The Origin of the ADL

[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.

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.

Then why bother a jury at all given the last statement you made contradicts strongly with the first.

The arson evidence was given by 'experts' recognized by the court after all...

Look, Leo Frank was guilty. That you think there is reasonable doubt about this is telling. No court has ever said anything but that Leo Frank was guilty, because he was.

One of the first things you did was come in here and state that he was pardoned because the case was week, your first step into the thread, was lie. His pardon strictly pertained to him being denied due process because he was lynched.

[ConfusedJew]

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.

Then why bother a jury at all given the last statement you made contradicts strongly with the first.

The arson evidence was given by 'experts' recognized by the court after all...

Look, Leo Frank was guilty. That you think there is reasonable doubt about this is telling. No court has ever said anything but that Leo Frank was guilty, because he was.

One of the first things you did was come in here and state that he was pardoned because the case was week, your first step into the thread, was lie. His pardon strictly pertained to him being denied due process because he was lynched.

Let me clarify what I meant to say because that is a bit contradictory. I look at my own facts and legal standards, I don't take any jury or expert at their word. So the argument that billions of people believe in the Holocaust, including tons of professional historians, is not enough for me either.

The legal standard to be convicted for murder is that the prosecution show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. Juries can make mistakes. In the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, they relied on flawed expert analysis. At the time maybe they thought it was credible, but it was proven to be false later.

We use juries because it's the best thing that they've come up with but they are far from perfect. Maybe there is a better way forward with AI, but my argument is that the jury made a mistake so we do have to re-litigate it in my opinion.

[Stubble]

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.

Then why bother a jury at all given the last statement you made contradicts strongly with the first.

The arson evidence was given by 'experts' recognized by the court after all...

Look, Leo Frank was guilty. That you think there is reasonable doubt about this is telling. No court has ever said anything but that Leo Frank was guilty, because he was.

One of the first things you did was come in here and state that he was pardoned because the case was week, your first step into the thread, was lie. His pardon strictly pertained to him being denied due process because he was lynched.

Let me clarify what I meant to say because that is a bit contradictory. I look at my own facts and legal standards, I don't take any jury or expert at their word. So the argument that billions of people believe in the Holocaust, including tons of professional historians, is not enough for me either.

The legal standard to be convicted for murder is that the prosecution show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. Juries can make mistakes. In the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, they relied on flawed expert analysis. At the time maybe they thought it was credible, but it was proven to be false later.

We use juries because it's the best thing that they've come up with but they are far from perfect. Maybe there is a better way forward with AI, but my argument is that the jury made a mistake so we do have to re-litigate it in my opinion.

After 100 years of relitigating the trial of Leo Frank, I'm quite satisfied that there was no error on the part of the jury.

This particular case has garnered far more attention than it ever deserved.

We don't have to relitigate every settled court case from 1913 because you think the jury may have made an error.

This was one man, obviously guilty, who was convicted of murder. Then, the punishment, which fit the crime, was subverted, not on the merits, and he was lynched. The appeals and cries and wailing hasn't stopped since.

I don't care how much evidence gets destroyed or how many minutes of the transcript gets lost, the man was, and remains guilty.

That you feel there was a miscarriage, because he was a jew, is inconsequential to me.

That you want to continue to relitigate it, as has been the want for over 100 years, with every court consistently finding fault only with the lynching, I think we can let this case rest.

Leo Frank raped and murdered little Mary. That she happened to be a goy shouldn't matter. Even if the court found against a jew.

You would have seen no justice for the rape and murder of little Mary. You've already said you'd have convicted no one.

[ConfusedJew]

After 100 years of relitigating the trial of Leo Frank, I'm quite satisfied that there was no error on the part of the jury.

This particular case has garnered far more attention than it ever deserved.

We don't have to relitigate every settled court case from 1913 because you think the jury may have made an error.

This was one man, obviously guilty, who was convicted of murder. Then, the punishment, which fit the crime, was subverted, not on the merits, and he was lynched. The appeals and cries and wailing hasn't stopped since.

