My latest, best Leo Frank article: Rich Jews try out their media war machine by indicting a whole state
This three-part article and audiobook (https://archive.org/details/WatsonFrankJewsIndictState) covers the final article by crusading Georgia publisher Thomas Edward Watson in his Watson’s Magazine on the Leo Frank case.
[iframe src=”https://www.sonnenrad.tv/media/embed?key=1beec40931f13441ab3b6df052043200&width=720&height=406&autoplay=false&autolightsoff=false&loop=false&chapters=false” width=”720″ height=”406″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen=”allowfullscreen” allowtransparency=”true” scrolling=”no”]
Tom Watson October 1915:
Rich Jews Indict a State
Celebrated crimes have their uncanny fascination, else so many books would not have been written about them. I fear that wicked people interest us more than the good ones do; and I feel certain that most boys would rather read about robbers, highwaymen and pirates, than about Moses, Job, and the other Saints.
Give us the biography of a truly virtuous man, like Archbishop Whatley [NN: a once famous writer on logic and head of the Anglican Church of Ireland], and we are apt to doze over it; but place in our hands the memoirs of some grand rascal like Benvenuto Celliniâ€” and we will get wide awake at once.
NN: As Wikipedia explains, Benvenuto Cellini was an Italian who lived from 1500-71 during Â the Renaissance, mostly in Florence under the Medici family.
He was an extremely gifted sculptor and goldsmith — and a heroic soldier — but he was also a repeat pedophile, a bisexual and a multiple murderer.Â
Cellini wrote an autobiography of his life up until age 63, boasting of stabbing or even paralyzing people, including a man who had sued him, and crowing about the women he had seduced.
Cellini’s medallion “Leda and the Swan.” Of course he would enjoy the ancient Greek story of Zeus turning himself into a swan to seduce or rape a human female named Leda. Anything perverted was something Cellini was “into.”
Now, this Frank case has been made one of the celebrated cases; and, for many years to come its baleful consequences will be felt. Let us, therefore, try to understand it.
In the August and September numbers of this magazine, the official evidence was discussed and a digest of it published.
NN: I have worked them up fully here:
I will not repeat anything contained in those issues, but will give you a view of the case from altogether another standpoint.
1, The negro’s story was corroborated by more than forty white witnesses, in that
–Frank was proven toÂ have been just the kind of man the negro said he was [NN: that is, a sex fiend and pervert];
–in that the elevator was found unlocked, as the negro said it had been left, after the carrying of the corpse to the basement;
–in that the signs of dragging over the gritty dirt floor came straight and continuous from the elevator to where the corpse lay;
–in that there were absolutely no signs of any struggle on any floor except Frank’s floor [NN: the second floor, where his office, his restroom, and her work station were];
–in that the girl’s face showed she had been dragged on it;
–in that her drawers showed a rip-up, to the vagina, which had been penetrated but which contained no seminal emission;
–in that [numerous] white girls swore to Frank’s lewd doings with one of the girls in the factory in the daytime;
–and in that one white girl swore that Frank had proposed sodomy to her, in his office, on the second day she went to work for him.
A stubborn contest was made by the defense in the effort to show that Frank was not aware of Jim Conley’s whereabouts on the day of the crime, the same being a legal holiday [NN: Confederate Memorial Day, with the very old veterans of 1861-65 parading in their gray uniforms, and with cheering crowds, Dixie flags, and ice cream], and there being no apparent cause for Jim’s presence at the factory.
Photographs of the Atlanta Confederate Memorial Day in 1913; the rape-murder of a Southern girl by a “Yankee” on this very day was a most provocative outrage.
If Frank was in touch with the negro that morning, and kept him at the closed-down factory, there would be something to explain.
NN: The negro janitor did not hand out pay to the employees, so why did Frank order Conley to be there? There was no sweeping to be done; it had been done Friday evening. Conley was there as Frank’s “look-out”!Â
Besides, it would powerfully corroborate Jim. It so happened that Mrs. Hattie Waites and her husband were returning by rail from Savannah, where he had been attending an Odd Fellow convention.
At Jesup they saw the Atlanta newspaper which told of the arrest of Leo Frank and the supposed complicity of Jim Conley. On seeing the picture of Frank in the paper, the lady exclaimed,
“Why. that’s the man I saw in close conversation with a negro last SaturdayÂ morning.”
Mrs. Waites had taken Frank to be a friend of hers — and had approached him to speak to him — when, on getting close to him, and looking into his face, she saw her mistake.
Therefore, when she saw the same face in the paper she recognized it, for it was also a face not easy to forget.
NN: This raises anew the question why the negro janitor was in a shut-down factory — on a legal holiday and a Saturday. Frank wanted Conley to — once again — serve as his lookout while he had sex with yet another coerced female employee.
There was even a system of foot-stomping on the floor as an audible signal between the men.
The ugly Jewish “horndog”Â Frank had utterly deluded himself that he was going to enjoy a “quickie” with Mary Phagan, of all people, before returning to his office and doling out more pay to employees.
When the solicitor [NN: District Attorney Hugh Dorsey] heard of this piece of evidence, he ran it down by having Mrs. Waites taken to see both Frank and Conley.
She unhesitatingly identified them as the two men she had seen talking together between 10 and 11 o’clock on the day of the crime, near Sig Montag’s place, where Frank admitted he had gone at that time.
Three other white witnesses placed the negro in the factory that morning — sitting at the foot of the stairs, and near the front door.
What business had Conley, loitering there, on that legal holiday?
What did Frank talk to him about, on the street, so near the time of the crime ?
NN: We must also recall that, back in the days of legal segregation, far more even than now, blacks and whites were not “pals” Â — and then, as much as now, neither were bosses with Ivy League degrees chums or buddies with janitors who had done jail and chain-gang time for fighting and drunkenness. Usually, bosses and military superiors keep a social distance from their underlings.
