The Origin of the ADL

[Stubble]

The ADL was started to clear the name of the murdering pedophile, Leo Frank who hired 2 separate private investigation firms and tried to frame 2 different black men for his crime.

[Archie]

Ron Unz has a pretty good article on it. He mentions several longer books on the topic for those who wish to dig deeper.
https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravd ... n-society/

The ADL wants us to believe that the Atlanta court in 1913 was biased against Frank ... in favor of the black guy? Yeah, right. The reality is that the prejudices of the time were strongly in Frank's favor yet he got still got convicted. Occam's razor, presumably because he was guilty af.

[Stubble]

This article is missing some things.

Various government agencies consult with the ADL to develop training programs. They also closely coordinate with the ADL and the SPLC to do 'intelligence gathering' that the FBI itself, for example, can not do, because it is a violation of the Constitution.

There is also the advertising angle, and the deplatforming angle in both big tech and in banking. Say the wrong thing and you find yourself unable to 1) run a business 2) pay for services in any way other than with cash, limiting the services you can use, and about 6,000,000 other things.

This finally entered the zeitgeist after the turbulence with the platform formerly known as Twitter was acquired by Elon Musk.

The ADL is a disgusting organization founded to exonerate a murderous pedophile that continues to attack and erode freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

Something for those who believe they are chosen by god to consider is that when you strike a man's tongue from his mouth, you prove him right, not the opposite. If Greenblatt et al were concerned about 'tropes' and 'canards' they would fix that with 'better speech'. Instead, they do this other thing where they wage economic and judicial warfare on anyone who notices too much and dares to speak up.

They say that the passages I read in the talmud that describe jewish behavior are antisemitic disinformation, and yet they continue to act in accordance with that interpretation. Not only perplexing, but, also vexing to see.

Honesty and transparency would go far to remedy anti jewish sentiment. If only they, that being the jewish community, would openly say what they actually believe and do, it wouldn't reflect so poorly on them when it is exposed.

/shrug

[ConfusedJew]

Ron Unz has a pretty good article on it. He mentions several longer books on the topic for those who wish to dig deeper.
https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravd ... n-society/

The ADL wants us to believe that the Atlanta court in 1913 was biased against Frank ... in favor of the black guy? Yeah, right. The reality is that the prejudices of the time were strongly in Frank's favor yet he got still got convicted. Occam's razor, presumably because he was guilty af.

I'm new here and trying to figure out what it is that you guys believe here based on the facts, evidence and arguments. Looking through this article from Unz, it seems like a lot of those things are clearly false. Here are just a few things to consider:

Unz claims that the evidence against Leo Frank is "overwhelming" and supports his guilt but he is ignoring the findings of many subsequent investigations and legal reviews. Many regard Frank’s trial as one of the most controversial and flawed in American history. Many credible sources argue that Frank's conviction was a result of a combination of legal failures, biased public opinion, and an unjust judicial process. The trial's credibility was undermined by procedural errors and irregularities, such as the way evidence was handled and the fact that his defense team was not given a fair opportunity to counter the charges.

In 1982, the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles granted Frank a posthumous pardon, acknowledging the uncertainties in the original conviction. Scholars and historians, including those who have revisited the case in recent decades, often question whether Frank’s guilt was ever fully established based on the evidence available at the time.

Why do you think these things are wrong or weak?

[Stubble]

Because we know the history of how these things transpired.

You, unironically, you think Leo Frank was innocent?

Keep in mind that little Mary was over the age of both 3, and 9, so, this wasn't 'as if one were to put a finger in the eye'.

Also keep in mind, she was murdered...

Now, if you are going to claim antisemitism trumped bigotry in the trial, you are going to have to demonstrate that. This will be hard as Mr Frank paid 2 different private investigation firms, both pointed at him, and he tried to frame 2 different black men for his crime.

Leo Frank was a child murdering pedophile, that for over 100 years the jewish community has sought to exonerate him is telling. The underhanded tactics they have used have also been telling.