I don't care how much evidence gets destroyed or how many minutes of the transcript gets lost, the man was, and remains guilty.

That you feel there was a miscarriage, because he was a jew, is inconsequential to me.

That you want to continue to relitigate it, as has been the want for over 100 years, with every court consistently finding fault only with the lynching, I think we can let this case rest.

Leo Frank raped and murdered little Mary. That she happened to be a goy shouldn't matter. Even if the court found against a jew.

You would have seen no justice for the rape and murder of little Mary. You've already said you'd have convicted no one.

You don't seem to be engaging in intellectually honest debate with me. You claim to be satisfied by the procedure of the trial but I and many others definitely don't. The governor of Georgia decided to commute the sentence, against the wishes of an angry mob, because with his law background, he decided it was not a fair trial.

The George State Pardon board similarly decided that it was not a fair trial so they issued him a formal pardon.

You say that he was obviously guilty, but you haven't made any arguments or provided any evidence why you think he was so obviously guilty.

There are no claims that any evidence was lost or that transcripts were guilty.

I don't think the court case was a miscarriage of justice because he was a Jew, I think that because I've looked at the facts of the case and have determined that. There are plenty of Jews who are guilty of murder who deserve to be punished for that and have been.

Is it justice for a murder victim if you convict and then lynch somebody who didn't commit the crime? Some crimes go unpunished which is terrible but we live in a world that is terrible sometimes. If you are unwilling to address my arguments, then I have to conclude that you have little to no interest in the truth and just seem to hate Leo Frank because he is a Jew. There is no other logical explanation to me if you are ignoring the facts.

[Stubble]

You see, part of the reason I'm asserting here and not debating is the dishonesty in your argument. For example, you say that the commutation was on the merit, it was not.

I'm going to step back for a while. Not only do I have various other responsibilities, but, it will give others a chance to step in and be heard.

I will close for now with this, you sir, are presenting a narrative and not facts, it would behoove you to look at what facts remain and to present them honestly.

Perhaps since my position on this matter can not be swayed, I shouldn't respond further anyhow.

I reiterate, after 100 years of relitigation with no actual contest as to the finding of the jury, I find any relitigation at this point, wildy spurious.

Edit; evidence and transcripts-

Where is the bloody shirt, or any other material item from the trial for that matter.

Transcripts- yes, many minutes are indeed missing.

[ConfusedJew]

You see, part of the reason I'm asserting here and not debating is the dishonesty in your argument. For example, you say that the commutation was on the merit, it was not.

I'm going to step back for a while. Not only do I have various other responsibilities, but, it will give others a chance to step in and be heard.

I will close for now with this, you sir, are presenting a narrative and not facts, it would behoove you to look at what facts remain and to present them honestly.

Perhaps since my position on this matter can not be swayed, I shouldn't respond further anyhow.

I reiterate, after 100 years of relitigation with no actual contest as to the finding of the jury, I find any relitigation at this point, wildy spurious.

Edit; evidence and transcripts-

Where is the bloody shirt, or any other material item from the trial for that matter.

Transcripts- yes, many minutes are indeed missing.

If there's any slightly credible evidence to show that Governor Slaton commuted the sentence for anything other than merit, please present that and we can take a look at it but I have seen nothing at all to indicate that.

If your position cannot be swayed by anything, your position is truly worthless. Any sane or intellectually honest person would update their position if disconfirming evidence were presented to them.

Where is any evidence that there are these missing pieces of evidence and transcripts for the trial?

I have presented facts to you yet you keep ignoring them. Jim Conley's testimony was the strongest piece of evidence to convict Leo Frank. But he changed his story many times and had motive to pin the blame on somebody else as a suspect to the crime itself. That alone casts way more than a reasonable doubt on Conley's testimony and Frank's guilt.

If you present me with credible evidence, then I will update my opinion and you just admitted that you wouldn't, which is the definition of intellectual dishonesty.

