CONCLUSION Tom Watson October 1915: Rich Jews Indict a State (Part 3 of 3)

Frances Coleman, bereaved mother of Mary Phagan

[Continued from https://johndenugent.com/tom-watson-october-1915-rich-jews-indict-a-state-part-2-of-3/]

Let me take up the Connolly story, and prove to you how untruthful it was, and how shamefully it traduced us. [JdN: and, again “traduced” means “defamed”]

The first statement of Connolly is:

“Saturday, April 26, 1913, a holiday, Mary Phagan went from her home in Atlanta to the National Pencil Factory at which she worked, to get some pay still owing her.

She did not return to her home. A search was instituted, without success.

At 3.30 o’clock the following morning her dead body was accidentally discovered in the basement of the pencil factory by the night watchman, whose duty it was to make the rounds of the building. Two men were immediately arrested. One was Leo M. Frank, the superintendent of the factory, who admitted having paid the girl her wages in his office at noon on Saturday.

The other was Newt Lee, the night watchman, who had discovered the body.”

How very superficial must have been Connolly’s study of the facts! Leo Frank was not “‘immediately arrested.”

Newt Lee was the one immediately arrested, and at Frank’s instigation, and Jim Gantt [the fired bookkeeper] was next jailed, because of what Frank insinuated as to his intimacy with the dead girl.

NN: “Intimacy” did not mean sexual intimacy. There were rumors, who knows, to this day, that maybe Mary Phagan liked Jim Gantt, maybe Gantt liked her, and she was a beautiful girl. He was an older boy, a young man, really, and one really could expect that Frank fired him — claiming there had been some petty theft out of the cash box — to get rid of Gantt, because maybe Frank sensed that Gantt liked Phagan and Phagan Gant, and he needed to break them up by firing Gantt — so he could get in there, and have his sexual way with this girl.

And probably Frank also suspected that Gantt would be the chivalrous male protector of this little girl — her bodyguard, so to speak. So he invented a theft and fired Gantt.

***  

Frank was not arrested until Tuesday [that is, three days later].

Frank did not “pay the girl her wages at noon.” His stenographer did not leave until 12:02, and Mary then came, next.

Connolly’s next statement is:

Then a third man, a negro named Jim Conley, who also worked in the factory, but who was not known to have been in the factory at the time of the murder, was accidentally discovered washing a stained shirt. He was arrested and held as a suspect, but suspicion was not seriously directed toward him. The stained shirt was returned to him by the police, and his name was practically eliminated until three weeks later, when it was discovered that he could write. He had previously denied that he could write.

Connolly says “stained shirt” — those who trod in his tracks improved on this and called it “a blood-stained shirt”!

The official record, page 79, shows that E. F. Holloway, the day watchman ”the man who twice swore he left the elevator locked Saturday morning, and then changed his story ” swore :

“I saw Conley down in the shipping room watching the detectives, officers and reporters. I caught him washing his shirt. Looked like he tried to hide it from me. I picked it up and looked at it carefully.”

Any stains? None.

Any blood stains? None.

Just dirt, that was all, and the negro was washing it, not in secret at home, but in public, at the factory. He washed that shirt to clean it up for court the next day, and he wore it next day, just as he had been wearing it Monday morning.

NN: I mean, the man was a janitor, it was late spring in Atlanta in the Deep South, and while working he had probably gotten the shirt all sweaty. Why wouldn’t he wash it — so it would be clean and smell fresh when he went to court? There was nothing suspicious about Jim Conley washing a short with no stains, of blood or any other substance, on it!

The police never took it away from him. Yes, he denied that he could write, and Frank did not tell the police any better. The two men were then protecting one another, and Frank was framing a case on the night watch, Newt Lee.

Connolly [further] states that:

“No defendant in a criminal case in Georgia may give testimony under oath in his own behalf, nor is his wife allowed to testify either for or against him; but he may make a statement not under oath to the jury.

His own lawyers are not allowed to ask him any questions, and the prosecutor never asks any, for he fears the answers of a witness not subject to the penalties of perjury.”

The prosecutor always asks questions, provided the defendant will allow it. But Frank would not allow it.

Connolly again asserts:

“Frank was convicted solely on Conley’s testimony. Without it there was no case. Not one person ever came forward on the trial who saw Frank and Conley together on the day of the murder, although Conley swore they walked the streets of Atlanta for blocks.”

I have already shown from the official record of the trial how the chain of circumstantial evidence was formed by many white witnesses, most of whom were the employees of Frank, and many of them not unfriendly.

NN: There were some witnesses who, whether bribed or for another reason, were not against Leo Frank. Others WERE against Leo Frank and were hostile to him. They knew about him coming on to women, or they disliked him for some other reason.  But some were not out to get him, they had nothing bad to say about him, and in fact many of them did not know him very well except he was the guy who paid them and they were glad to have a job.  

Conley did not swear that he and Frank “walked the streets of Atlanta for blocks.” What he swore was that Frank and he met near Sig Montag’s, and that Frank told him there what to do for Frank at the factory after the girl should arrive. On this vital point Conley was corroborated by Mrs. Hattie Waites, a ladv of unblemished character, and of absolute disinterestedness in the case.

NN: The word “disinterested” does not mean “uninterested” but instead merely having no stake in the case. They are not going to gain or lose anything either way; they may not even know the people involved.

Connolly says:

“The State insisted that Mary Phagan was attacked before Monteen Stover came to the factory at 12.05. But Mary Phagan, according to three of the State’s witnesses, was on the street car several blocks away as late as seven minutes after twelve.”

That no two watches or clocks tally is known to everybody, and the effort to confuse the facts by time-tables, outside the factory, was one of the numerous devices of Frank’s lawyers. What’s the use of street-car watches when we have Frank’s own clock to go by? His stenographer punched his clock as she went away at 12:02, and Frank repeatedly said that Mary Phagan came in a few minutes afterwards.

Not until he discovered that Miss Monteen Stover had been in his office looking for him, at from 12 :05 to 12 :10, did he place Mary Phagan’s visit later than that. Connolly then says that “tell-tale cinders” proved that the crime was committed in the basement. He puts cinders in her mouth, in her nose, in her lungs, and under her fingernails!

The evidence does not. The undertaker, W. F. Gheesling, took possession of the body soon after it was found, and he washed it, washed the hair in tar-soap water, opened her veins to relieve the congested condition of her face, etc.

With the exception of some dirt under the fingernails, and the dirt soilure of the face and hair, he found nothing unusual. There were no cinders in her mouth, none in her nose, none in her nostrils, none anywhere.

Sergeant Dobbs, who first examined the body, swore to the same thing; W. W. Rogers, who was with Dobbs, swore to the same thing.

Where did Connolly, and those who followed his lead, get all of these cinders that were ^n the girl’s mouth and nose? They got them from Leo Frank’s statement to the jury, and Frank, of course, got thiem from his lawyers.

Frank told the jury he saw the cinders when he examined the corpse at the morgue, whereas the witnesses all swore that he shrank away from the sight of the girl, and never looked at her face at all.

NN: This is a point which Watson had developed in his earlier articles in Watson’s Magazine — the fact that the police brought Frank in to view the body, and of course, at that point, the police are not looking at the body. They are looking at the guy they are suspecting of the murder to see what his physical reaction will be, what the reaction in his face and eyes is to SEEING the body of his VICTIM.

Is he horrified at what he had done?  Is he cold and doesn’t care? The police are looking at Leo Frank,  and Leo Frank refused to look her in the face, refused to look the dead girl in the eyes. He glanced away; he would not look at her.   

And of course the police thought that was a very interesting reaction. 

If I were innocent of a crime, and I saw a beautiful little girl lying there dead and strangled, I would certainly look upon her with sadness, grief and compassion. Were I her boss, and had paid this girl 50 times her meager pay, and then saw her dead a day or two after I had paid her, and she had been a good worker… I would felt sorrow. There would have been sorrow in my eyes…..and shock… and a desire to find the murderer… of this fine little employee, this nice little girl!

But Leo Frank just looked away.     

Frank’s words [in his long statement to the jury, which again, were not made under oath] were:

Mr. Gheesling took the head in his hands, turned it over, put his finger exactly on the wound on the left side of the head. I noticed the hands and arms of the little girl were very dirty ”blue and ground with dirt and cinders, the nostrils and mouth ”the mouth being open ”nostrils and mouth just full, full of sawdust and swollen.

After looking at the girl, I identified her as the one that had been up after noon the previous day and got her money from me….” (Pages 202 and 203, Official Brief)

Now here was the corpse of a girl whom he had claimed not to know; it had undergone a frightful change since the noon before. The face was swollen out of its natural proportions; it was discolored with dirt and congested blood; the mouth was wide open in ghastly disfiguration ”and yet he told the jury that he identified this corpse as that of the girl who had come to him the day before.

Even her chums had some difficulty in recognizing her, and it was her hair that enabled them to do it.

“I knew her by her hair,” swore her work-companion, Miss Grace Hicks. (Page 15).

W. H. Gheesling, who turned the girl’s face so that Frank could see it, testified that ho did not know whether Frank looked at it!

The officers swore that he did not.

No witness said that her mouth was open, but everyone said the tongue protruded through the teeth. Not a single witness said that there were any cinders on her tongue, on her nose, in her nose, in her mouth, or under her nails.

“Some dirt” was found under her nails, just as some can be found under those of all persons who are not very careful of their hands.

Mr. I. U. Kauffman was put up by Frank’s lawyers to prove the condition of the basement at the time of the crime. He said,

”The floor of the basement is dirt and ashes. The trash-pile is 57 feet from where the body was found. There are ashes and cinders along the walk in the basement.”

