an important part of wikipedia? The Cornell Yearbook looks more like a secondary source than a primary source. See WP:PSTS. The yearbook synthesizes information about class members' heights to form a table, just like a secondary source would do. Also, the yearbook wasn't written by Frank. Carmelmount (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
(I was informed of a renewal of this discussion by Carmelmount on my talk page.)
Even if one considers the yearbook and passport to be primary sources, Misplaced Pages policy does not support suppressing the 5'8" height information in those sources. See the Primary sources part of the section Primary, secondary and tertiary sources of the Misplaced Pages policy No original research. When info of unknown origin in a secondary source, i.e. the 5'6" height, disagrees with other sources which are at least as reliable for a 5'8" height, it seems reasonable to include both info, i.e. both the 5'6" height and the 5'8" height. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Bob, I have looked underneath the surface into Tom Northshoreman's suppression of these two verifiable records of demographic facts about Leo Frank. It's apparent the underlying reason why, has nothing to do with verifiability concerns, but because the factual demographic information tends to corroborate a controversial research web site, which has begun to create a catalog of factual errors Steve Oney and Albert Lindemann made in their books. The Leo Frank Research Library believes "self-admitted pro-Frank partisans like Steve Oney, are intentionally prejudicing the reader about Leo Frank's height and weight, in-order to make him seem physically smaller than he really was in real life 1913, thus giving readers the mental image and appearance he was not strong enough to overpower 4'11" little Mary Phagan", but this is an irrational reason to suppress these verifiable sources. We shouldn't concern ourselves with taking social positions with or against the defense or prosecution. The purpose of wikipedia is be a verifiable source of knowledge, written without original research and there is no reason to censor official records which are available from the United States National Archives made available on Ancestry.com or College Year Books scanned by the University of Toronto. It appears Tom's reasoning is irrational and not for the best interest of Misplaced Pages, but his own position on the Leo Frank Case. A footnote should be added to the references of Leo Frank's height, one person disagreeing with this does not count as a veto to the consensus in favor of including it. Carmelmount (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Carmelmount, I suggest avoiding speculation about other editors' motives or aspects of the topic of this article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Then perhaps Tom can shed light on why he is suppressing factual information about Leo Frank from his passport, when the source of the information is the United States Government, because a web blogger downloading an official document from a reliable genealogy website and putting it on their controversial web blog is not a good enough reason to suppress the factual demographic information. Ancestry.com is not a fringe website (Leo Frank passport), nor is the University of Toronto, that digitally scanned the Cornell yearbook (1906) and put it on The Internet Archive. If there are no further irrational objections, we should add the foot note and reference the verifiable information. Bob this chart information you gathered and created appears to be most useful.

Heights of students in the front row of the Debate Club photograph on p. 281 of Cornell 1906 yearbook. The heights were obtained from the 1906 Cornell yearbook on the respective pages indicated in the table. Comparison of the students' relative heights in the photograph suggests Frank's height is more consistent with 5'8" than 5'6". Here's a copy of p.281 that is easier to view after left clicking your mouse over the image of that page.

Herbert Lasher Howard Peck Leo Max Frank Charles Frederick Shaw Leslie Donald Perry
height 5–8 5–5½ 5–8 5–9 5–10
 
weight 154 125 145 178 150
pages 348–9 352–3 344–5 354–5 352–3
student # 302 390 177 451 393

