FROM CHICAGO DAVE:
SKUNKIE AND THE LEO FRANK FILE
http://188.8.131.52/~gbpprorg/judicial-inc/main_index.html CLASSICAL SKUNKIE MIRROR SITE INDEX
http://holocaustdenial.com/Zyklon_B/judicial_inc_biz/1_master_supreme.html ANOTHER MIRROR SITE
http://184.108.40.206/~gbpprorg/judicial-inc/MiscPics.htm LEO FRANK
[Note: If you don't understand what we are talking about, start at the end.]
... Look, I realize that there are only so many hours in the day, and one must prioritize to be sure, but, your reference to the Leo Frank case is, well, kind of wimpy ... I'll have a look at the Gov's case…
I suppose that if you can debunk the [Leo] Frank case it might be useful towards showing that you're not anti-Semitic in the least, that is, in the strictest sense of the term, meaning, what it should really mean.
[COMMENT: I'm not interested in proving I'm not anti-Semitic, I am anti-Semitic. Read it, all 29 pages of it, if you want to know anything about the Frank case at all.
After all that other junk about Dutroux the file is too long already.
In my view there is no real evidence against [Leo] Frank. All the so-called evidence comes from Conley, the man who wrote the notes found with the body, and who was CONVICTED AS AN ACCESSORY TO THE MURDER. No attempt was made to imitate the victim’s handwriting, but the police were supposed to find the notes, believe they were written by the victim during commission of the crime, and throw suspicion on a "long tall black negro" (Conley was short and powerfully built). The notes read, and I quote:
“Mam that negro hire down here did this i went to make water and he push me down that hole a long tall negro black that hoo it sase long sleam tall negro I wright while play with me”
“he said he wood love me land down play like the night witch did it but that long tall black negro did buy his slef”.
(For another scan of the same notes, click here)
The police weren't stupid enough to believe that the victim wrote the notes, but they were stupid enough to believe Conley when he claimed that Frank "dictated" the notes. Why the hell would Frank do that? How the hell COULD he do that? Would you do that if YOU committed a murder? Then they were stupid enough to coach Conley in his testimony for weeks and months to frame Frank for the murder! There is no question that Conley wrote the notes.
I think this is one of the stupidest crimes I've ever heard of, right up there with the Hoaxoco$t itself, with its jumping buckets, pedal-driven brain bashing machines and all the rest of it. Whoever did it was high on drugs or drunk out of his mind. Conley was so drunk that day he could hardly remember anything he did, but Frank was sober. There is no evidence that Frank was a cocaine addict or sexually abnormal in any way.
The Commutation to Life Imprisonment is reproduced in Harry Golden's book A LITTLE BOOK IS DEAD (pp. 312-342), which I recommend, and Mary Phagan Keen's book, THE MURDER OF LITTLE MARY PHAGAN (pp. 170-208).
Whoever wrote those notes committed the murder. Conley could commit the murder without Frank, but Frank could not commit the murder without Conley. Frank is supposed to have lain in wait for the victim, argued with her, killed her, transported the body hundreds of feet, with Conley, by means of an elevator which was not used that afternoon, dictated the notes (Conley could only write about a word a minute) and had an argument about money (since that is the only way to explain how the money disappeared), all in a maximum of 8 minutes, while Monteen Stover was waiting in the outside office.
Do you believe that? Mary Phagan can only have arrived at the office later, after Stover left.
Read the files, OK, there are 29 of them, but there's not much text on each page. [Note: I transcribed them.]
Accomplice testimony is supposed to be corroborated, and I believe that the same thing would logically apply to accessory testimony, since they both have a built-in motivation to lie. Where is the corroboration? Where is the presumption that Conley should be believed at all?
What it proves is that a determined liar, who keeps on lying, no matter how obvious his lies, will be believed by most people. This is true of the Hoaxoco$t, and it is true of the Frank case. This is the BIG LIE technique (which Hitler described but did not invent or advocate). And if you’ve got cops and prosecutors coaching you, you don’t even have to be a particularly good liar, at least at first, just stick to your story and keep lying.
Of course, the Jews are exaggerating when they claim Frank was framed because of anti-Semitism. That had nothing to do with it until they made an issue of it. I believe that if it hadn't been for their interference in the case he might not have been convicted. If he had been a respected patriotic Southern Jew (i.e., patriotic to the Confederacy), like Bernard Baruch, whose father was a surgeon in the Confederate Army and a member of the Ku Klux Klan, Frank would never have been indicted for murder.