Xo witness swore to any pile of cinders, pile of ashes, pile of sawdust, bank of cinders or anything else in which a person could be held face downward and smothered. Absolutely no evidence of that sort is in the record. How could anybody crush a girl’s face into cinders, or ashes, or trash, and not leave evidences of such a crime in the cinders, in the ashes, in the trash and in the girl’s face?

NN: Obviously, if you were going to smother a person that way, you would have to jam their head down very, very hard, and of course the person being smothered would be fighting back and thrashing with her head, and doing everything in their power to not be suffocated by snorting in cinders, trash, dirt, dust, whatever…. so that the pile of whatever would be completed pushed around.  

But there WERE no piles. there was no disruption. There were no ashes or cinders scattered all over the place. There were no signs whatsoever of a death struggle. And there was Frank’s words

All the witnesses said there were no bruises or even scratches on the child’s nose, but were on the eye, where she had been struck, and on her side-face, where she had been dragged over the dirt floor.

And why would anybody need a cinder pile, when they had the horrible cord tied fast and tight around her neck?

NN: The items find on the body at the crime scene; the strangulation cord is upper-left.

 

So Frank’s lawyers invented the banks and piles of cinders; and Frank merely repeated what he told them — but the jury could not disregard the sworn testimony, of undertaker Gheesling, Doctors Harris and Hurt, Sergeant Dobbs, I. U. Kauffman and other disinterested witnesses.

Connolly proceeds:

There was not an ounce of cinders on the second floor where Conley said he found her dead. The upper floors were swept clean every day. There were some strands of loose hair found on a machine on the second floor where Frank is supposed to have struck Mary Phagan. They were not discovered by the officers on Sunday in a complete search of the factory.

The expert who microscopically examined this hair and compared it with Mary Phagan’s informed the prosecutor before the trial that the hair was not that of Mary Phagan; but this information was withheld from the defense, and was not brought out by the prosecutor of the trial who afterward said the matter was not important, and that he had proved by other witnesses that the hair “resembled” Mary Phagan’s. In the trial the prosecutor claimed to have lost these strands of hair.

 

NN: I’m going to jump in her and make an important point. In all the descriptions of the hair of Mary Phagan, yes, she had a pretty face and a nice figure, she had a nice personality, and was thus an attractive young female in every way — but her hair had a really unusual color. It was like auburn, which of course is a reddish-brown, but very light, and some people described it as reddish and others as blond. So it was not carrot-red, but auburn and a blondish auburn….  It was an absolutely unique color

This was the color, and the right eye color, found on a modern model whose face also resembles those of Mary — had she lived another three years.

 

Whose hair was it, Mr. Connolly? You say “the officers failed to find it Sunday. ” What of that? They also failed to find the blood-spots on the floor. What difference does it make, if they were not found Sunday but were found early Monday morning ?

The unanswerable question remains, How came the hair and the spots to be there? You say the floor was swept every day. So it was; and the man who swept it Friday, to clean up before closing for the week, swore that no blood-spots were on the floor, then.

NN: So the crime happened Saturday, when Leo Frank and Mary Phagan were both there.

And Frank’s machinist, whose hands had left that lathe handle Friday evening at 6:30 pm, swore there was no hair on it then.

NN: Of course, any person and any man especially would notice long strands of female hair, and of a marvelous golden-auburn color, on the handle of a machine one was operating.

But he discovered it immediately when he went to use his machine Monday morning.

At that time, nobody suspected Leo Frank, except the rich Jews who had pussy-footed [NN: meaning to run quickly yet quietly like a cat] to [attorney Luther] Rosser and employed him to defend Frank. They knew what was coming, for they had learned of Frank’s wild drinking and confession the Saturday night of the murder!

NN: The confession is what was brought out in the affidavit of the black female cook at the Frank-Selig house, Minola McKnight.

She told her husbands, who worked at a hardware store, what she had overheard. He had then told some of his white fellow employees at the hardware store, and eventually that got to the attention of the police.

Then they brought in Minola McKnight and said: “Now you tell us what you told your husband, which he then told his fellow employees at the hardware store.”

And what she said was basically she overheard Frank confessing to his wife.  

He says “I don’t know why I did it.  Bring me my pistol so I can shoot myself.” Then he emptied a bottle of whiskey.

This is what Minola McKnight testified in a sworn affidavit to the Atlanta police. Later on, mysteriously, she recanted her affidavit. And the clear suspicion of Thomas Watson, which he brings out in earlier articles in Watson’s Magazine,  is that she was bribed to retract what she had said in her affidavit — that she had overheard Leo Frank confessing the murder and asking his wife to go find his pistol so he could blow his brains out. 

What stands out in the following affidavits by both McKnights, husband and wife, are several devastating assertions:

.

1. Leo Frank got himself drunk on the evening of the murder.

2. Leo Frank confessed the murder to his wife.

3. Leo Frank quarreled with his wife before the murder, he told his wife he was saving his kisses for another, and thus he would not kiss her.

4. Why did Leo Frank so thoughtfully buy his wife a box of chocolates at Jacob’s Pharmacy at 6:30 pm?

5. Leo Frank was suicidal on the night of the murder, asking for his pistol to kill himself.

6. Leo Frank may have shown remorse to his wife about the murder.

.

Affidavit of Albert McKnight, husband of the Black cook in the Leo Frank home (first a photo facsimile of the crumpled-up paper, then a transcription):

.

The key is at the end:Transcription:

“I can tell Mr. Frank has done something, as they act strange.

Mrs. Frank tells Magnolia [ = Minola] every day not to forget what to say if they come for her to go to court again.

Mrs. Frank had a quarrel with Mr. Frank on the morning of the murder. She asked Mr. Frank to kiss her but then he said he was saving his kisses for ____ and would not kiss her.

Magnolia said she heard Mrs. Frank say she would never live with him again, for she knew he had killed that girl, and they had the right man and ought to break his neck.”

Signed:

Albert McKnight

Witnessed by R.L. Craven & A. Morrison

.

***

.

STATE’S EXHIBIT J, Leo Frank Trial Brief of Evidence, 1913.

.

Affidavit executed by Minola McKnight for Solicitor [ = District Attorney, the Prosecutor, Hugh] Dorsey, as follows:

State of Georgia, County of Fulton.

.

Personally appeared before me, a notary public in and for the above State and county, Minola McKnight, who lives in the rear of 351 Pulliam St., Atlanta, Ga., who being duly sworn deposes and says:

.

On Saturday morning, April 26, 1913, Mr. [Leo] Frank left home about eight o’clock, and Albert [McKnight], my husband, was there Saturday, too.

Albert [McKnight] got there, I guess, about a quarter after one [1:15 PM] and he [Albert McKnight] was there when Mr. [Leo] Frank come for dinner [“dinner” is what they called a formal hot luncheon back then], which was about half-past one [1:30 PM], but Mr. Frank did not eat any dinner [luncheon], and he left in about ten minutes [1:40 PM] after he [Mr. Leo Frank] got there.

.

Mr. [Leo] Frank come back to the house at seven o’clock that night, and Albert [McKnight] was there when he [Leo Frank] got there.

Albert [McKnight] had gone home that [early] evening but he come back. I don’t know what time he [Albert McKnight] got there, but he come sometime before Mr. [Leo] Frank did, and Mr. [Leo] Frank eat supper about seven o’clock, and when I left there that night about eight o’clock, I left Mr. [Leo] Frank there.

Sunday morning I got there about eight o’clock, and there was an automobile standing in front of the house and I didn’t pay any attention to it.

.

I saw a man in the automobile get a bucket of water and pour into it. Mr. [Leo] Frank’s wife [Lucille Selig Frank] was downstairs and Mr. [Emil Selig] and Mrs. [Josephine] Selig were upstairs.

Albert [McKnight] was there Sunday morning, but I don’t remember what time he got there.

I called them down to breakfast about half past eight [8:30 AM] and I found out that Mr. [Leo] Frank was gone. Mr. [Emil] Selig and Mrs. [Josephine] Selig eat breakfast, but Mrs. [Lucille] Frank didn’t eat until Mr. Frank come back and then they eat breakfast together. I didn’t hear them say anything at the breakfast table.

.

After dinner I understood them to say that a girl and Mr. [Leo] Frank were caught at the office Saturday. I don’t know who said it.

Miss Lucille (Mrs. Frank) and Mr. [Emil Selig] and Mrs. [Josephine] Selig and Mr. [Leo] Frank were standing there talking, after dinner when they said it.

I understood them to say it was a Jew girl. On Tuesday, Mr. [Leo] Frank says to me, “It is mighty bad, Minola. I might have to go to jail about this girl, and I don’t know anything about it.”

.

Sunday, Miss Lucille said to Mrs. Selig that Mr. Frank didn’t rest so good Saturday night; she said he was drunk and wouldn’t let her sleep with him, and she said she slept on the floor on the rug by the bed because Mr. [Leo] Frank was drinking.

Miss Lucille [Selig Frank] said Sunday that Mr. [Leo] Frank told her Saturday night that he was in trouble, and that he didn’t know the reason why he would murder, and he told his wife to get his pistol and let him kill himself.

.

I heard Miss Lucille [Selig Frank] say that to Mrs. [Josephine] Selig [her mother], and it got away with Mrs. [Josephine] Selig mighty bad; she didn’t know what to think. I haven’t heard Miss Lucille say whether she believed it or not.

.

I don’t know why Mrs. Frank didn’t come to see her husband [in the Fulton County Jail, the “Tower” -photo], but it was a pretty good while before she would come to see him, maybe two weeks.

