Talk:Leo Frank

Citation 1 does not include supposed quote

In the first paragraph of the article, it is claimed that the modern consensus is that Mr. Frank was wrongfully convicted, although the citation ([1]) does not contain the quote listed in [n 1] Iamsombrero (talk) 09:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The quoted text begins on the third line of the second page of the archived pdf of the cited source. NebY (talk) 10:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

My mistake, I apologise.

Viewing from mobile, more than one page weren’t evident. Iamsombrero (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

"Modern Consensus" is used in the cited article however the author solely pulls from Leonard Dinnerstein's book, The Leo Frank Case (printed in 1968 but cited article states 1987). One person does not constitute a consensus. --Asr1014 (talk) 09:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Plenty of sources in the article support the assertion that there is a modern consensus. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The cited article is Professor Wilkes' review of Dinnerstein's book; his statement concerning the modern consensus is not based solely on Dinnerstein and Wilkes explicitly identifies other books and articles. NebY (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Consensus of wrongful conviction?

It seems odd to me that the evidence indicating a consensus among historians is single comment from a non-scholarly news source (CNN). It's a low-quality source for such a strong claim. JDiala (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Did you read the entire article, not just the lede? Specifically the section "Later consensus: a miscarriage of justice"? Acroterion (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, right. Strenuously disagree (I think he was guilty), but fighting this fight is probably not worth it on my end. JDiala (talk) 04:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

What is your assertion that he was guilty based on? Longhornsg (talk) 06:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I suspect part of the answer is, he was a rich man found to be guilty by a jury of his peers beyond a reasonable doubt. He had the resources to defend himself properly and he used them, but was still found guilty at his trial.

I suspect the other part of the answer is, he was a Jewish man that was lynched and the historians who are asked about this are either Jewish themselves and find his lynching abhorrent for that reason, or they are non-Jewish and are afraid of being labelled anti-Semitic if the say they think he was guilty. Either way, they come to the conclusion that Leo Frank was actually innocent, potentially without actually believing this. 2603:7080:402:D900:8F1:B239:2FA8:1095 (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

You're really telling on yourself when you assume that "being Jewish" is the only reason someone could find the lynching of a Jewish person abhorrent. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I apologize if my earlier statements lent themselves to being misinterpreted, as appears to be the case. I do not pretend to know whether Jim Conley or Leo Frank were in fact guilty in this case (or if it was some other third party), nor do I have particularly strong feelings one way or the other. I personally suspect Jim Conley was the actual rapist/murderer, but I would only say that I have ~60% confidence in this belief.

My earlier statements were my suspicions/theories in regard to why other people believe that Leo Frank is guilty. The part of my statement that you take issue with (the second part) is my theory about why a person (presuming good faith in that person) would disagree with most historians about this case being a miscarriage of justice. My theory is as follows:

Talk pages aren't for lengthy sources less theorizing about the motivations of scholars or historians, or criticism of the ADL
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Historians look at this case and see that Leo Frank was a victim of a lynch mob. Lynching (extrajudicial killing) is wrong, even when there are legitimate reasons to believe that the lynching victim has committed heinous acts (such as a guilty verdict in a court). They also see that there was a lot of antisemitism in the press at the time, and given this antisemitism (and aggressive press coverage before the trial) it was unlikely that Leo Frank received a fair trial. Furthermore, the historians see that there was an alternative suspect, Jim Conley, who-given the pressure to quickly charge and convict the perpetrator-may not have been fully considered/investigated, especially if the wider community was already convinced they knew who the killer was. The historians look at all this and more, and they come to the conclusion that it was more likely that Jim Conley was the killer than Leo Frank, and that an innocent man was wrongly convicted and subsequently lynched. I believe that people who disagree with these historians may be thinking that the real reason the historians are coming to the conclusion that Leo Frank was innocent is specifically because he was lynched and the historians want Leo Frank to be innocent so that the lynch mob is wrong not just in their actions but also in all their beliefs that led to their actions. This desire for the lynch mob to be wrong in both action and thought would be particularly strong for Jewish historians who might see themselves in (an innocent) Leo Frank and for non-Jewish historians who are concerned about being considered anti-Semitic if they come to any other conclusion about the case. Additionally people that disagree with the historians might simply have disdain for the ADL, which was founded in response to this case. If someone dislikes the ADL they will want Leo Frank to be guilty because then it will mean that the ADL was founded on a lie.