Frank produced almost 40 witnesses who testified that Conley was a notorious liar. He was also a habitual petty criminal and drunkard who had been on the chain gang several times.
I repeat: if you committed a murder, would YOU write notes like that? Would you DICTATE notes like that? COULD you dictate notes like that? Would you believe a semi-literate drunkard who claimed he wrote those notes because they were dictated by an educated man?
Read the files. They are reproduced in A LITTLE GIRL IS DEAD and THE MURDER OF LITTLE MARY PHAGAN. Both books are good. Phagan (the victim's great niece) thinks Frank was guilty, but inadvertently proves the contrary. I wouldn't believe Conley to tell me the time of day. He made 4 contradictory affidavits, and told all kinds of obvious lies. For example, at first he claimed Frank dictated the notes the day BEFORE the murder. The cops told him that didn't make sense, so he changed the whole goddamn story. And so on. The prosecutors rehearsed his testimony for WEEKS, imitating the defense attorney's practice of yelling at witnesses to intimidate them. Conley was prepared for it and just grinned (Oney p. 188-89, Phagan p. 155).
If they wanted to lynch Frank, well and good, but why the hell didn't they lynch the nigger, too? That way they'd be sure they got the right guy, just by a process of elimination. Conley was a criminal all his life, he was shot in a robbery attempt in 1919. There is no question that the notes are in his handwriting and are his language. Could you dictate notes like that? What's more, the forms on which they were written were kept in the basement, not Frank's office, because they bore the date 190-, instead of 191-. This was in 1913. The body was dragged, but Conley claimed he carried her on his shoulder. Etc. etc.. Monteen Stover claimed Frank wasn't in his office. Frank said he may have gone to the toilet but couldn't remember. What's more if he was in his inner office Stover couldn't have seen him anyway. Phagan cannot have arrived until later. Frank called the factory that night because he had left the watchman in the company of a man who had been fired for stealing, a man whom Frank was personally afraid of.
Another reason Frank had "never called the night watchmen before" was because that particular night watchman, Newt Lee, had only been working there for 2 weeks. He was a new employee. The old night watchman was often called at night (Oney, p. 86). The case is full of things like this.
It proves that people believe what they want to believe, regardless of the evidence. It's like the assassination of President Kennedy. They couldn't believe that their great wonderful Knight of Camelot was shot by some low-life Communist with a cheap rifle (which incidentally was very accurate), so the Jews (and a few others) make a huge industry out of inventing conspiracies involving important people (practically every important person in the country). Frank was perceived as a Northerner (actually he was born in Texas and
had an uncle in the Confederate Army [SENTENCE DELETED AS IT IS IN DISPUTE AND MAY BE UNTRUE]), an outsider, a factory boss and a Northern Jew. Plus half his character witnesses were Jews, or Northern Jews. The money for his case came from Northern Jews. They convicted him to show that "Georgia justice cannot be bought and sold with Jew money from New York". And in that way I sympathize with them. I am just sorry they made fools of themselves.
The South has never been particularly anti-Semitic [note], except when Jews interfere in politics to destroy their way of life. Any "prejudice" they encountered in Atlanta was because they owned most of the factories exploiting child labor. What I say about Baruch is the truth. I have his autobiography (MY OWN STORY, Rinehart Winston, 1957). He makes no apology for his father being in the Klan and the first three chapters are a beautiful defense of the South, the Klan included (pp. 1-39). For example, on pp. 35-36, he says, "I was brought up to believe that Robert E. Lee was the epitome of human virtue... Generals Beauregard, Stonewall Jackson and Jeb Stuart were other shining figures...". He continues in this vein at some length, and never renounces these ideals. Southern life is also portrayed quite favourably in chapters XX and XXI. He even admits that he had an ancestor (and probably more than one) in the slave trade (p. 15)!
It is obvious that no Jew could write a book like that today. Even the Jews have changed.