She would tell me, “Wasn’t it mighty bad that he was locked up?” She would say, “Minola, I don’t know what I am going to do.  When I left home to go to the solicitor general’s office, they told me to mind how I talked.

.

They pay me $3.50 a week [= $150 in 2013 dollars], but last week they paid me $4.00 [ = $200 today] , and one week she paid me $6.50 [ = $350 today].

Up to the time of the murder I was getting $3.50 a week and the week right after the murder I don’t remember how much she paid me, and the next week they paid me $3.50, and the next week they paid me $6.50, and the next week they paid me $4.00 and the next week they paid me $4.00. One week, I don’t remember which one, Mrs. Selig gave me $5, but it wasn’t for my work, and they didn’t tell me what it was for. She just said, “Here is $5, Minola.”

.

I understood that it was a tip for me to keep quiet. They would tell me to mind how I talked and Miss Lucille gave me a hat.

.

Question: Is that the reason you didn’t tell the solicitor [District Attorney Dorsey] yesterday all about this, that Miss Lucille and the others had told you not to say anything about what happened at home there?

.

Answer: Yes, sir.

.

Question: Is that true?

.

Answer: Yes, sir.

.

Question:. And that’s the reason you would rather have been locked up last night than tell?

.

Answer: Yes, sir.

.

Question: Has Mr. Pickett or Mr. Cravens or Mr. Campbell or myself influenced you in any way or threatened you in any way to make this statement? 

.

Answer: No, sir.

.

Question: You make it of your own free will and accord in their presence and in the presence of Mr. Gordon, your attorney?

.

Answer: Yes, sir.

.

(Signed) MINOLA McKNIGHT.

.

Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 3d day of June, 1913.

.

(Signed) G. C. FEBRUARY,

Notary public,

Fulton County, Ga.

.

*** [STOP]

As an illustration of Connolly’s “thoroughness” and “conscientiousness,” I respectfully beg the editor of Collier’s to consider the following:

“Monteen Stover’s testimony contradicted Frank, who swore he had not been out of his office between 12 and 12:30 noon.

Frank said it was possible that he had stepped out of his office for a moment in the performance of some routine “which would not ordinarily have impressed itself on his mind.”

It’s a small matter, yet tremendously important, for that was one of the fatalities [NN: fateful missteps] against Leo Frank. He had said so positively and so often that he did not leave his office between 12 and 12 :30 o’clock, there was no way for him to deny saying it.

But there was Miss Stover who, most unexpectedly for him, proved that he had lied about it.

This created a fearful dilemma, the existence of which had not been expected until after Frank — for a whole week — had stuck to the story that he had not left his office, and that Mary came to him there at “from 12:05 to 12:10, maybe 12:07.”

***

NN: Monteen Stover, another girl who worked at the pencil factory,  sat there and sat there, waiting to get her pay envelope, while her boss — where was Leo? He was not at his proper post, doling out the pay packets to his employees. The fiendish Frank was busy, however, at the other end of the second floor — raping and killing the resisting Mary Phagan at that very moment — behind closed doors in the machine or metal room.

M0nteen finally got up and silently left the totally empty office without her pay, no doubt somewhat “weirded out” by the experience.

So Frank had no idea she had ever been there that day, nor that she had been sitting there in his office wondering where he was at precisely the time he was killing her co-worker Mary.

***

Nobody at the factory knew that Monteen had come at this time, had waited five minutes, and had gone away.

Jim Conley told Frank he had seen another girl go upstairs, but Jim did not know her name, and Frank was so agitated by the crime in which he had involved himself that he either paid no attention to Jim, or he supposed the other girl to have been Mrs. White.

.
Monteen, not seeing anyone in the office, or anywhere about, went home and reported to her mother her failure to get her pay envelope. [Let us remember that] they were poor people. and their wages were a Saturday-evening necessity.

She told her mother that there did not seem to be anybody there at the factory, and she had come away after waiting five minutes. Her mother went to the factory the next Saturday [NN: that is, on Saturday, May 3, 1913] to apply for [her daughter] Monteen’s pay-envelope, and the detective stopped her to inquire who she was and what she wanted.

Then, for the first time the terrible fact was made clear — [NN: via the strange experierence that Monteen Stover had had] that Frank and Mary were both missing [from the office] at the very time Frank had been claiming [he and Mary] were together in his office!

It was a crushing blow to the defense.

Now, when Frank took the stand to make his four-hour statement, he used these extraordinary words:

“To the best of my recollection, I did not stir out of my office, but it is possible that to answer a call of nature, or to urinate, I may have gone to the toilet. Those are things that a man does unconsciously, and cannot tell how many times nor when he does it.”

This is what Connolly calls “the performance of some routine which would not ordinarily have impressed itself on his mind.”

If Connolly were a student of human nature, he’d know that there never was a jury who would believe that a man is unconscious, when, in the daytime, he answers a call of nature.

[NN: I believe what Watson is here delicately hinting at is that a man might forget going to urinate, which he would do rather quickly, standing up and just unzipping his fly.

But not if he had to go “answer a call of nature,” a euphemism meaning “number two,” that is, going into a toilet stall, then, of course, closing the door, unbuckling his belt, dropping his pants, and sitting down on a toilet for several minutes, during which some even read a newspaper.

Watson says a man would remember that, and of course any businessman who was busy at work, paying people on payday the money they needed badly for food, and had made special trips to come and get, would view such activity as interrupting rather important work he had to do.]

If Connolly were a man of thoroughness in analyzing evidence, he’d know that when Frank stepped out of the frying pan, made for him by Monteen’s evidence, he fell into the fire made for him by the blood-spots and the hair, found near the toilet to which he would have had to go in response to that “call of nature”!

If Connolly were a lawyer, he’d see the similarity between Frank’s explanation of his call of nature, and that which the notes attribute to Mary Phagan.

 

NN: Basically, as a reminder, the metal room where Mary worked and the toilets were in the same area. And when Mary asked Frank “will there be any work for me next week?” that was his welcome excuse to say, or lie “I don’t know; let’s go check.”  In other words, ‘let’s go see if the metal caps have come in for you to put on the ends of our wooden pencils, and if they have come in, then you have work on Monday, Mary, err, Miss Phagan.’  

So whether it is going to the toilet, or going to check whether the metal caps have come in for the pencils, they would be going to the same place, given the layout of the factory. 

Frank told the jury that he might have gone to the toilet, and the notes say that Mary Phagan did go there [NN: that is, to the metal room near the toilet].

It is a most peculiar feature of the case, equaled only by the suggestion in the notes that the “tall, slim, black negro” had had unnatural connection with the girl ”a vice not of robust negroes, but of decadent white men.  [NN: “Unnatural connection” is a reference to the faked and ludicrous note where the fake Mary — Frank actually dictating words to Conley — writes about the rapist and says “he play with me” = a euphemism for cunnilingus, about which Conley directly testified on the stand that Frank was “into.”]

Sodomy is not the crime of nature, barbarism or of lustful black brutes; it is the over-ripe fruit of civilization, and is always indicative of a decaying society.

A plowman-poet like Robert Burns [NN: the famous Scottish poet and songwriter who, among other things, wrote the world-famous song “Auld Lang Syne,” heard everywhere at New Years Eve] would never dream of such a vice, and it is well known that he wrecked his life by sensuality; but an effeminate dude like Oscar Wilde [NN: a very famous English writer who was a homosexual and was finally caught, convicted and sent to prison] was convicted of it, and served his time at Reading Jail ”and his mentality was perhaps greater than that of any Englishman since the days of Browning.

Mr. Connolly, of course, mentions the unmashed excrement at the bottom of the elevator shaft, and adds:

NN: This has to do with the distasteful detail that the black night watchman, Newt Lee, had been unable to make it to the toilet and thus defecated on the ground at the bottom of the freight elevator shaft. The Frank defense team, in its desperation to get Frank off by seeking to discredit Jim Conley, pointed out that the excrement was not crushed or flattened by the descending freight elevator, and thus the elevator had not been used that night. This would supposedly make Conley into a liar for saying he and Frank used the elevator to take Mary Phagan’s corpse down to the basement.

“If the elevator cage had gone into the basement that Saturday noon, it would have been crushed. It was crushed when the elevator was operated on Sunday. This is a physical fact which cannot be argued away, and which unimpeachably disproves Conley’s story. The two silent workmen on the fourth floor never heard the elevator run that day. The gearing of the elevator was on the fourth floor, unenclosed, and they could not have avoided hearing the noise and feeling the vibration.”

The two silent workmen on the fourth floor were noiselessly tearing down a planked partition and building a new one ”a process that never makes any fuss.

These carpenters knew that Connolly required silence; and they, therefore, persuaded the old planks to pull the old nails out, easy, and they sawed and fitted and nailed the new partition into place so deftly, that Connolly never heard a single hammer.

As silently as the Czarina Anna raised the famous ice palace, whose building is so beautifully described by Cowper….

…these two Atlanta carpenters, Harry Denham and Arthur White, slipped a new partition in the place of the old one. If Connolly had studied this record with thoroughness, he would have learned that Conley described Frank as being so excited that he jumped in and out of the elevator before it reached its proper place, and came near causing an accident. He fell up against Jim twice, and nothing would have been more natural for the cage not to strike, evenly, the dirt floor of the shaft.

In fact, this dirt floor was uneven; and, therefore, the cage might very well miss the excrement, if it were not carefully stopped at the very bottom.

NN: I actually worked myself as a night watchman in New York City one night in the 1970s, as part of various duties that I had, and I also operated a freight elevator, and basically you can control how far up or down a freight elevator goes.