[ConfusedJew]

I just looked up the bloody shirt which I had not seen in my investigation:

The "bloody shirt" in the Leo Frank case was part of the evidence presented by the prosecution, but its origin and significance were highly contested throughout the trial. The shirt supposedly belonged to Mary Phagan. It was supposedly found near the pencil factory where Mary Phagan worked, and it was claimed to have been stained with blood, suggesting that she had been violently attacked.

The prosecution's theory was that Leo Frank, the superintendent of the factory, had sexually assaulted and murdered Mary Phagan. The bloody shirt was introduced as evidence that she had been physically harmed in a way that supposedly implicated Frank. The prosecution suggested that the blood stains on the shirt indicated that the murder had been violent, which they argued aligned with their theory of Frank's guilt. The shirt was also tied to the idea that Phagan had been attacked and killed inside the factory, and that Frank, as the factory’s supervisor, was the only person who could have committed the crime.

The shirt’s presence and condition were not thoroughly investigated at the time, and the authenticity of the blood stains was never definitively proven. The defense argued that the shirt may have been planted, manipulated, or mishandled by investigators who were under pressure to solve the case quickly.

In the aftermath of the trial, the bloody shirt was seen as emblematic of the prosecution's reliance on questionable evidence to support a case against Leo Frank, despite there being a lack of solid proof of his guilt. Many later historians and legal experts believe that the bloody shirt, like much of the evidence in the case, was used as emotional appeal rather than reliable proof.

The prosecution introduced a shirt that was found outside of the factory, but it didn't necessarily belong to Phagan and it didn't have any clear connection to Leo Frank.

How is this credible or even strong evidence of anything?

[Stubble]

No, the bloody shirt was planted at Lee's house...

Where do you get the crazy stuff man?

Anyhow, I'll let others hash this out, since, apparently, my admission of bias (I consider the facts quite settled on this matter) make me 'beyond useless'.

I mean, you say you present the facts, yet, you don't even know them.

/shrug

At least I'm honest about my bias.

[ConfusedJew]

No, the bloody shirt was planted at Lee's house...

Where do you get the crazy stuff man?

Anyhow, I'll let others hash this out, since, apparently, my admission of bias (I consider the facts quite settled on this matter) make me 'beyond useless'.

I mean, you say you present the facts, yet, you don't even know them.

/shrug

At least I'm honest about my bias.

I was mistaken about the shirt but it seems like you were too. I didn't see anything about a bloody shirt that incriminated Leo (not Lee) so I asked ChatGPT and it gave me a false answer.

https://www.famous-trials.com/leo-frank/27-home

Even as the jury was indicting Frank, reports surfaced that a 27-year-old black sweeper at the factory named Jim Conley admitted to having written the murder notes found near Mary's body. Conley was the same man who had been observed washing blood from a shirt by a foreman at the plant--a piece of evidence that detectives were surprisingly incurious about when they heard from the foreman two days after the crime. Conley claimed that he wrote the murder notes at the behest of Frank who, he said, had called him into his office the day before the murder. The improbability of the plant superintendent taking a black sweeper into his confidence concerning a murderous plot, and asking him to pen such strange notes, was apparent to some in the press and even to authorities who had trained their suspicion on Frank.

I'm not sure if that was a Freudian slip but you said the bloody shirt was "planted" at Lee's house which would obviously be fraudulent.

Do you have an article that lays out the strongest evidence against Frank? All of the articles that I have found show that the evidence was weak.

Yes, if you are interested in actually debating to discover the truth, you can't just say the court was right so you are wrong. That's not debate, that's pure close mindedness.

[Stubble]

It was planted (poorly I might add) at Newt Lee's house.

Not Leo Frank's house...

Read the series by 'The Mercury' or Mary Phagan Kean's book. Or any of a number of other articles or books on the subject.

Stop sticking your face in pro jewish sources.

You aren't going to get truth from wherever you are looking.

[ConfusedJew]

It was planted (poorly I might add) at Newt Lee's house.

Not Leo Frank's house...