[Archie]

I'm new here and trying to figure out what it is that you guys believe here based on the facts, evidence and arguments. Looking through this article from Unz, it seems like a lot of those things are clearly false. Here are just a few things to consider:

Unz claims that the evidence against Leo Frank is "overwhelming" and supports his guilt but he is ignoring the findings of many subsequent investigations and legal reviews. Many regard Frank’s trial as one of the most controversial and flawed in American history. Many credible sources argue that Frank's conviction was a result of a combination of legal failures, biased public opinion, and an unjust judicial process. The trial's credibility was undermined by procedural errors and irregularities, such as the way evidence was handled and the fact that his defense team was not given a fair opportunity to counter the charges.

You said "a lot of things" in the articles "are clearly false" but you failed to mention even one factual error. All you're saying here is that "credible sources" (i.e., Jewish academics) say Frank was innocent, but that is not evidence.

In 1982, the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles granted Frank a posthumous pardon, acknowledging the uncertainties in the original conviction. Scholars and historians, including those who have revisited the case in recent decades, often question whether Frank’s guilt was ever fully established based on the evidence available at the time.

Why do you think these things are wrong or weak?

False.

In 1982, they dredged up some witness out of nowhere named Alonzo Mann to proclaim Frank's innocence some 70 years after the fact.
https://www.nytimes.com/1982/03/08/us/a ... eared.html

Based on this ludicrously late testimony, Jews applied for a pardon, but in 1983 the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles rejected the request. The ever persistent Jewish activists kept trying and in 1986 they got a "pardon" that avoided drawing any conclusions over Frank's guilt.

Without attempting to address the question of guilt or innocence, and in recognition of the State's failure to protect the person of Leo M. Frank and thereby preserve his opportunity for continued legal appeal of his conviction, and in recognition of the State's failure to bring his killers to justice, and as an effort to heal old wounds, the State Board of Pardons and Paroles, in compliance with its Constitutional and statutory authority, hereby grants to Leo M. Frank a Pardon.[255]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Frank ... ous_pardon

Not only do I not find this late non-pardon convincing, the elaborate Jewish activism on display over a 70 year old case only deepens my suspicions about it.

[ConfusedJew]

Because we know the history of how these things transpired.

You, unironically, you think Leo Frank was innocent?

Keep in mind that little Mary was over the age of both 3, and 9, so, this wasn't 'as if one were to put a finger in the eye'.

Also keep in mind, she was murdered...

Now, if you are going to claim antisemitism trumped bigotry in the trial, you are going to have to demonstrate that. This will be hard as Mr Frank paid 2 different private investigation firms, both pointed at him, and he tried to frame 2 different black men for his crime.

I haven't made up my mind about his guilt or innocence, but I haven't seen substantial evidence to point to him being guilty.

Frank’s defense team did hire private investigators to gather evidence, interview witnesses, and find information that could exonerate Frank or challenge the prosecution's case. But there is no evidence that the investigators themselves directly pointed to Frank's guilt.

As for the role of anti semitism in the case, local newspapers used Frank's Jewishness to cast him as an untrustworthy outsider in a predominantly Southern and Christian area. The media played a role in fueling public animosity toward Frank, and several articles published both during and after the trial heavily emphasized his Jewish identity in an inflammatory way rather than focusing on the evidence.

There were also many legal abnormalities during the trial. One of the most concerning about the trial was the selection of the jury. The jury consisted primarily of white Southerners, and there was a clear racial and religious bias against Frank. His Jewish background and the anti-Semitic climate of the time likely influenced the jurors' perceptions of him. The jury’s quick conviction, which came after only a few hours of deliberation, raised concerns that the decision was influenced by factors outside the evidence presented in court.

The case against Leo Frank relied heavily on the testimony of Jim Conley, the black janitor who later became the prosecution's key witness. Conley initially denied any involvement in the crime, but after being subjected to long questioning, he changed his story and implicated Frank. His testimony was inconsistent and he changed his account multiple times. At one point, he confessed to helping Frank conceal the body but later recanted. Additionally, his background as an alcoholic and petty criminal casts doubt on the credibility of his testimony.

[ConfusedJew]

You said "a lot of things" in the articles "are clearly false" but you failed to mention even one factual error. All you're saying here is that "credible sources" (i.e., Jewish academics) say Frank was innocent, but that is not evidence.