You might even hit the floor of the shaft, which is usually dirt, hit it hard and it might actually bounce back up a little bit. Or you might descend to within an inch of the bottom, or within three inches, but either way you can still it in and out. You do want to have the floor of the elevator roughly even with the floor of the building, especially if you have to roll something heavy in and out.

YouTube video by a harmless nerd enthusing about a 1910 freight elevator, still in use

.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUyvswp21sY

But Leo Frank is in a terrible state of mind. He is trying to do something about the body of someone he has just murdered, and that he had not planned to murder, “just rape,” so one simply cannot say that Leo, panic-stricken and nervous, would have necessarily guided the freight elevator exactly to the very bottom of the elevator shaft and thus “crushed the excrement.”

It was a freight elevator, and they seldom stop on a level with the landings. But in any event, the girl’s dead body was in the basement, with the limbs rigid, the arms folded, the hair caked with dried blood, and her privates in the same condition. Her face showed signs of having been dragged over the grit, and the dirt floor showed the trail, leading back to the elevator.

That trail of death was 136 feet long, by Kauffman’s evidence; and nobody ever found on the ladder, at the foot of the same, or anywhere in the basement, a single sign of blood, or a struggle. How unreasonable it is to contend that, because the cage of the elevator did not do what it might or might not have done, we must obliterate all the damning evidence on the second floor and forget the [complete] absence of evidence on any other floor.

Connolly concludes :

“All this trouble has come upon Frank because of a bottle of cheap whiskey purchased by one worthless negro from another negro in a Southern city which prohibits the sale of whiskey. The verdict of the jury was but the echo of the clamor of the crowd.”

So, you see, this writer, who was the ally of Burns, misrepresented the record every  time he touched it, and failed to tell Collier’s that Frank’s [very own] lawyers proved Conley’s inability to have described the night watch[man physically] at the time the notes were written [JdN: because the two men had never met].

He failed to tell Collier’s that Frank’s lascivious character had been proved by a dozen unimpeachable white women; he failed to tell Collier’s that the hair found on the machine handle had been identified as Mary’s, and that Frank’s lawyers never even tried to prove that it was another girl’s hair.

NN: I wish to re-emphasize how unique Mary Phagan’s hair color was. How many of us has ever seen such a color as blondish-auburn?

John Kennedy’s hair, in the bright sun, looked a bit like Mary’s and he also was Irish, and the crypto-Jew Lyndon Johnson killed him, 50 years after Mary.

He failed to point out that Frank refused to question the women who swore away his character, and refused to let questions be put to him; and he told Collier’s a most arrant, inexcusable falsehood when he said that our Georgia Supreme Court did not possess legal jurisdiction over the evidence in a criminal case!

And this writer, whose thoroughness and conscientiousness are still [somehow] believed in by Collier’s, declared that one bottle of mean liquor, in a prohibition town, caused Leo Frank to be arrested, tried and condemned for the murder of a Southern girl.

“The verdict of the jury was but the echo of the clamor of the crowd,” and the Supreme Court was powerless to right the wrong, because it had no legal authority to review the evidence! On that kind of stuff which Connolly knew was untrue, he followed the lead of the Atlanta Journal, and others followed his lead, until the continent vibrated with the tread of the disciplined Hessians of vilification.

[NN: The word “Hessians” as used by Watson refers to the infamous mercenary troops from Hesse in Germany whom the king of England hired and sent into combat against the Americans in the Revolution. In fairness to the Hessians, few were real mercenaries, and most were unwillingly drafted farm boys, who basically were sold by their king to the king of England, who was his cousin, and completely against their will. Many actually sympathized with the Americans, deserted, and stayed in America, becoming very good citizens, just like other German immigrants.]

Not one of those hired writers, or their honest dupes, have ever been to talk with Solicitor Dorsey, to go over the record with him and to learn the real evidence upon which he relied to convince the jury, satisfy Judge Roan, and satisfy our US Supreme Court ” and the last and second time, it voted unanimously against Frank.

The editor of Collier’s has himself been so warped, blinded and embittered by [the muckraker] Connolly, [the detective] Burns, [the newspaper magnate] Hearst, [the Jewish publisher] Straus, [the Jewish New York Times owner] Ochs & Co., that he publishes the following:

“Our own emotions about the Frank case are expressed by the words of a Pittsburgh reader, Mrs. Iva Jewel Geary:

“There was not only no reason to convict Frank, but there was no reason to suspect him. His persecution outdoes anything I have ever read [even] in Russian history.

[JdN: This is a reference to the tales of Jewish woe at the hands of the tsar of Russia and his Cossacks that then were indundating the American newspapers].

The wanton cruelty of his murderers is the most heartbreaking glimpse into hell that I have ever known. I am not a Jewess, I am only a human being, the mother of a little boy. For three days and nights the consciousness of that cruelty has suffocated me. Is this humanity? I beg of you not to let the matter rest. It must not rest.

I feel that Leo Frank was a little comforted in his last agony by the thought of all the people who believed in him and had tried to help him. It might have been your son or your young brother caught in the hellish trap ”it might sometime be my son.

“That’s just it. It might have happened to any of us and it may happen to any of us in the future unless we stop it. And our idea of stopping it is not by piling vengeance on top of vengeance in an increasing mass.

“Let us look very closely into it. Let us admit the very obvious fact that the men who lynched Frank thought they were doing the right thing. Now let us try to find the thing that made them think wrong. That is ignorance, and let us deal with ignorance as ignorance ought always to be dealt with ”not with a club, but with light and sympathy.

What is here said in charity is said for the benefit of the men who lynched Frank. They thought he was guilty. They thought they were doing a right thing.

But are there men in Georgia among those who helped prosecute Frank who knew he was innocent, but, notwithstanding, pushed prosecution from motives of their own? If there are any such, for them there need be no charity. If any vials of vengeance are to be poured, let it be on these individuals.

But for the lynchers and Georgia generally let us seek the only things that will cure, that is, sympathetic understanding ”and education. Such an editor as this [NN: Thomas E.Watson!], gives one new conceptions of the self-complacent imbecile. He probably has a college diploma, framed in his study, and he believes he is educated, for hasn’t he a written certificate, signed by the President of the College?”

The editor of Collier’s says that Mrs. Iva Jewel Geary has expressed his own emotions. Mrs. Iva Jewel Geary says that Frank might have been her son. Well, might not Mary Phagan also have been her daughter?

Is Mrs. Iva Jewel Geary ignorant of the fact that Jewish employers use the duress of employment to coerce Gentile girls into compliance with the wishes of Jew libertines? Are the Mary Phagans to have no sympathy, and no protection from lustful Jews that never run after Jewish girls?

In the Oregon Daily Journal (Portland) I find the following news item, dated August 25, 1915:

“Carl A. Loeb, floorwalker in a local department store

[NN: 1) a “floorwalker” is a person employed in a store to direct customers and supervise salespeople, and 2) the name Loeb would sound obviously Jewish to Tom Watson’s readers; a huge Jewish Wall Street firm then was Kuehn and Loeb; in 1924, actually nine years after this, a couple of Jewish boys in Chicago, one named Loeb and the other Leopold, infamously killed another Jewish boy for the sheer psychopathic thrill of killing him, resulting in a very famous murder trial and death-penalty case where the number-one lawyer in America, Clarence Darrow, got these pure psychopaths life in prison instead of the death penalty.]

[Repeating] “Carl A. Loeb, floorwalker in a local department store,

was convicted of disorderly conduct in the municipal court yesterday for making improper proposals to young women who came to him for employment, and was sentenced to thirty days in jail.

Loeb was represented by Attorney Bert E. Haney, and notice of appeal to the circuit court was given. Bail was set at $500. Miss Lillian Murdoch was the complaining witness. Mrs. Lola G. Baldwin, superintendent of the department of public safety for women, said today that similar complaints against Loeb had been made by four other girls. Evidence was introduced showing that Loeb had no authority to hire employees for the store.”

Here was a wretch engaged in exactly the same vile practices that Leo Frank used on girls who were in his employ.

This floorwalker struck the wrong girls at last, just as Frank did, but how many girls had yielded to Loeb. to keep their jobs? He gets off at 30 days, when the hungry boy who steals bread, gets months, and even years. Would it not be more to the credit of Collier’s and Mrs. Iva Jewel Geary if they bestowed a moiety of their tears and lamentations upon the girls?

Collier’s says that what we [deluded Georgians] need is “education.”

What do the Franks and the Loebs need? We have been so often reminded that Frank was a college graduate, that we may soon forget how “the eminent negro educator” who is so popular at the North [NN: this is a sarcastic reference to the phrase “the Great/ or eminent negro educator” which the liberal newspapers unceasingly used to describe Booker T.Washington, a famous black-rights activist from 1881 to 1915] got chased through the streets of New York, and scandalously beaten, because he happened to make a little mistake in the street address of a strange and scarlet woman?

What is mere education worth, when Doctor Booker T. Washington has to flee from the bludgeon of an infuriated but not educated carpenter, named Ulrich?

***

President Theodore Roosevelt in 1905 at the Tuskeegee Institute with Booker T.Washington

Booker admits he provoked his own beating (San Francisco Call newspaper, March 29, 1911)

Alas, education is a good thing, but it isn’t everything; else some of our greatest scholars would not have been some of our greatest criminals !

Judge Roan had officially declared that Leo Frank had had a fair trial. The [U.S.] Supreme Court had officially declared that he had been legally convicted upon sufficient evidence. The verdict of the jury was six months old : and before it had been announced, Hearst’s Sunday American had declared that the long trial of Leo Frank, stretching over a period of four weeks, had been as fair as it was possible for human minds and human efforts to make it.