Read the series by 'The Mercury' or Mary Phagan Kean's book. Or any of a number of other articles or books on the subject.

Stop sticking your face in pro jewish sources.

You aren't going to get truth from wherever you are looking.

You will definitely get truth from looking at sources defending Leo Frank but no single source will have the entire truth and there may certainly be some inaccuracies. Unless you look at things from many perspectives, you will never really have good insight into what's going on or what happened.

I honestly don't care much about whether he was guilty or innocent. An innocent girl clearly died. If Leo Frank was actually guilty, then he should have been punished appropriately and a mob lynching still wouldn't have been true justice. If he was clearly guilty, then he deserved a fair trial, and if he did deserve a fair trial and was accurately found guilty, it's not a big deal and should be recognized for the sake of historical truth. I don't believe that was the case from everything that I've seen so far but I'm looking into this more so that it can be put to rest. It is kind of fun trying to solve a historical murder mystery. If you can honestly convince me that he was both likely guilty and guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, I will say so publicly. If he was likely guilty but not beyond a reasonable doubt, he probably shouldn't have been convicted but I will say the evidence leans towards guilt but not strong enough for a conviction. It is important to put this controversy to rest.

In the Murder of Mary Phagan Kean, Kean strongly defends the conviction of Leo Frank, asserting that Frank was guilty of the murder of her great-aunt, Mary Phagan. She critiques efforts to exonerate Frank after his conviction, particularly the later push to reinterpret the case and discredit the original trial. Kean emphasizes that the jury’s decision was justified, highlighting the evidence presented at trial, including the testimony of the key witness, Jim Conley, the factory janitor. She believes the case was properly handled and that Frank’s conviction was not a result of political or social bias.

While acknowledging the existence of anti-Semitic sentiments, Kean argues that the conviction of Leo Frank was not solely driven by anti-Semitism. She asserts that Frank's conviction should not be viewed through the lens of his Jewish background but instead based on the evidence of the crime itself. (I agree that the crime should be based on the available evidence and not his ethnicity).

One of the strongest elements of Kean's argument is her critique of the commutation of Frank’s death sentence by Georgia Governor John Slaton. She contends that Slaton's decision was politically motivated, suggesting that his actions were influenced by powerful individuals and public pressure rather than an impartial review of the evidence. (We have to look into the details on this)

As a relative of the victim, Kean emphasizes the emotional toll that the murder had on Mary Phagan’s family. She argues that the pain of the Phagan family was compounded by the subsequent public controversy surrounding Leo Frank’s trial and lynching. (I am sure this is true but it doesn't mean that Frank was guilty. Just because the girl was victims of a crime doesn't give them the right to victimize another innocent person which happens frequently)

I will detail the evidence from her book in the next post.

[Stubble]

You obviously aren't getting the truth where you are looking, you didn't even know that a bloody shirt was planted to frame Newt Lee. That's not a small detail, that's a big deal.

Then there is the hair and blood in the metal room.

If Conley had done it, he would have had to do it at the front door, because of the timetable, on her way out of the building.

This list can go on and on. It won't matter. You will say 'but, my doubt is totally reasonable'.

In my opinion, it's not.

Regardless, neither you nor I will be settling this here on the internet and the ADL will continue for another 100 years until they final exonerate the murdering pedophile Leo Frank.

Little Mary will be pushed into the dustbin of history with Saint Simon of Trent, even if it takes the ADL 500 years...

[ConfusedJew]

Mary Phagan Kean argues that the evidence against Leo Frank was sufficiently strong to justify his conviction in her view.

1. Jim Conley’s Testimony
Conley was a crucial witness who claimed to have seen Frank with Mary Phagan on the day of her murder. He testified that Frank had sexually assaulted Phagan and then strangled her to death.

Conley’s testimony included specific details about the crime that seemed to corroborate other aspects of the evidence, such as the discovery of the body and the way Phagan was killed. According to Kean, the consistency of Conley’s testimony with other evidence provided strong support for the conviction.