In 1982, they dredged up some witness out of nowhere named Alonzo Mann to proclaim Frank's innocence some 70 years after the fact.
https://www.nytimes.com/1982/03/08/us/a ... eared.html

Based on this ludicrously late testimony, Jews applied for a pardon, but in 1983 the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles rejected the request. The ever persistent Jewish activists kept trying and in 1986 they got a "pardon" that avoided drawing any conclusions over Frank's guilt.

The article asserts a lot of things as being definitively true when the evidence is weak or absent. The article that Frank's defense fabricated evidence and testimony is possible, but it's not supported by any evidence and few people agree that it's true. Frank's supporters spent significant money on his defense, as would anyone's supporters might do if they thought he was being treated unfairly, but there's no evidence that they spent it on bribery. If they did spend so much money on bribery, why didn't the jury rule in his favor? It isn't logical.

Regarding the posthumous pardon, you are right that in 1983 the George State Board of Pardons rejected the request but there was no clear legal or factual justification to grant a pardon at that time as there was still considerable debate about the fairness of the trial and the strength of the evidence. Importantly, the Board did not make a definitive statement about Frank’s guilt or innocence.

In 1986, the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles granted a posthumous pardon to Leo Frank once they acknowledged the flaws and unfairness of the legal process at the time of his trial.

However, the pardon was issued "without prejudice", meaning it was not an exoneration, but rather an acknowledgment of the flaws and unfairness of the legal process at the time of his trial. The evidence used against him was circumstantial and there were enough legal and factual uncertainties at the time that the board couldn't declare him as innocent or guilty based on what was presented.

[ConfusedJew]

I watched the YouTube video about the "true history" of The ADL but there are a lot of inaccuracies in it. I'll go through each one.

The video said Leo Frank was "proven 102% guilty" which is definitely false. The conviction was based on circumstantial evidence. For a criminal conviction, you need to prove guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. There was plenty of doubt and inconsistencies in the testimony of Jim Conley. Based on that alone, it was a miscarriage of justice, although that doesn't necessarily "prove" that he was innocent.

The video says that although Conley's testimony had inconsistencies, they were not significant. This isn't true as his testimony was highly inconsistent and changed multiple times. He first denied any involvement or knowledge of the murder, then he claimed that he helped Frank dispose of the body, he later said that he saw Frank kill the girl, and then later backtracked and admitted that he didn't but that Frank had confessed to the crime. Conley's testimony was the main evidence and did not come close to surpassing the "reasonable doubt" standard required to convict anybody. Conley had an established history of lying to stay out of trouble. It's still not proof that he was guilty, but his testimony carried very little credibility.

The George State Board of Pardons found that there was a clear miscarriage of justice, but they didn't fully exonerate him because they couldn't. In the criminal justice system, exoneration requires a clear-cut case of innocence, usually backed by new evidence. The case was so old and the details were so unreliable that a pardon was the more procedurally appropriate route.

After looking into this, there's a lot of anti-semitic misinformation about the subject, but there really isn't enough evidence to be confident about who was the murderer. I also, cannot rule out the fact that Frank murdered the girl, just like any other random person in the factory, but there is not very strong evidence that he did it. Conley's erratic testimony seems a lot more suspicious to me.

[Stubble]

Look, I understand that Leo Frank was found guilty, and to you, this is a miscarriage of justice, because she was just a little goy girl. That does nothing to negate the fact that Leo Frank was found guilty, sentenced to death and justice was served, regardless of all of the attempts to subvert justice and acquit him.

That this is still contested, and that his ethnic kin not only continue to try to subvert the legal system to exonerate this rapist and pedophile but also set up an organization for that expressed purpose is quite telling. His defense sure did try to lean in to racism and get the jury to convict any black man for the crime. That in no way indicates the jury was antisemitic, racist, or otherwise prejudiced.

They looked at the facts. You make up your own.

Leo Frank was found guilty and sentenced to death. Justice was served.

[ConfusedJew]

Look, I understand that Leo Frank was found guilty, and to you, this is a miscarriage of justice, because she was just a little goy girl. That does nothing to negate the fact that Leo Frank was found guilty, sentenced to death and justice was served, regardless of all of the attempts to subvert justice and acquit him.