(Of course, all autobiographies are self-serving, but Baruch seems to have felt a sincere resentment against both Northerners and blacks. For a less flattering, but very perceptive, view of both Baruch and the South, see David L. Hoggan, DAS BLINDE JAHRHUNDERT [The Blind Century], Part I, Chapter III, pp. 170-176, in two sections which could be translated as "The Vindictive Mentality of the American South" and "Baruch's Origins and Youth". The book has never been published in English. See also Margaret Coit's biography of Baruch, in which Baruch, in an interview, mentioned the mass rape of Southern white women by black Union soldiers. "He still remembered the arrogant singing of black soldiers during Reconstruction: "Go way, white folks, you're too late, We'se de winnin' culler", quoted in Hoggan, ibid, p. 176. See also Margaret Coit, BERNARD BARUCH: THE MAN, THE MYTH, THE EIGHTY YEARS and Wilbur J. Cash, THE MIND OF THE SOUTH..)
The story of the Frank case on www.crimelibrary.com (http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/not_guilty/frank/1.html)
is not bad, but it's not quite complete. http://crimemagazine.com/05/leofrank,0314-5.htm is not too bad either.
I don’t entirely trust anything on the Internet about the Frank case. In most ways, the commutation file is the best. There are details missing all over the place in all these files. I've read 4 books on the case so far, and there is always something better discussed in another book, or putting it another way, there is always something new.
Frank has been vindicated in death, in the sense that almost no one who knows anything about the case still believes he was guilty. I believe that the same thing will happen to the men hanged at Nuremberg and elsewhere after the last war. The methods of proof were almost the same. I know the comparison seems grotesque, but it is not. There are many similarities. I could make a long list of them.
The case against Frank is so illogical that this is why Skunkie had to make up that lie about Frank being a cocaine addict. I have never heard this before, anywhere. Frank cannot have dictated those notes. At most he could have said, “Hey Jim, why don't you write a couple of notes and pretend you're the girl and say a tall slim negro did it, since you're short and stocky”? “OK Boss”. What would be the point to that? Why would Conley agree to do that -- for any amount of money? As soon as the word got out that Conley wrote the notes, it would logically be assumed (under normal circumstances) that Conley committed the murder, and his life wouldn’t be worth a plugged nickel. Unless they believed him. The notes would lead the cops to Conley and Conley would accuse Frank, which is exactly what happened according to the people who think Frank was guilty. If you committed a murder you'd leave the body alone, you'd know any note would be linked to the killer. This is the stupidest murder I've ever heard of. Conley also lied about whether he could write at first. There used to be a serial caller called THE LIPSTICK KILLER who wrote messages on mirrors with his victims' lipstick, but he didn't expect the cops to think the victims wrote the messages.
If it weren't for the notes it is quite probable that no one would have realized that Conley was even in the factory that day.
People who believe Frank was guilty do not like to discuss the notes in any detail, because logically they prove that Frank was innocent. It is sometimes alleged that the notes were "dictated" in "negro slang" in an apparent attempt to "throw suspicion on the "night watchman", Newt Lee. A pretty stupid stunt in view of the fact that the victim was a white girl who was supposed to have written the notes herself during commission of the crime ("I wright while play with me") -- quite apart from the obvious fact that the second note states plainly that the "night witch" didn't do it.
Whether "night witch" is a mistake for "night watchman", or a reference to a superstitious folklore belief of the Southern negro (the "night witch" is said to have "ridden" children in their sleep, after which they were found dead in the morning with a cord around their necks), is highly questionable, but makes no difference: Frank cannot have dictated those notes and had no reason to try.
It is interesting to note that the words "push me down that hole" in the first note describe the murder as actually committed (through the hatchway) and not as claimed later (by means of the elevator).
It seems strange to hang a man partly because of two notes written in a drunken delirium by somebody else.
It is easy to miss the forest for the trees.
Skunkie has a right to his opinions but I don’t think he has a right to manipulate the source material. I don’t like Jews but I don’t think we have a right to lie. The truth is enough.
Maybe the most depressing thing about it, is, that was the first time in the history of the South that a white man (OK, a Texas-born New York Jew) was sentenced to death on the testimony of a negro. They were undermining their whole position as the dominant race in the South by believing the testimony of this thieving, lying, drunken nigger. Every Southerner's nightmare and every lyncher's dream. So they lynch the Jew and let the nigger live until 1947 (some say 1955 or even 1962 - he seems to have disappeared in the 1940s).
The Phagan family even had Conley in the house with them. He made a fool out of every white person in the state, and Mary Phagan's book describes how it was done. And she believes Frank was guilty.