Nobody contradicted this deliberate statement of the Hearst Atlanta paper. Frank’s lawyers did not; the correspondents of Northern papers did not. But when the Haas brothers, months afterwards, followed up the Cohen attack on the witnesses, the jurors, the judges, and the people of Atlanta, there arose a clamor about

–“the mob,

–the frenzied mob,

–the jungle fury of the mob,

–the blood lust of the mob, and

–the psychic drunk of the mob.”

That clamor grew louder and louder, spread farther and farther, became bolder and bolder, until millions of honest outsiders actually believed that the mob stood up in the court- room during the month of the trial, and yelled at the jury: “Hang the damned Jew, or we will hang you.”

It was not until John Cohen and James R. Gray, of the Atlanta Journal, had started this flood of libel against the State, that The Jeffersonian said one word about the case. Then The Jeffersonian did what no other editor with a general circulation seemed willing to do: I came out in defense of the Law, the Courts and the People. Are the Laws not entitled to support? Are the Courts not worthy of respect? Are the People not deserving of fair treatment?

The Jeffersonian did not stoop to any personalities, or mean abuse, or malignant misrepresentation. We had given to Leo Frank as much as we had to give to anybody. We had measured him by the same yardstick that measures Gentiles before they are condemned. We could not kill poor old Umphrey, of Whitfield County, on circumstantial evidence, and then refuse to execute a Jew. The one was an aged tenant, aggravated by a dispute with his landlord, about his share of a bale of cotton; the other was a middle-age Superintendent of a factory, presuming on his power over the girls hired to him.

We could not kill Bart Cantrell and Nick Wilburn ”led astray by evil women ”and then find a different law for the 31-year-old married man, led astray by his own lusts. No! By the Splendor of God! We couldn’t have two Codes in Georgia, one for the Rich and the other for the Poor. At the time the Atlanta Journal and other papers jumped on the witnesses, the jurors, the judges and the people, Governor John M. Slaton was a member of the firm of Frank’s leading lawyer.

He had been so for nearly a year. Mary Phagan’s body was found Sunday morning, and on Monday morning, early, Rosser showed up with Haas, as Frank’s lawyer.

Who hired him, and when? Not a Gentile tongue had wagged against Leo Frank! No detective, no police-officer, no civilian had accused this man.

Why did his rich connections employ the supposedly best lawyers for him, and before he had [even] been accused?

Do Atlanta lawyers go to their offices before 8 o’clock on Monday mornings?

[NN: This was a slightly humorous aside by Watson, who for decades was a trial lawyer himself. He is making the point that clearly all day Sunday, one day after the murder, the Frank-ites had been talking to each other, to attorneys, and maybe even to private detectives.

How do we know this? Because the next morning, Monday at 8 am, Frank already had a top lawyer. And let us remember at that time, with the victim being a beautiful young white girl, all the usual suspicion — in the heyday of lynching — was falling on the black night watchman, and certainly not on an Ivy League graduate and businessman from New York who was running a large factory and had married into a top, wealthy, local Jewish family.

But the fact is, and the police will have noticed this, that by Monday morning, innocent little Leo Frank had decided to lawyer up and with the best.]

 

Rosser and Haas were at Frank’s side, as his lawyers, at 8 o’clock Monday morning. Had the Seligs [NN: again, the parents of Lucille Frank, Leo’s wife] tipped off [Sig] Montag [the owner] and Haas that Frank had drunk heavily the Saturday night of the crime, and had raved about the murder?

 

At any rate, Frank’s lawyers were on deck, bright and early the next morning, at a time when nobody was working up a case on him, and when he was industriously working up a case against the night-watch whom he had accused in the notes that he placed near the dead girl.

Mark the date: it was April 28, 1913 when [Luther] Rosser [photo] publicly appeared as Frank’s leading lawyer.

On June 22, the papers announced that [Governor] Slaton had become Rosser’s partner.

Slaton had been elected governor at the October elections of 1912, and was to be inaugurated in June 1913.

Why did he need a new partnership?

And why did Rosser need a new one?

Ah, there’s where the shoe pinches. There’s where the lash hits the raw place on Slaton.

There are some of the commuters [NN: this neologism surely means those in favor of commuting Leo Frank’s death sentence to life in prison, which was preparatory only to getting him a new trial to get him out totally; no one was arguing for commutation on the basis of opposition to the death penalty] [to repeat] there were some of the commuters who say that the law does not forbid a governor to take law cases.

Doesn’t it ? When the Law carves out an executive Department, separating it jealously from the judicial and legislative, and constituting in the [office of] governor the embodiment of the executive power, with chief command of the Army and Navy, to enforce the laws, does anybody, claiming to be a lawyer, deny that the very nature of the office debars a governor from practicing law?

I am not aware of any law which prevents President [Woodrow] Wilson [NN: the then president, who led the country from 1913-21] from teaching school, but the very character of his office does. Suppose President Taft had taken law cases! Suppose President Cleveland, or President Harrison had done so! You can’t suppose anything of the kind.

You know that a holder of a chief executive office cannot be dabbling in the judiciary, where cases are always likely to come to him on some final appeal.

Governor Herschel Johnson [photo] quit the practice when he became governor.

Governor of Georgia 1853-57

So did Gov. Henry D. McDaniel. So did Gov. Nat Harris.

There has been a dispute as to the date when Slaton became Rosser’s partner. Some say it was in July, 1913. Does that date make it any better for Slaton? Are we to be told that after Slaton became our Chief Magistrate and Commander of our Army, he needed Rosser? What for?

Are we to be told that Rosser waited until Slaton was sworn in as governor before he took him in as partner ? What for?

The new firm was announced in the Atlanta Constitution of June 22, 1913 ; hence it was formed before Slaton’s inauguration. I see the advertisement of the new firm, soon afterwards, in The Pilton County Daily Record. I see the same firm advertised in the Record for May 14, 1915. Therefore, Slaton and Morris Brandon had continued to be the partners of Rosser & Phillips during the entire gubernatorial term of John M. Slaton.
***

The Grant Building

*** NN: from the book by Mary Phagan’s great-niece, Mary Phagan Kean

http://www.jrbooksonline.com/leo-frank/mary-phagan.pdf (p27)

“The Atlanta newspapers of 1913 show the law firm of Rosser & Brandon, 708 Empire, and the law firm of Slaton & Phillips, 723 Grant Building, as merging. Then the 1914 Atlanta Directory shows the firm of Rosser, Brandon, Slaton & Phillips, 719 ”723 Grant Building. They were also listed in the Atlanta Directory in 1915 and 1916. Slaton was a member of the law firm that defended Leo Frank.”

So attorney Luther Rosser, defending Leo Frank, moved in with Governor Slaton, who commuted Frank’s sentence!

So attorney Luther Rosser, who was defending Leo Frank, had moved before the trial in 1913 into the law office of Governor-elect John Slaton, who as governor in 1915 commuted Frank’s sentence!

***
In the Record for Auqust 1915, I find that Morris Brandon has left Rosser and Slaton. Why did he leave? It is reported that he withdrew from the firm because he believed in Frank’s guilt, and could not endorse the course which Rosser and Slaton had decided to adopt. Is it true? Anyway, he left the firm.

[NN: The educated readers of Watson understood that no partner in a prestigious, wealthy, big-city law firm leaves without a strong reason.]

***

Who took his place? Stiles Hopkins. And who is he? Why, Stiles is the hanger-on of the Slaton-Rosser firm who did some of the mole-work on that very Extraordinary Motion for New Trial. His affidavit is in the record, and in it he swears he was doing this molework for the firm of Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips ”a firm with which he was “connected.”

After Morris Brandon quit the firm. Stiles was taken in ”his intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the Frank case being perhaps too valuable to take any chances on. We are blandly asked to believe that, although this new firm of Rosser and Slaton was formed soon after Rosser was employed to defend Leo Frank, there was a written agreement to the effect that partners should not be partners.

They waived the Code; and, with suave smiles at each other, obliterated the encyclopedic accumulation of legal lore on the subject of Partnerships.

In The Jettersonian, I have stated, again and again, that just before ex- Congressman Howard was employed, Luther Rosser went to Senator Ollie James of Kentucky, and made him a proposition of a discreditable kind.

James was first a five-term US Congressman 1903-13 and then a US Senator from 1913 to his sudden death in 1918. He was the Chairman of the Democratic National Conventions of 1912 and 1916.

That proposition had no other meaning than that Rosser knew the sentence of Frank was to be commuted by his partner, Slaton ; but, for the sake of appearances, Rosser and Slaton wanted to make the case for Frank as imposing as possible.

Rosser offered Senator James a fee out of all proportion to the service, and told him that his argument would he prepared for him and that he could not possibly lose the case. The accusation has been standing more than a month, and all of Slaton’s commuters dodge it. They plough round it. THEY DON’T DARE GO TO IT.

Do you need any better proof of the complete understanding between Partner Rosser and Partner Slaton? Can you ask any clearer evidence of the fact that Slaton wasn’t caring two straws about the [supposed] Judge Roan letter [NN: This is a letter that supposedly turned up after Roan died, with the judge supposedly claiming Frank might be innocent], the Chicago delegations, the Texas legislature, the telegram from Vice President Marshall, and the petitions from “all parts of the world.”

Rosser and Slaton realized the need of all the strength they could muster on the side of their client, and every possible resource was exhausted. They drummed up commuters wherever there was political, financial, or professional influence which could be brought to bear. It was a case where every little [bit] helped ; and they got together as many mickles as they could, in the effort to make a muckle.

BUT THEY FAILED ON SENATOR JAMES [of Kentucky]!