-- Carmelmount (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

When you write your book and get it published, then we discuss your original research. Bottom line:
1. No reliable secondary source, as far as we know, reports the height you want to include in the article.
2. There is no dispute about this issue, as far as we know, anywhere in the world other than this discussion page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I opened a section at the reliable sources noticeboard. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Tom, your political statements are irrelevant here. And even if I hypothetically wrote a book about Leo Frank and got it published, I think it would be a violation of the rules for me to promote it on Misplaced Pages. Since I have no intention of ever writing a book about Leo Frank, the point is moot. Please stay focused on the relevant discussion about verifiability and foot note additions. I'd like to remind you on closer examination of the books written by Steve Oney and Albert Lindemann, they provide no source for their 5'6" and 130lbs claims. However, the University of Toronto (via The Internet Archive) and United States National Archives (via ancestry.com), provides us with accurate demographic documents about Leo Frank's weight and height respectively. The discussion is about whether or not we should add a footnote to this issue, and so far you have come up with no legitimate reason to suppress this information. Carmelmount (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Maybe it would be best just to remove the height since there is a conflict between sources? This was a suggestion of an editor at WP:RS/N. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Works for me. BTW, in Googling something else I ran across this source, a 1947 work already in the article under Further Reading. It describes Frank as "29 years old, frail, about 5 feet 6 inches in height, weighing less than 120 pounds, bespectacled, serious-minded and reserved." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I went ahead and deleted it since Carmelmount didn't like the 5'6" anyhow and probably wouldn't object. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Tom, Leo was a multi-sport (tennis, basketball) participating athlete at college according to the Cornell alumni dossier file on him (I emailed them recently to verify), a person who plays basketball and tennis for their class team over a four year period is likely not frail. Look at the sources of the people who always want to make Leo Frank seem smaller than he was in real life, they are invariably pro-Frank supporters. I wonder why they try to do this? Let's leave it to speculation. I support the deleting of his height at 5'6", because it is not accurate, I would rather inaccurate information removed. Thanks Bob, for moving forward in these regards.Carmelmount (talk) 03:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Manson48

Note that Manson48 is now blocked. He's been editing since using IPs, both to talk pages and to make anti-Semitic attacks on editors. Dougweller (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

because Jim Conley admitted in 1913, moving the dead body of Mary Phagan to the basement

I'm probably being a bit slow, but this doesn't seem to be sourced - where does it say that this admission wasn't enough to settle the issue? "The effort was led by Charles Wittenstein, southern counsel for the Anti-Defamation League, and Dale Schwartz, an Atlanta lawyer, though Mann's testimony was not sufficient to settle the issue,". Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The edit doesn't make sense and doesn't follow the sources cited. I've removed it again and it should stay out until Carmelmount produces reliable sources on this discussion page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I asked the editor (on their talk page) to reply here, so hopefully they will. Dougweller (talk) 12:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
At the Leo Frank trial (July 28, to August 21), Jim Conley testified on August 4, 1913, to moving the body of Mary Phagan to the basement. Neither the Leo Frank defense, or the State's prosecution, ever disputed Jim Conley moved the body of Mary Phagan to the basement. The dispute was the method utilized. The prosecution's position was the movement of Phagan was conducted using the elevator. The defense's position was down the 2ft x 2ft scuttle hole several feet east of the elevator. The defense changed this position to down the elevator shaft in their closing arguments (August 21, 22) after the trial ended on August 21, because they had to account for the fact the police testified to seeing drag marks in the basement beginning from the elevator shaft to Mary's final dumping point 140 feet east. Alonzo Mann claimed to see Jim moving Mary Phagan in the lobby of the National Pencil Company in 1982, he never said if he saw him use the elevator or scuttle hole, because he ran away when Conley allegedly threatened him into "secrecy". At the Leo Frank Trial in the summer of 1913, Alonzo Mann - sworn under oath - testified he had left the factory for the day at 11:30AM on April 26, 1913, but in 1982, claimed he left at noon, and came back at 12:05 PM and saw Jim Conley carrying Mary Phagan. I guess there's a reason why no court of Law in the United States of America would consider 70 year old memories reliable, and that goes with the Georgia Board of Pardon's and Paroles, that did not exonerate Leo Frank. Carmelmount (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC) banned sock
Two editors have said you need a source for this, yet you don't provide one? We need a reliable source giving that as the reason, not your analysis. Dougweller (talk) 05:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
From here on out I will only add to the article's content with sources. Carmelmount (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)banned sock
Categories: