The Origin of the ADL

[HansHill]

Truth has no ethnic lens

Truth transcends ethnicity

Let's test this. Did the Holocaust happen?

[Stubble]

And the truth is, Leo Frank raped and murdered a child. What, you think I would be defending him if he were White? I'd have been on the justice committee...

[ConfusedJew]

Truth has no ethnic lens

Truth transcends ethnicity

Let's test this. Did the Holocaust happen?

The Holocaust is just a word. How would you define it in your own words and then we can look at the evidence to see if it happened or not.

[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
>truthtranscendsethnicity.frankfurtschool.net
>Applies pilpul to the definition of "The Holocaust" in an attempt to deflect

This is not going well for you.

[ConfusedJew]

If you don't want to or can't answer the question, that's fine, but then don't pretend like you are interested in rational discussion or debate. It's important to get on the same page upfront to prevent miscommunications about such emotionally driven and vague words.

[HansHill]

If you don't want to or can't answer the question, that's fine, but then don't pretend like you are interested in rational discussion or debate. It's important to get on the same page upfront to prevent miscommunications about such emotionally driven and vague words.

There is a forum for that. In this thread, you are here to defend the ADL and it is going poorly.

[ConfusedJew]

If you don't want to or can't answer the question, that's fine, but then don't pretend like you are interested in rational discussion or debate. It's important to get on the same page upfront to prevent miscommunications about such emotionally driven and vague words.

There is a forum for that. In this thread, you are here to defend the ADL and it is going poorly.

I'm not defending The ADL. To be honest, I think they've lost their way over time. I'm not even defending Leo Frank because the evidence pointing to either his guilt or innocence isn't that strong. What I do think is that the evidence against both him and Jim Conley was not sufficient (beyond a reasonable doubt) to convict either of them for murder. Do you disagree with that?

[Stubble]

If you don't want to or can't answer the question, that's fine, but then don't pretend like you are interested in rational discussion or debate. It's important to get on the same page upfront to prevent miscommunications about such emotionally driven and vague words.

There is a forum for that. In this thread, you are here to defend the ADL and it is going poorly.

I'm not defending The ADL. To be honest, I think they've lost their way over time. I'm not even defending Leo Frank because the evidence pointing to either his guilt or innocence isn't that strong. What I do think is that the evidence against both him and Jim Conley was not sufficient (beyond a reasonable doubt) to convict either of them for murder. Do you disagree with that?

Of course I disagree with that.

We are over 100 years after the fact, and the jury is being questioned, furthermore you don't think justice was merited at all for the murder of little Mary...

The jury was at the trial, you were not. They were unanimous. Leo Frank was found guilty and sentenced to death.

I can't think of any pedophile in history I would ever try to exonerate. Not one.

This isn't an ethnic issue for me, it certainly is for you. Leo Frank was a pedophile and he murdered a child.

[ConfusedJew]

Of course Mary Phagan and her family deserve justice but there's truly no justice that could possibly make up for the loss of an innocent life.

He was sentenced to death by the jury but in 1915, after an investigation into the trial’s fairness, Governor John M. Slaton of Georgia commuted Leo Frank’s death sentence to life imprisonment. Governor Slaton's decision was influenced by doubts about the fairness of Frank's trial and the possibility that he had been wrongfully convicted.

Do you believe in due process? Do you believe all suspects should have a right to a fair trial?

You can have different opinions on whether or not he committed the crime. I think nearly any reasonable person without an anti-semitic prejudice would likely agree that he probably did not commit the crime, but even if you think that he did, wouldn't you want to make sure that all humans have the right to a fair trial?

Courts will always make mistakes in letting loose criminals and convicting innocent people which is why we have to make the judiciary as strong as we possibly can to reduce those mistakes.

[Stubble]

Name 1 other pedophile you don't think got a fair trial.

Leo Frank had a fair trial by an impartial jury. Every single court that was asked to hear agreed.

That he was ultimately lynched is unfortunate. That his sentence was commuted by a governor on his way out the door prompted that violation of his due process. Furthermore the commutation was not on the merit but from the purse.

You mischaracterize my 'judenhass'. The issue of Leo Frank and the continuing attempts to exonerate him are a driver of my judenhass. Furthermore, Yiddish is not a semitic language, and Palestinians are generally good people, I don't hate them because they live in the Levant. Many jews do however. That's a subject for it's own thread though.

[ConfusedJew]

Name 1 other pedophile you don't think got a fair trial.

I am not an expert on the legal history of pedophiles in the US. But the concern is that many people have been thrown in prison for false claims of pedophilia. During the Satanic Panic of the 1980s and 1990s, many people, especially those involved in daycare centers or communities, were accused of being involved in Satanic ritual abuse (SRA), despite a lack of physical evidence or real corroborating details. The accusations often came from children who were coached by therapists or investigators, and the claims were frequently sensationalized by the media. Many of the convictions were based on false memories that were either implanted or exaggerated by therapists, social workers, or law enforcement. The media also played a major role in amplifying fears about Satanic rituals, often sensationalizing and distorting facts.

As the years passed and more people were exonerated, it became clear that the Satanic Panic had done immense harm to both the accused and society. It led to reforms in how child abuse cases are handled, especially in relation to children's testimony. Take a closer look into this because this is one of the best examples. Hundreds of people were arrested and dozens of individuals were wrongfully convicted.

Leo Frank had a fair trial by an impartial jury. Every single court that was asked to hear agreed.

That he was ultimately lynched is unfortunate. That his sentence was commuted by a governor on his way out the door prompted that violation of his due process. Furthermore the commutation was not on the merit but from the purse.

I told you why I believe that Leo Frank wasn't given a fair trial and I provided several strong arguments why. You are just saying that you disagree with me without addressing any of my arguments or even introducing new arguments of your own. You say that every single court that was asked to hear agreed which is not true. The U.S. Supreme Court did not hear Leo Frank's case after his conviction, despite an appeal being made.

The claim that the Governor's commutation was based on financial pressure rather than the merit of the case is not supported by any evidence that I've seen. Instead, Slaton’s decision was a reflection of serious doubts about the trial and a desire to correct a potential miscarriage of justice. Slaton was a lawyer by profession and had a deep understanding of the legal issues surrounding Frank’s conviction. He reviewed the trial transcripts and considered the public outcry and concerns about the fairness of Frank’s trial. After a careful review of the case, Governor Slaton commuted Leo Frank’s sentence from death to life imprisonment. Slaton issued the commutation based on the belief that Frank may have been wrongfully convicted and that the death sentence was too severe given the doubts about Frank’s guilt and the fairness of the trial.

You mischaracterize my 'judenhass'. The issue of Leo Frank and the continuing attempts to exonerate him are a driver of my judenhass. Furthermore, Yiddish is not a semitic language, and Palestinians are generally good people, I don't hate them because they live in the Levant. Many jews do however. That's a subject for its own thread though.

Yes, we can talk about that in a different thread.

[Stubble]

Both the length of deliberation and the unanimous verdict are sufficient for me as I believe in the rule of law. I also believe in swift justice. The penitentiary system I consider a travesty as I am an advocate for capital and corporal punishment.

The molestation of the justice system under the guise of 'reasonable doubt' by you I consider to be farcical. Your wanting to relitigate the frank trial is to me repugnant and a slap in the very face of lady justice.

The reason for a jury of 12 is to insure that charges are beyond a reasonable doubt in the result of a conviction. Futher appeals and pleas, to me, undermine the justice system in general.

Leo Frank was not only guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but, found to be so by all 12 members of the jury.

With the satanic panic we get into content for another thread, I will leave that dog laying right there, but, have no illusions, we are in staunch disagreement, children don't get the clap from going to daycare, they get it from sexual abuse.

[ConfusedJew]

Both the length of deliberation and the unanimous verdict are sufficient for me as I believe in the rule of law. I also believe in swift justice. The penitentiary system I consider a travesty as I am an advocate for capital and corporal punishment.

The jury did convict him unanimously but this was only 12 people back in 1913. If you think that billions of people can be wrong about the Holocaust, how do you find it sufficient that 12 people believed in Frank's guilt?

Whether nor we should have capital or corporate punishment is a separate discussion that we should postpone to stay on track.

The molestation of the justice system under the guise of 'reasonable doubt' by you I consider to be farcical. Your wanting to relitigate the frank trial is to me repugnant and a slap in the very face of lady justice.

The reason for a jury of 12 is to insure that charges are beyond a reasonable doubt in the result of a conviction. Futher appeals and pleas, to me, undermine the justice system in general.

Leo Frank was not only guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but, found to be so by all 12 members of the jury.

The reasonable doubt standard exists for a reason. If you want to argue against it, you should argue that it is not a good standard and it should be changed or that the evidence in the case surpassed a reasonable doubt.

As an aside, plenty of court cases have affirmed the existence of the Holocaust and punished Nazis for their role in it during the Nuremberg trial. It's important to remain consistent. It's not intellectually honest to trust one jury and not others, unless you have specific reasons why this jury was very trustworthy and others aren't.

With the satanic panic we get into content for another thread, I will leave that dog laying right there, but, have no illusions, we are in staunch disagreement, children don't get the clap from going to daycare, they get it from sexual abuse.

It is somewhat relevant to this. I haven't seen any evidence that children "got the clap" and there's a lot of evidence showing that a panicked populous led to wrongful convictions. This is why we want to make sure the bar for convicting people is very high. Some people may be OK with a lower bar if it means putting away more criminals but you will have more false convictions too.

[Stubble]

Your standard of 'reasonable doubt' is what I'm drawing attention to. Your standard in this specific case, which was open and shut, is clearly not reasonable, because all 12 jurors found him guilty beyond that burden.

I'm not here to relitigate this. Again, I find the court sufficient in this case.

[ConfusedJew]

Your standard of 'reasonable doubt' is what I'm drawing attention to. Your standard in this specific case, which was open and shut, is clearly not reasonable, because all 12 jurors found him guilty beyond that burden.

I'm not here to relitigate this. Again, I find the court sufficient in this case.

In Georgia, as well as in most states and federal criminal cases, a conviction can not be obtained unless the entire jury agreed that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The requirement for a unanimous verdict ensures that a criminal conviction is not made on the basis of split opinions but rather that all jurors are convinced of the defendant’s guilt to the same degree.

Take a look at the infamous case of Cameron Todd Willingham, who was wrongfully sentenced to death and executed in Texas in 2004. The jury's verdict in Cameron Todd Willingham’s case was unanimous; however, there is significant doubt about whether they were certain beyond a reasonable doubt when they convicted him. The conviction was based largely on flawed forensic evidence, particularly the arson evidence, which was later shown to be unreliable.

Just because 12 people agreed on something doesn't mean that their decision was correct. I don't defer to juries as credible experts, especially from 1913, because they are just random people. It's flawed logic.