If Rosser’s assurance to the Senator did not mean that he knew in advance what his partner would do, WHAT DOES IT MEAN? In effect, Rosser said to Senator James: “We want to use you! We want to buy your name and prestige. We want you to act a part in the drama of Treason that we are staging in Atlanta. The Jews have bought the opera house; our troupe of players is already large and well practiced ; but we need a first-class orator to make a first-class appearance in the Final Act of the play. Here’s a large pile of Jew money! Will you take it? Everybody else is doing it. You can’t possibly lose the case.”

But the Kentucky Senator remembered there was something else he might lose, and he spurned the offer which the circumstances justify us in believing was as much the offer of Slaton as it was of Rosser.

[NN: I note that he died in 1918, in the fifth year of his US Senate term, at age 47, supposedly of a kidney infection.]

Add to the shame of this rejected proposition the clandestine meeting between the two crooks Rosser and Slaton a few hours after the Prison Commission startled them by its adverse decision.

JdN: On June 9, 1915 the Prison Commission rejected Leo Frank’s appeal for clemency. 

Why did Rosser slink up a side street, and take it afoot to hold a midnight meeting with his partner, Slaton? Why talk to us about alleged agreements which exempted this partnership from the Law of Partnerships?

The governor’s mansion in 1915, on Peachtree Street in Atlanta 

Why ask us to believe the unbelievable?  Tell us what Rosser meant by his statement to Senator James, and what he meant by his stealthy, thief-like visit to John M. Slaton. No legitimate errand demanded this cover of darkness. It is said that nobody raised the point with Slaton that he ought not to pass on the Frank case ”being Rosser’s partner. Wrong again!

The point was raised by a member of the Atlanta bar, and it was done in writing, and in a most delicate, respectful way.

I published the letter in The Jeffcrsonian. The point was also raised, in a Cobb County mass-meeting held at Marietta last year. The question was put squarely up to Slaton, while he was in the race for the Senate, and he evaded it ! What a reckless thing it is, therefore to say the point came too late!

Dorsey knew of the letter, and knew of the Cobb County action; consequently, he knew it was useless to again endeavor to reach the “honor” of a man who has none, or to arouse a “conscience” that doesn’t exist.

It has been said that it would have been “cowardly” for Slaton to have  reprieved Frank and left him for Governor Harris to dispose of. Why. then, did he reprieve two negroes who were under death sentences, and leave them to Governor Harris?

And if he is such a brave man. why didn’t he pardon the Jew whom he says was innocent?

I am very credibly informed that Leo Frank, on his way to Cobb County, denounced Slaton as a crook. This must mean that Frank had been promised a pardon. If innocent, he was entitled to one; and if Slaton believed him innocent, he acted pusillanimously in not setting him tree. There is no middle ground.

Those who admit that they believed Frank to be guilty, but favored commutation, can only excuse themselves by saying they oppose capital punishment. If married men of middle age are not to be hanged when they deliberately leave young and healthy wives, and pursue young girls to such a horrible death as fell to the hard lot of Mary Phagan, then we’ve got no use for the law of capital punishment.

Slaton saw lots of use for it, last year, as a protection to homes, and human lives; the commuters saw it, too; it was not until this year, AND THIS CASE, that the railroad lawyers and some Doctors of Divinity became such rampant commuters.

It is said that Slaton made no money by the commutation. That is an assertion which settles the question without debate. It is perfectly clear to every lawyer that, as Rosser’s partner, he was legally entitled to share whatever Rosser got.

It is said that Slaton knew that the commutation would kill him politically. He doesn’t talk that way. He expresses the most buoyant confidence in his future popularity. He says that none of the best people are against him. He says that those who made the outcry against him are mere scum, riffraff, rag-tag and bobtail; men whose wives take in boarders and washing.

He says that these low-down creatures have always been against him, and he hopes they always will be. Unless your political eyesight is failing, you can see a formidable line-up in favor of Slaton for the Senate. The Jews will be solidly for him.

So will the Chambers of Commerce of Atlanta and Savannah. So will the L. & N. Railroad system.

NN: Back in the day, and before superhighways, commercial aviation and long-haul trucking, the railroads were gigantic economic factors and their owners pretty much owned many a state legislature. The L&N (“Louisville & Nashville”), which dominated the South, had 6,000 miles of track in thirteen states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisville_and_Nashville_Railroad 

So will the Hearst papers. So will the Atlanta dailies. The Roman Catholics will support him almost to a man, on account of The Jeffersonian being against him. You need not doubt that Slaton made himself reasonably certain of a powerful combination before he took the bit in his teeth. He is crafty, and he doesn’t act upon impulse.

It will be remembered that while the Frank case was on its way to him, Nathan Straus of New York came to see him. It will be remembered that while the Frank case was on its way to him, William Randolph Hearst [NN: the newspaper baron, photo, right] came to see him. It will be remembered that immediately after the commutation, and the flight from Georgia, he was banqueted by Mr. Hearst in New York.

It will be remembered that Mr. Hearst’s personal representative, John Temple Graves, in his address to a Northern press club, proclaimed the intention of Mr. Hearst to put Slaton in the race for the US Senate or Vice Presidency.

Slaton himself has repeatedly told the Northern people that he would re-enter politics in Georgia, and make his action in the Frank case an issue before the people.

Those who defend Slaton say that his previous character had been good. If the character of Judas Iscariot [painting below] had not [originally] been good, Christ would not have made him one of the Twelve, and Keeper of the Treasury.

If the character of Benedict Arnold had not [originally] been good, Washington would not have made him Commander at West Point.

[NN: painting below; Arnold was a gifted and leading American Revolutionary general who became furious at not getting the fame he felt he deserved — and switched to the British side, and as a Tory general he invaded Virginia and nearly captured Thomas Jefferson.]

Lots of folks enjoy the reputation of being straight, when in fact, they are crooks who have not been found out.

WHAT WERE THE REASONS FOR THIS COMMUTATION?

In one place, Slaton says that he was guided by the advice of Sally, his wife. In another place he says he was influenced by the dissenting opinions of the minority Justices of the Supreme Courts. In another place he says that important new evidence, never produced before any other tribunal, was produced before him. In another place, he says that the hair found in the metal room, and proved at the trial, to have been Mary Phagan’s, was afterwards shown to be the hair of somebody else. Who this somebody is, he provokingly keeps to himself. What that new evidence was, he mysteriously declines to state.

In still another place, he leans heavily upon the tomb of Judge Roan, and says that he commuted because of the dead judge, when the official record shows that Slaton paid no attention to the pleas of living judges, last year, and that he can’t assign any reason why L. S. Roan’s alleged change of mind should have out weighed Judges Evans, Lumpkin, Hill and Atkinson, who had not changed their minds. Like many other mortals, L. S. Roan’s value was not appreciated until after he died.

Judge Leonard Strickland Roan [see more below]

To his pastor he confided his worries about the Frank case, and said that, according to the evidence, Frank “was unguestionably guilty.” On his farewell visit to his daughter at Tampa, Florida, he said the same thing. I have said, and repeat, that entirely too much has been made of L. S. Roan.

 

When he ended his official connection with the case, his opinion was not worth a “bit more than that of any juror” or of any spectator who heard the evidence. L. S. Roan in Massachusetts, had no more to do with the case than you or I did. Every lawyer knows that our Supreme Court had exactly the same power over the evidence in this case that Judge Roan had. He had the right to say the verdict was sufficiently supported by the evidence, and the Supreme Court had the right to overrule him on that very point if the Justices had believed the evidence insufficient.

How dishonest, then, is the continued effort to fool the people about Judge Roan ! What possible weight could be given to a tardy, unofficial, and doubtful letter of a disabled, suffering, enfeebled judge, when the Justices of the Supreme Court were all in life, all in full vigor, and all firm in their conviction that the evidence against Frank was sufficient.

The effort to use a dead man to shield John Slaton is the most cowardly and reprehensible feature of the campaign of the commuters.

*** NN:  Judge Leonard Roan

Interestingly, Governor John Slaton himself appointed Judge Roan to the Georgia Court of Appeals in view of his distinguished record, where he unfortunately succumbed to cancer within a year. This may or may not have been part of some attempt by the governor to curry favor with the judge who had sentenced to death Mr. Leo Frank (the client of his partner, Luther Rosser) as per the jury’s guilty  verdict and Georgia law on murder.

In any case, Roan naturally would have had to recuse himself if his own trial of Leo Frank had come before the Georgia Court of Appeals.

From the Georgia Court of Appeals website:  http://www.gaappeals.us/history/judges.php?id=05

Leonard Strickland Roan was born on the 7th of February 1849, in Henry County, Georgia. He died at the Polyclinic Hospital in the city of New York, March 23, 1915.

His great-grandfather, John Roan, was one of the pioneers of the State (or rather the colony) of North Carolina, and lost his life in the battle of King’s Mountain, fighting for the cause of American Independence.

NN: King’s Mountain was a decisive American victory in 1780 in the Revolution.  The commander, British major Patrick Ferguson of Scotland, was shot on horseback. The panicked horse fled, ironically toward the American lines, with the major dragged along by one foot still in the stirrup. There he was killed, having refused to surrender.

 

His grandfather was Leonard Roan, of North Carolina, who married Miss Elizabeth Moore of that State, and who later, moved to Jasper County, Georgia, where Benjamin S. Roan, the father of Judge Roan. was born and reared. Benjamin S. Roan was a veteran of the Indian war of 1836 and of the War Between the States. He married Miss Lucy J. Vickers, a direct descendant of Joshua Butt and Mary Portlock Butt, who came from England and settled in Virginia before the Revolutionary War. Benjamin S. Roan and his wife lived in Henry County, Georgia, not many miles from the city of Griffin, at the time of the birth of the subject of this sketch.

Judge Roan was the oldest child of the family and was reared on the farm of his father. He received his literary education under the celebrated teachers Morgan H. and George C. Looney, in the Fayetteville High School, at Fayetteville, Georgia. He never attended a law school, but, after the old-time method, obtained his legal training in Griffin, Georgia, in the offices of Peeples & Stewart, a noted law firm composed of the late Judge Cincinnatus Peeples and Judge John D. Stewart, the latter subsequently the representative from the fifth district in Congress.

Judge Roan was admitted to the bar in 1870, and immediately settled in and began the practice of law in Fairburn, Georgia, in Campbell County, where his entire career as a practicing lawyer was spent and where he resided until about two years before his death, when he moved with his family to Atlanta, Georgia. In 1875 Governor James M. Smith appointed him solicitor [that is, prosecuting attorney] of the county court. He was a number of times mayor of his town, and took much interest in the upbuilding thereof, and especially in its schools and educational interests.

In October 1900, Governor Joseph M. Terrell appointed him as judge of the superior courts of the Stone Mountain circuit [photo; west of Atlanta] to fill the vacancy caused by the elevation of Judge John S. Candler to the Supreme Court.

For eleven years he presided over the courts of his circuit, and in addition tried all the felony cases in the Atlanta circuit, besides holding courts frequently in other parts of the State.

Atlanta City Hall in 1913

His career as a judge was a notable and conspicuous one. Only because of his unusual executive ability and his quick and active legal mind was he able to accomplish the vast amount of work he disposed of during the eleven years he remained on the circuit bench.

Trying all the felony business of the Atlanta circuit, comprising Fulton County, in which is the capital and largest city of the State,

it fell to his lot to preside at the trial of more celebrated criminal cases than perhaps any other judge who has ever sat on the bench in Georgia; and it was conceded by the bar and the people that he was one of the best trial judges of criminal cases that the State had ever produced; and his record in the trial of civil cases in his own circuit and elsewhere was also a remarkably successful one. He was fair and firm, but lenient and kind-hearted, in the administration of the law.

[Leonard Roan] was practical and painstaking in all that he undertook. He was a safe counselor and a strong advocate and a skilful manager of cases. He was unusually successful and never failed to secure for a client all that he was entitled to in a case. He was careful and successful in the training of those who studied for the [legal] profession in his office; they in almost every instance becoming successful members of the bar.

In October 1913 [NN: two months after the Leo Frank trial was over], he was appointed a Judge of the Court of Appeals of Georgia by Governor John M. Slaton, but already the fatal malady that finally caused his death had begun to make serious inroads upon his health and strength, and he was only able to perform the duties of that position for a few months before he went away in an effort to regain his health, which never improved. But the work he did while there showed his usual good judgment and sound legal ability.

In 1875 he married Miss Willie Strickland, daughter of William and Myrtice Strickland, who, with five children, survives him.

Judge Roan, in addition to being an able lawyer, was a business man of excellent judgment and foresight; and, though beginning life just after the [Civil] War, when the country had been devastated and property was in ruins, and when he, like many others, had no means to start on, he proved himself capable of meeting and overcoming the difficulties that were ahead of him and achieving success from a business as well as a professional standpoint.

NN: Touchingly, his gravestone lists only his service as a private in the Georgia Cavalry in the Civil War.

He was a deep thinker, relying on his own judgment always, a man of the strictest integrity, tender of heart, and a believer in God and religion. He was a searcher after truth, a lover of nature and the true and the beautiful. He was a faithful friend, a fine lawyer, a great judge, a loving and devoted husband and father, and a good man. Well may his memory be revered and his example emulated.

 

[End of the Georgia Court of Appeals salute to the memory of Judge Roan; returning now to Watson]

***

The Atlanta Journal, the New York Times and the Western papers are saving that ”WATSON ATTEMPTED TO BRIBE SLATON.”

They allege that Watson sent a message to Slaton demanding that he “hang the Jew,” and that, in return for this personal favor, Watson would send Slaton to the Senate. It is a characteristic Slaton falsehood.

During the campaign last year, Slaton did his utmost to secure my support for the Senate. He sent several gentlemen to Thomson to see me about it. The final desperate proposition that he made me, I will reserve for the present. He knows what I mean. 

But since he and his brother-in-law, and their hired writer, and the Rabbi [NN: David Marx] have endeavored to besmirch the character of Dr. J. C. Jarnagin of Warrenton, I will tell exactly what happened.

[NN: All I could determine was that Dr. Jarnagin was politically connected, was friends with Tom Watson, and was appointed by the distinguished Governor Nate Harris (who also founded the prestigious Georgia Tech) in the year 1915 as a trustee of the state mental hospital, the Georgia State Sanitarium, located in Milledgeville, where also the prison farm was located where Leo Frank was kept until his lynching.]

Last year, my friend Jarnagin came to my home several times to bring messages from Slaton. One message Dr. Jarnagin was reluctant to deliver to me, for he felt that it put Slaton in a bad light. Slaton had explained his failure to run against Hoke Smith for the US Senate on the ground that he, Slaton, was a poor man, and that his brother-in-law, John Grant, would not let him have the money for a campaign against Smith!

*** NN On Hoke Smith

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Hoke_Smith

Michael Hoke Smith (1855-1931) was an American politician and newspaper owner who served as United States Secretary of the Interior (1893 “1896), 58th Governor of Georgia (1907 “1909, 1911), and a United States Senator (1911 “1920) from Georgia. He was both allied with Tom Watson and later his opponent, and Watson took his seat in the US Senate in 1920, only to die a year later.

***

On each of his visits to my home, my friend Jarnagin was told that I could not go back on Rufe Hutchins, to whose support I was committed. In May of this year Governor Slaton made an address on a Warren County Fair Educational Day.

While in Warrenton, he stopped [by] with Major McGregor, and he discussed the [Leo] Frank case with particular reference to what Judge Roan had told his pastor.

Slaton also talked with Dr. Jarnagin, and asked him if there was no way for him, Slaton, and myself “to get together.” He asked Dr. Jarnagin if there was not something that he, the Governor, could do for my son, or for my son-in-law, Mr. Lee.

In reporting the conversation to me. Dr. Jarnagin said, “Jack [NN: Jack Slaton, the governor] says we must get together.” I considered that the Governor was making overtures to me, as he had done last year, and, of course, some sort of answer to his message was necessary.

I therefore said in substance to Dr. Jarnagin :

Tell Jack Slator to stand like a man against all this outside pressure in the Frank case, and to uphold the courts and the law, and I will stand by him.

Tell him that I have never allowed my personal feelings to keep me from supporting any man, when the good of the State seemed to require it, and that I have no feeling against him that will prevent my upholding him in doing what is right in the Frank case.

Tell him to do what is right, regardless of these newspaper libels and these foreign petitions.

Tell him that I want nothing for myself, nor for any member of my family, but I do want to see the law vindicated in this Frank case.

That was my answer to his message ”the answer which the jurors, and the Supreme Court would have given him; the answer which 90 per cent of the people of Georgian would have given him.

That message was, in substance, the very same that I was sending to him from week to week in the editorial columns of The Jeffersonian. That message was in effect the same that the mass meetings in various counties were sending to him. That message was given to him in thousands of letters, telegrams and petitions from all over Georgia. That message was the same in spirit and meaning, that the Cobb County delegation carried to him.

Out of every hundred men in Georgia, ninety would have been willing to have gone upon the housetops and shouted a similar message. All that we ever wanted Governor Slaton to do was to enforce the Law against rich people, as he had enforced it against the poor.

Had he proved himself a man, he would have rallied to his enthusiastic support thousands of voters who had never supported him before ”men who believe that it is nothing but right to reward a public servant, of whom they can say, WELL DONE!

God in Heaven knows how passionately the people yearn for public servants of whom they can say that.

If John Slaton had just withstood temptation and proved true, he would today have been wearing the crown of Georgia’s admiring approval, a crown more precious than that of any king.

In 1914, John Slaton told Dr. Jarnagin to explain to me that the reason why he did not run against Hoke Smith for the Senate instead of against Hardwick and Felder, was that he, Slaton, was a poor man, and that John Grant wouldn’t let him have the money to run against Smith. John Slaton explained that it was his wife who was rich, and that John Grant was the manager of the property, and therefore Slaton had to go to Grant for cash.

In Los Angeles a few weeks ago, he told the newspapers quite a different story. He said:

“I am a man of wealth.”

His exact language, as reported iu the Los Angeles paper is this:

Spends His Own Money.

“I have been accused of capitulating to the overwhelming influence of public sentiment,” he said, “of reversing the judgment of the courts, and many other violations of my oath, but no one in Georgia who knows John Slaton believes the charges, and I am proud to say that, amid all of the censure I have received, there has not been even an insinuation that I profited financially as a result of my action.

 

My record of seventeen years in public life. Speaker of the House, President of the Senate, and Governor for two terms, precluded the possibility of such a taint. I am a wealthy man, my family is rich, and I am one of the few men of the country who has been elected to office without accepting funds from any outside source for my campaigns.

Every penny spent in the interest of my candidacy came from either my own pocket or from members of my own family.

As a result, I have never been under obligations to anyone. No corporation or clique has ever been able to control me.”

If Slaton told Dr. Jarnagin the truth in the spring of last year, and told the California reporters the truth in the fall of this year, the question arises, Where did this sudden wealth come from? THE ROMAN CATHOLICS.

Rosser, Grant and Slaton are well aware of the animosity that I have aroused among Roman Catholics by the attacks made upon their hierarchy and secret organizations. They also know that an alliance has been formed in this country between the Jewish organizations and the papal secret orders. They, of course, know that the Roman Catholic Knights of Columbus were able to use the Federal Government against me, and that I am under indictment for having copied into one of my books a portion of the Moral Theology of Saint Alphonsus Liguori.