It was a miscarriage of justice because the evidence provided was weak and low quality and didn't come close to surpassing the threshold required to convict somebody of a crime (beyond a reasonable doubt standard). His sentence was commuted and he was murdered by an out of control lynch mob. Nothing about that is just, even if he actually committed the murder.

Think about it this way, if you were accused of a crime, and the evidence were as weak against you as it were against Leo Frank, would you trust a legal system like that? I definitely wouldn't. The murder of the girl was a tragedy, regardless of her religion, sex, or age.

My analysis of this historic case has nothing to do with the fact that he was an ethnic Jew but it seems to play into your judgment which it shouldn't. There simply wasn't even close to enough evidence to convict him. Is it possible that he did it? Sure, but I still think the facts of the case more heavily suggest that it was Conley even though there definitely wasn't enough evidence to convict him either. Many murder cases go unsolved.

The ADL formed not specifically to protect Leo Frank, but to protect Jews as a whole from legal discrimination because they had been treated very unfairly for thousands of years up to that point.

You don't seem to be interested in the reality of the court case and legal system so there's not much more I can say but hopefully you'll prove me wrong.

[Stubble]

My kin convicted him of rape and murder because he was guilty.

Near where I live today a White pedophile was hung by a lynch mob before his trial.

Don't rape children, simple rule. Murdering children is out too.

Yes, there was plenty of evidence. That you continue to try to create reasonable doubt over 100 years after the fact does not make it so.

In 1913, pedophiles were lynched. The only reason it went to trial was because it wasn't clear from the jump. By the time the trial closed, it was crystal clear, hence the short deliberation.

[ConfusedJew]

My kin convicted him of rape and murder because he was guilty.

Near where I live today a White pedophile was hung by a lynch mob before his trial.

Don't rape children, simple rule. Murdering children is out too.

Yes, there was plenty of evidence. That you continue to try to create reasonable doubt over 100 years after the fact does not make it so.

In 1913, pedophiles were lynched. The only reason it went to trial was because it wasn't clear from the jump. By the time the trial closed, it was crystal clear, hence the short deliberation.

There wasn't very much evidence for the case. The best evidence was circumstantial and it was low quality and contradictory. There was less evidence that Frank was the culprit than Conley, most people would agree with that, but not enough to even convict him.

The "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in criminal law is a fundamental principle designed to protect the rights of the accused and ensure fairness in the justice system. It establishes the presumption of innocence in criminal court. The bar is very high to ensure that only those who are truly guilty are convicted and minimizes the likelihood that the state unjustly deprives someone of their freedom based on insufficient or unclear evidence. The concept of reasonable doubt traces back to English common law from the 17th century or before. This is a matter of opinion, but Cesare Beccaria, the 18th century philosopher and legal scholar emphasized the need to protect the accused because it was better for a guilty person to go free than for an innocent person to be wrongfully convicted. The 6th Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial and the reasonable doubt standard is a part of that Enlightenment era framework.

One of the benefits of the reasonable doubt standard is that it is designed to prevents disparate treatment of the accused and ensures that the burden of proof is uniformly applied, regardless of the circumstances, the crime, or the social status of the defendant.

You can try to argue that we should lower the standard to convict people of crimes or at least some crimes, but the evidence didn't come close to being sufficient. In my opinion, which is shared by many others, there was a lot more evidence against Jim Conley than against Leo Frank but still not enough to convict Conley. Conley was convicted of being an "accessory after the fact" but even he shouldn't have been convicted for that.

Do you have anything more to say other than to just repeat that he was guilty without providing strong evidence?

[HansHill]

>Joins Codoh
>Calls himself "ConfusedJew"
>Defends Leo Frank
>Defends ADL
>Begrudges that White people view topics like this through an ethnic lens
>Urges us not to

Am I on a gameshow? Is this a simulation?

[ConfusedJew]

>Joins Codoh
>Calls himself "ConfusedJew"
>Defends Leo Frank
>Defends ADL
>Begrudges that White people view topics like this through an ethnic lens
>Urges us not to

Am I on a gameshow? Is this a simulation?

Truth has no ethnic lens

Truth transcends ethnicity