2603:7080:402:D900:CC30:A083:FB94:BD94 (talk) 04:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems like this post is being heavily misinterpreted. This post does not theorize with the motivations of scholars/historians, it theorizes about the motivations of people who disagree with scholars/historians. It also doesn't criticize the ADL; it points out that people critical of the ADL will be motivated to think Leo Frank is guilty (potentially when the majority of the evidence suggest otherwise. I think it is important to remind users of the "assume good faith" policy. 134.6.207.163 (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, this talk page isn't a forum for your views concerning Frank or the ADL, it is for specific, reliably sourced article improvement. "My theory is as follows" is not an appropriate use of any talk page. Acroterion (talk) 14:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I know, that's why I haven't been using it as a forum for my views concerning Frank or the ADL. One of the users "JDiala" took issue with the claim "The consensus of researchers on the subject is that Frank was wrongly convicted" and I was explaining why I thought he and others would take issue with this wording, although-I'll admit-it's gotten a bit off topic. Re-wording this claim to include that this is the view expressed by Jessica Ravits (CNN) and/or Donald Eugene Wilkes Jr. (Flagpole Magazine) would be better, in my opinion. Although I think superior to either of those sources would be to directly quote/reference Leonard Dinnerstein (Historian/Professor), since Eugene Wilkes Jr. relies on Dinnerstein's book in his article anyway. 134.6.207.163 (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

If you are the same editor who attacked Acroteria on an IPv6 address expect to be blocked if you do it again. Doug Weller talk 11:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2024

The first sentence in the last paragraph in the section "Abduction and lynching of Frank" is not accurately sourced. The source that discusses Frank's body in Atlanta being forced to be on view to the public after threats of violence is from The Sun newspaper based in New York, printed on August 18, 1915. Here is a link to the correct source: https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030272/1915-08-18/ed-1/seq-2/#words=%5Bu’Frank’,%20u’FRANK’,%20u’l.eo’,%20u’LEO’,%20u’Leo’%5D&date1=1915&date2=1915&sequence=&lccn=&state=&rows=20&ortext=&proxtext=Leo+Frank&year=&phrasetext=&andtext=&proxValue=&dateFilterType=yearRange&index=17

If you check the current source you will see there is no mention of Frank's body in Atlanta on view both on the sourced page, page 1, but also not mentioned on page 3 of the source which is the continuation of the front page story.

The source also does not mention bricks specifically, only crashed in windows so the section "after they began throwing bricks, they were allowed to file past the corpse." should be changed to "after the mob began breaking glass panes, they were allowed to file past the corpse." A sentence directly following this can also be added stating, "Around 15,000 people were estimated to have looked upon Frank's body. Policemen guarded Frank's casket for fear of further violence." 2603:3003:1B05:D100:940B:AD89:CCC6:42B (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Request to change the last sentence of the first paragraph entirely

In no way should folks get the impression that Leo Frank was innocent. A jury of the man's peers found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Dinnerstein, writing a highly biased article over 50 years after the fact, does NOT speak for all researchers. It should be noted and is quite obvious that the net has been scrubbed clean of any credible articles on the murder of Mary Phagan.

Mr. Frank had all the resources anybody could have ever possibly wanted in order to defend himself in a fair trial. He was subsequently found guilty.

I wonder, if in 50 years, some were to write a biased book claiming that the death of George Floyd and the subsequent trial of Derek Chauvin was incorrect and that most researchers believe that he was not murdered? What source can trump the actual trial which took place? If you were to read the actual source you'd find it claims that most researchers think he is innocent but gives nothing to back it up.

I look forward to the replies to this request, thank you. Swiftozis (talk) 06:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The lede summarizes the sourced body of the article, is not solely tied to a single reference, and is not required to be referenced at all, since the sources are all present in the article body. The lede is required to summarize the article's content. There are over 200 references and an extensive bibliography, including a significant section on historical review. That reference is there because of past disruption by agenda-driven editors who insist that there is no consensus of historians and who keep demanding sources in the lede, a common obfuscating tactic. The note and reference are not to Dinnerstein, but rather to an academic review of the Dinnerstein book which summarizes the consensus of multiple authors, including Dinnerstein. Read the rest of the article and all of the references. As for your assertion that justice is infallible in all times, places, and circumstances, that is at best naive. Your analysis is not admissible in place of scholarly consensus. And read the rest of this talkpage and its archives. Frank is a perennial bugbear for drive-by complaints, and Dinnerstein is well-regarded by his peers. Acroterion (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I will admit I've not read anything by Dinnerstein on this subject besides what is quoted in the article, but did he make an actual argument as to why he was wrongly convicted? By what is being quoted, it seems his entire point was that people in Atlanta back then were hysterical, which ignores the overwhelming evidence included here. Swinub (talk) 02:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The article discusses the trial, post-trial developments, and commutation in detail. Acroterion (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)