They know that the case is to come up at the approaching November term in a city where Jews and Catholics, combined, are predominant, and where old political enemies of mine are implacable and revengeful.

Therefore, Rosser had a purpose in lugging the Catholic question to the front, just as he had in alluding to Foreign Missions. I have never insulted any man on the subject of his religion, and, in all my articles, it has been my endeavor to show that it was the system, the hierarchy, the law and the real purpose of the Italian Papacy that I antagonized.

As a Jeffersonian democrat and American citizen, I detest the foreign church which has always been the bitterest foe to democracy, and whose fundamental laws are irreconcilable with ours.

I detest a papacy which tells me that I must take my religion and my politics from a lot of Italian priests.

I detest a church which stigmatizes the memory of my mother by saying that she was not my father’s wife, but that they were living together “in filthy concubinage” ”as Pope Pius IX did say while my parents were both alive.

I detest a church which says by its fundamental law that your wife and mine, your married daughter and mine, your married sister and mine ” is a concubine, not a lawful wife, and that the children of our Protestant marriages are nothing but bastards. I detest a church which comes into my state with its foreign law and breaks up the homes of lawfully married people, as the priests broke up those in Macon and at Arlington.

I detest a church which sends a foreign ambassador here to tell our people to vote for the Roman Church, rather than for our country, and who is now trying to plunge this country into a war with Mexico, in order that 300 more years of oppression by Spanish priests may be the doom of the native Mexicans, I detest a church which creates an imaginary near-hell, fills it with suffering souls, and sells releases from it.

I detest a church which puts a bachelor priest between a man and his wife, and orders the bachelor to use filthy language to her in secret, such as no decent husband would ever use, even at night and in the marriage bed.

I detest a church which has to have many secret organizations, the oaths and secret purposes of which make those secret societies a deadly menace to Protestants and to democracy, to true religion and real civic liberty.

I detest a church whose fundamental law condemns “heretics” to death, and whose records reek with the blood of Christian martyrs.

NN: Joan of Arc, burned alive as a witch on May 30, 1431

Her dungeon tower in Rouen, Normandy

NN: In 2004 I visited this very spot in Rouen where she was burned. 

I detest a church which declared that “Ignorance is the mother of devotion,” and which destroyed libraries, closed the schools, penalized mental research, outlawed science, and plunged Europe into darkness and horror and carnage for a thousand years.

No Roman Catholic who knows the law of his foreign church, and obeys it, can be a loyal American citizen; for the one master is the enemy of the other, and a Catholic cannot serve both.’

In public opinion throughout the Union, Georgia has been condemned for “an unjust verdict,” an “unfair trial,” and a “technical judgment of our Supreme Court,” when [NN: Watson is still merely reciting various claims] “the facts clearly demonstrate the sole guilt of the drunkest nigger that ever swilled rot- gut.”

They say the “mob” stood up in the courtroom, and threatened the jury; that the judge was as much terrified by our “blood lust” as the jury was, and that our Supreme Court passed on nothing save the dry points of law, not reviewing the evidence and not expressing any opinion as to its sufficiency. This is the indictment against us first made in Collier’s, by the Hessian from Montana, C. P. Connolly.

In the wake of this mendacious hireling came Macdonald of the Western press ; and after these, came trooping scores of scribblers who took their facts from the arrant and abominable lies of Connolly and Macdonald. Use your reason! Call upon your common sense! Don’t you know that Frank’s lawyers could not have lost their case at every turn, in all the Courts, if it had not been a desperately bad case?

Don’t you know that the evidence on which Connolly, Burns, Hearst and Straus have acquitted Frank, at the bar of public opinion, is different from the evidence upon which the jury acted? Where did that hired cohort of Hessians get the evidence which they have used in fooling the public? They made it up!

They took the various lies of Burns, of W. E. Thomson, of Luther Rosser, and of the excited Jews of Atlanta ; and out of the medley of falsehood they have made the abhorrent noise which caused other States to turn against Georgia.

Are you willing to be governed by the official Brief of Evidence? The lawyers on both sides agreed to it, and Judge Roan officially approved it. Oughtn’t that to settle the question as to what is the real truth of the case ?

Unless we go by the record, we are at sea, and resemble angry boys quarreling. Unless we go by the record we are left to the folly of saying week after week. “‘You’re a liar !” and “you’re another!”

To deal fairly with the jury, the Supreme Court and the people of Georgia, you must put yourself in their place. You must see what they saw, hear what they heard, and learn what they learned. After doing this, judge us as you would have yourselves judged. BE FAIR  TO US/ DEAL JUSTLY WITH US!

Would you outsiders want your Courts and people condemned on the unsworn statements of such hirelings as Burns, Lehon, Connolly and Macdonald ? Wouldn’t you think that your courts had the right to be judged by the evidence of sworn witnesses, all of whom were put through the ordeal of cross examination? Be fair to us, and JUDGE US BY THE SWORN TESTIMONY; that’s all we ask of you. Is it asking too much?

ARE YOU UNWILLING TO GIVE US A HEARING? Are we to be hounded and harassed forever, on the unsworn statements of interested parties? Let us go to the record, and see what the witnesses said under oath. That’s the only way to try a law case.

We did not carry this Frank case into the newspapers; the other side did it. Gentlemen, it is high time these rich Jews, and Slatons and railroad lawyers quit misrepresenting this case. THE PEOPLE are not going to allow a convicted criminal’s own lawyer to lynch the courts and save his client. THE PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO ALLOW IT!

The People would deserve the contempt of mankind if they did allow it. Leo Frank was under sentence of death when the Vigilantes executed him. The commutation, signed by his lawyer, was not only a nullity, but was a most flagrant, intolerable insult to the State, and a most unparalleled attack upon our judiciary.

Time cannot cover that unpardonable sin of John M. Slaton, and he will do well to remember that treason is not protected by any statute of limitations. He betrayed us; he did it deliberately. He made his bed; now let him lie on it.

[end of Watson article]

Praise in other publications for Watson’s Magazine in 1909  (GoogleBooks, Watson’s Magazine, Volume 3, p1026, April 1909) 

 

I wish to reiterate what I wrote in my first Leo Frank article in April 2013…. the quotes from the Talmud on how Jews should view gentile females. This sheds light on the state of mind of any committed Jew such as Leo Frank.

Mary, in his view, had no right to refuse her master. Yahweh created us gentiles as their slaves…. and Leo
felt divinely entitled to enjoy her flesh.

The behavior of Leo Frank and then of his Jewish supporters illustrates perfectly the real teachings of the vile Talmud, which overtly condones 1) raping goy kids, and 2) lying under oath, as per the Kol Nidre ceremony! Talmud (http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/islam/TBN44U9TPBOIFI7O1):

“A Jew is permitted to rape, cheat and perjure himself [give false testimony under oath in court]; but he must take care that he is not found out, so that Israel [the Jewish people] may not suffer.” “ Schulchan Aruch, Jore Dia.

Two of the many female employees who testified against Leo Frank said they saw Frank enter the women’s dressing room at the factory to consort with a female co-worker, one Rebecca Carson, who then testified for Frank.

.
Mary worked for hours at the eraser tip machine, which was near the lavatory. Leo Frank, who did all payroll, lied both to the police and in the courtroom that he did not even know who she was.

He also drank a pot of coffee every day, and, as nature called, frequently passed by her work station on his way to the lavatory. He could not have failed to notice an attractive girl he passed by several times every day for a year ” and who was showing some curves even at 14. Yet he repeatedly lied to police and at his trial four months later that he had no idea who Mary Phagan was.
“To communicate anything to a goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if they knew what we teach about them they would kill us openly.” – Libbre David 37.
.
“The Jews are human beings , but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts.”-Baba Mecia 114, 6 [i.e.: 114b].
.
.
“Yahweh created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and commanded to serve the Jew day and night.”- Midrasch Talpioth, p225-L.
.
.
“A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated.” “ Aboda Sarah 37a.

.

.

“A Jew may do to a non-Jewess whatever he can. He may treat her as he treats a piece of meat.”- Hadarine, 20, B; Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348.

Autopsy photo of Mary Ann Phagan.

During the Leo Frank murder trial, 19 female employees at the 170-employee plant stepped forward and testified under oath that Leo Frank had made lascivious and harassing remarks to them, and even sauntered repeatedly into the women’s dressing room.
.

.
“When a Jew murders a Gentile (“Cuthean”), there will be no death penalty.” “ Sanhedrin 57a .
.
.
Non-Jewish Children are subhumans. “ Yebamoth 98a.
.

.
Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from birth. “ Abodah Zarah 36b
.

These are the words of O.B. Keeler, a reporter living in Marietta, Georgia, for his employer, the Atlanta Georgian newspaper. They are found in great-niece Mary Phagan Kean’s book, on the bottom of page 232:

The adjacent page reveals the emotional and perceptional “disconnect” which a Missouri girl, who was visiting the Keeler family in Marietta, Georgia, felt from first her reading and believing all the newspapers in her native state, all of which were  vilifying and denouncing the people of Georgia as bigoted monsters — and then her surprise upon actually meeting the Georgians as they really are or were:
NN: “In our home, when the ring came” refers to this incident. Leo Frank’s final request at his hanging in Marietta, Georgia was that his wedding ring be given to his wife. This was chivalrously honored, and an unidentified man brought the wedding band to reporter Keeler’s door, in Marietta, with the request that he please give it to the widow, Mrs. Lucille Frank, which final request Keeler valrously also carried out.