I disagree with any tendency on the part of revisionists and nationalists to counter-attack on the Leo Frank case by claiming that Frank was guilty. The proper thing to do is to ignore it or down-play its importance, which we have every right to do. Frank was the victim of a miscarriage of justice, like millions of other people all the time. It is not true that he was convicted and lynched "just because he was Jewish". He is REMEMBERED because he was Jewish. He was accused of having huge sex orgies in his office, when he didn't even have any curtains in his office! It's like the steam chambers or the diary of Ann Frank. I don't believe it. I'm sorry.
You could see everything happening in Franks' office from 43 windows in other office buildings. Conley's lawyer counted them after becoming convinced that Frank was innocent (Steve Oney, p. 427).
The real reason Conley was believed appears to be that he lied in such detail that people thought he “couldn’t possibly have invented it”. Sound familiar? Where have we heard that before (the Hoaxoco$t, perhaps)? Binjamin Wilomirksi? Jerzy Kozkinski? It seems to me that it takes a singularly unimaginative person to believe that everything “detailed” is the truth. Every good detective story or spy thriller is full of detail. It is wealth of detail that makes convincing fiction.
The South has never been particularly anti-Semitic (or, putting it another way, under normal circumstances, almost all Southern anti-Semitism was directed against Northern Jews, i.e., Jews as a sub-species of Yankee; Frank's wife grew up in Georgia and never encountered any anti-Semitism until the trial), and in many ways has always been far less "racist" than the North. It was more hierarchical, less hypocritical. It is quite possible that the real reason for the prejudice against Frank, even today, was not his race or religion, but his appearance: thin, with bulging, staring eyes, aggravated by thick glasses that made them appear even bigger. This is what many people, consciously or unconsciously, think "perverts", "sex fiends" and "maniacs" actually look like; many people said so (see Dinnersten, p. 174) [note]. Personally, I believe that Frank was slightly hyperthyroidal. This is a progressive condition, potentially fatal, fairly obvious in certain photos of Frank, and hardly apparent at all in certain other photos. He does not look like a well man.
Grave's Disease (hyperthyroidism). Symptoms: weight loss, protruding eyes (exopthalmia)
I will not discuss the Skunkie Leo Frank file in detail (it would be exceedingly lengthy but I could do so) except to say that it is up to the usual standards of Skunkiness. For example, he says that Frank "raped Mary" (which I have never heard before, and which contradicts all the other evidence, even the so-called "evidence" presented by Conley); then Skunkie says she was a "virgin" (i.e., when she was found dead); then, to prove that, he refers to a hacked-up version of the Slaton commutation file which says the victim was not raped; then, further down, among the usual hodge-podge of Skunkie "source materials", on the same page, marked in yellow, is a quotation off the Internet someplace saying she was "vaginally raped or anally sodomized"! Then he says Frank raped the corpse! All in less than 4,000 words!
Which version does Skunkie claim to be the truth?
Answer: truth and logic simply do not matter.
As usual, the sources are completely botched, so it is almost impossible to tell who is saying what. Skunkie cannot even spell Frank's name correctly twice in a row (he misspells it five times) or get the victim's age right half the time. She was born on June 1, 1899 in Florence, Alabama (Phagan, p. 11), was "well developed" and "could have passed for eighteen" (ibid, p. 16). (Remember, this is the victim's great-niece talking, who thinks Frank was guilty.)
It is true that Governor Slaton was defense attorney's Luther Rosser's law partner; but it is also true that Luther Rosser was prosecutor Hugh Dorsey's brother-in-law (Dinnerstein, p. 124; Golden, p. 272; Oney 616). These accusations cancel each other out.
The most obvious hallucination in the file is Skunkie's assertion that Frank was castrated before the lynching, which is a slander on the State of Georgia.
It's not easy to slander a lynch mob, but just leave it to Skunkie.
Another hallucination is that drugs were found in the victim's stomach. That story about the woman hearing "screams" from the factory basement at 4:30 P.M. [!] contradicts all the other evidence and is so absurd one wonders why Skunkie even mentions it.
I do not think it pays, nor do I believe that it is right or necessary, to print simply any kind of irresponsible accusation, hearsay and lies just because it reflects badly on Jews, and I don't say that out of any particular sympathy for them. If the cause we are fighting for cannot stand on the truth, then it is not worth fighting for.
For what it's worth, I believe the Scottsboro Boys were innocent, too, and it's not because I like blacks, either. Quite the contrary. It's because I see no physical or forensic evidence that they were guilty.
Carlo Mattogno once said, "If it became obvious that the gas chambers never existed, would it be necessary to say so, or would it be necessary to keep silent?"
The same question applies to the guilt or innocence of Leo Frank. The truth is the truth. Personally, I think Frank was innocent and I've thought so for 30 years.
I'm sorry that systems I loved and still believe in were brought into discredit by a few stupid, over-publicized injustices, but there are injustices under all systems. The systems we live under now are worse.
From the popularity of this particular Skunkie file, and the number of otherwise intelligent people who have sent me this bilge by e-mail, I must assume that most people simply do not read carefully.
Frank was never accused of paedophilia. He was never accused of drug addition. He was never accused of being under the influence of drugs on the day of the crime, drugging the victim, raping the corpse, and/or much of the rest of it. If we want to prove him guilty, fine, but let's prove the accusations made in 1913, not new lies made up 93 years later.
There is really no point in pursuing this matter, because Mary Phagan is the only serious writer who believes that Frank was guilty. If we wish to prove that he was, in fact, guilty as charged, we are, of course, free to attempt to do so, but somebody has to do a better job of explaining those notes.
In short, there is no material, scientific or physical evidence that Leo Frank killed Mary Phagan, just as there is no material, scientific or physicial evidence that the Germans gassed "Six Million Jews" (or even one Jew, or anyone). In the Frank case,
the material, scientific and physical evidence (fingerprint comparisons, photographs of bite marks, dental X-rays) was suppressed without discussion and destroyed; [CORRECTION: THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THE "PHOTOGRAPHS OF BITE MARKS" OR "DENTAL X-RAYS" EVER EXISTED, BUT THE "FINGERPRINTS" APPARENTLY DID; THIS INFORMATION IS DERIVED, NOT FROM SOME DUTCH "CHRISTIAN ZIONIST" NAMED PIERRE VAN PAASSENS, WRITING IN 1964, ABOUT HIS ALLEGED EXPERIENCES IN 1922, BUT FROM WILLIAM MANNING SMITH, CONLEY'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY, WHO BECAME CONVINCED THAT CONLEY WAS GUILTY] in the case of the "Six Million", the material, scientific and physical evidence (engineering, architectural, chemical and techical studies of the alleged "gas chambers", crematory ovens and Zyklon) was never even collected until the revisionists began this task in the late 1980s. Instead, all we get is the usual horseshit "eyewitness testimony": in the Frank case, from people like Conley; in the case of the "Six Million", from people like Elie Wiesel and Jan Karski.
26 JANUARY 2006
Updated 9 August 2011
WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION
"As depraved and lecherous a negro as ever lived in the state of Georgia" - Gov. Slaton
Skunkie Leo Frank file
David Irving site file (by somebody else) on Leo Frank
Strange Doings at Judicial-Inc.Biz by C.W.Porter
The Judicial-Inc.Biz Loony Lindy File by C.W. Porter
The Judicial-Inc.Biz Great Chateau Hoax by C.W. Porter
Governor Slaton/Leo Frank Commutation to Life Imprisonment File - complete text (transcribed by C.W. Porter)
Skunkie Augusta Chronicle File
Mary Phagan Death Notes (updated 4 May 2006)
A LITTLE GIRL IS DEAD by Harry Golden (in some ways still the best book on the case; no index)
THE MURDER OF LITTLE MARY PHAGAN by Mary Phagan (no index)
AND THE DEAD SHALL RISE by Steve Oney
(the most detailed and most probably most reliable account of the case; 742 pages; notes and index.)
THE LEO FRANK CASE by Leonard Dinnerstein (short, dry, summary of facts of case, with good summary of legal precedents set by Frank case; notes and index)
THE SILENT AND THE DAMNED by Robert S. Frey
SCOTTSBORO BOY by Haywood Patterson and Earl Conrad (with forensic and trial evidence, pp. 210-229 ff)
See also THE LAST OF THE SCOTTSBORO BOYS by Clarence Norris
On the latter case, see: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/scottsboro/scottsb.htm
t-shirt design stolen from www.kissmyrebelass.com -- with thanks
Return to ARTICLES PAGE
Return to CONTENTS PAGE