[*] Conley was a suspect in the murder and initially testified that he had no knowledge of the murder. That alone casts serious doubts on the credibility of his testimony. Conley's own attorney later said that he believed that Conley was guilty and that Frank was innocent. In order for him to be convicted, there would have to be enough evidence to be sure without Conley's testimony because that itself has low credibility and he had a potential motive to lie. If they legitimately exonerated him, which they never did, that would change things, but that wasn't the case.

2. The Physical Evidence
Mary Phagan's body was found in the basement of the factory, and the conditions of the body—such as the presence of signs of sexual assault and the way she had been strangled—were consistent with Conley’s account.

While the bloody shirt’s connection to the crime is disputed, Kean includes it as part of the evidence that tied Frank to the murder. The shirt, believed to belong to Phagan, was found near the crime scene, and in Kean's view, this piece of evidence added to the prosecution's case that Phagan had been assaulted and murdered in the factory.

[*] If Conley was the victimizer, he would have known exactly how and why the girl was murdered. The fact that his testimony matches the crime scene doesn't help advance the case against Frank.

3. Frank's Behavior and Statements
Frank’s statements during the trial were seen as inconsistent with the facts and with the testimony of other witnesses. For example, Frank initially denied having been at the factory on the day of the murder, but his own employees contradicted him.

Frank's actions after the murder also raised suspicions. Kean points out that Frank seemed overly nervous and acted in a manner that was inconsistent with someone who was innocent. This behavior, in her view, suggested guilt and supported the case for his conviction.

[*] Acting nervous after you are being accused of a crime would be normal for any innocent person. If this happened before he was accused of a crime, it would be suspicious, but not proof that Frank was guilty. People might have misremembered or misinterpreted his behavior or he could have been nervous for a million other reasons. Very weak evidence.

4. The Context of the Crime
Kean argues that Frank had the opportunity to commit the crime. As the factory’s superintendent, he was alone in the building with Phagan, who had come to collect her wages. Frank's position gave him ample opportunity to assault her and then dispose of her body in the basement.

While there were various theories about why Frank might have killed Phagan, Kean suggests that the motive for the murder could have been sexual assault. She believes the evidence suggests that Phagan’s murder was a result of Frank’s desire to conceal his actions, which led him to kill her to prevent her from speaking out.

[*] Having the opportunity to commit a crime, just means that you don't have an alibi. If you can show that he actually sexually assaulted her, beyond a reasonable doubt, then he would have had a motive to kill her maybe. But neither of those things are proven.

Your turn. You can say that you are convinced, but your job is to convince me. And if you ignore my logical arguments, it is obviously very unconvincing.

[ConfusedJew]

You obviously aren't getting the truth where you are looking, you didn't even know that a bloody shirt was planted to frame Newt Lee. That's not a small detail, that's a big deal.

Then there is the hair and blood in the metal room.

If Conley had done it, he would have had to do it at the front door, because of the timetable, on her way out of the building.

This list can go on and on. It won't matter. You will say 'but, my doubt is totally reasonable'.

In my opinion, it's not.

Regardless, neither you nor I will be settling this here on the internet and the ADL will continue for another 100 years until they final exonerate the murdering pedophile Leo Frank.

Little Mary will be pushed into the dustbin of history with Saint Simon of Trent, even if it takes the ADL 500 years...

You need to communicate your argument more clearly if you want to effectively debate your point. This post is very ambiguous and leaves me with a lot of questions.

1. Will you explain the situation with the bloody shirt and how it is evidence that Frank was guilty?

2. Why would Conley have had to do it at the front table and why wouldn't it have been possible for him to do it at the front door?

3. Why are you bringing up Saint Simon of Trent? It just shows that you are biased against Jews because that has zero relevance to the case that we are discussing here about Leo Frank.

[Stubble]

1) because it was a plant.

2) because it's the front door, also, the blunt force trauma occurred in the metal room.

3) because it shows a pattern of exonerating child murderers when they are jewish, even if it takes hundreds of years.

I'm out.