Obviously, these questions could not be answered to the satisfaction of the jury; and therefore Frank had to brazen it out that he had not seen the negro that day at all.
Which would you have believed â€” the four disinterested white witnesses, or the man on trial for his life?
You would have believed the four white witnesses, two of them honest menâ€”Tillander and Grahamâ€”and two of them ladies of unimpeachable characters, Mrs. Arthur White and Mrs. Hattie Waites.
Believing these witnesses, you might have felt constrained to place credit on the explanation of the negro, as to why he came to the factory that was closed down that morning, and remained there until Frank got through with him. There had to be a reason for the negro’s giving up his holiday, and staying at the factory. Isn’t it so?
Well, then, what was the reason?
Frank gave none ; but the negro did.Â The negro said it was to keep a watch-out while Frank was with a girl whom he expected to come. Conley did not even know what girl Frank expected.
2. The negro’s story was corroborated by the physical condition of the second floor, Frank’s office floor. Sworn to as being Mary’s, the [auburn-blond] hair strands found on the handle of the lathe machine could never be shown to have possibly been the hair of another girl.
Those few strands of the dead child’s golden crown literally dragged Leo Frank to inevitable conviction.
They had to be accounted for, because they had come upon that projecting crank-handle after Friday evening and before Monday.
Whose hair was it, and how came it there at that time?”
Nobody could answer. Even the negro did not know what it was that Mary fell against when Frank struck her; but his evidence cleared up the mystery, and without his story, it would still be a mystery.
The blood on the second floor, and the absence of blood anywhere else, corroborated the negro; and the fact that neither Frank nor Mary could be seen by Miss Monteen Stover,
…when she searched for Frank and waited for him from 12:05 to 12:10 [NN: right after noontime], most powerfully supported the negro’s story of Mary’s previous coming, and of the steps of two persons that he heard walking hack to the metal room, where the identified hair of the murdered girl was found the next time the workman came to put his hand on his lathe machine.
NN: He returned to work Monday morning, and he sees a clump of hair on the sticking-out handle of a lathe…How did it get there? He had worked until Friday evening… and Monday morning suddenly there was this gorgeous reddish-golden hair sticking to the lathe, so obviously something had happened over the weekend.
3. The negro’s story was corroborated by the physical condition of the basement. There were no signs of any struggle in it; no blood, no torn-out hair, and no unusual appearance on the dirt floor.
NN: Of course, a dirt floor is useful for detectives because, unlike linoleum, wood or tile, it shows if anything has been dragged over it. If you put on strong lights, you can actually see where people have walked and where things have gone.
There was a trail leading from the elevator shaft to the corpse, showing that she had been dragged from the one place to the other, and her face showed that she had been dragged by the heels. This dragging indicated the work of one man, and that man was not strong enough to pick up and carry the body.
Conley had done it; Frank was not strong enough.
Therefore, when Frank returned to the factory that holiday afternoon…..
NN: and btw, that Saturday, April 26, 1913 Â was Confederate Memorial Day. This holiday still exists in Georgia to this day in April, with all state offices closed. Thus you can imagine the additional outrage for the three local Georgia juries and the three levels of Georgia judges, that an imported New Yorker, not to mention a Jew, had raped and killed one of their own Southern and Christian girls on that special day that had been created to honor the South, its soldiers, and its heroic dead.
Repeating, when Frank returned to the factory that holiday afternoon and locked himself in, he had to get the girl’s body away from the elevator, where he and Conley had left it, and he had to drag it.
He wanted to place it as far as possible from the elevator, and in the darkest part of the basement so as to prevent the night watchman from discovering it.
(I may here state that there was noÂ bank of cinders in the basement, nothing with which the girl could have beenÂ smothered; and there were no cinders, or ashes, or sawdust in her mouth, in her nostrils, or in her lungs, as someÂ of the recklessly mendacious writersÂ have alleged.)
NN: Again, this is referring to the findings of the coroner;Â the Fulton County coroner had presented this evidence to the coroner’s jury, which then voted for the arrest of Leo Frank. Â It became very clear to them that she had not been pushed face-down and smothered in a pile of ashes, cinders or sawdust. She was not murdered in the basement at all. Â There was no blood in the basement; she was dead by that time and her blood Â — the heart, of course, stops pumping blood at death — had stopped flowing up on the second floor where she had been murdered.
So things had dried up and so it was just a dry body, with dry blood on some areas — the neck, the face, the scalp and, unfortunately, the vaginal area. Â But that all had dried. Â They were dragging a dry, dead body along the basement’s dirt floor.
4. The negro’s story was also corroboratedÂ by the physical condition of theÂ girl’s body.Â One leg of her drawers had eitherÂ been carefully torn all the way up theÂ seam, or a knife had cut it in a straight, even line. The drawers were stained with herÂ blood.
Her uterus was virginal,
NN: Despite the disgusting allegations of promiscuity by various jewspapers, Mary had never had a boyfriend, or sex; she was a virgin.Â She was a thirteen-year-old girl who went to church every Sunday. Mary had a loving mother, siblings, and a loving and protective stepfather, John Coleman. She was a good girl. Â Â
….butÂ her hymen had been ruptured, and violence done to the parts a few minutesÂ before she died, according to Dr. H. F. Harris.
The inner walls of the memberÂ showed rough use, by finger or tongue, or male organ.
But there wasÂ no seminal fluid.
“You know, I ain’t built like other men,” was the negro’s statement ofÂ what Frank said to him, at the time.
Powerfully corroborative was theÂ affidavit of Miss Nellie Wood thatÂ Frank made the same remark to her (“You know, I ain’t built like other men”) in the privacy of his office, when heÂ moved his chair close up to hers, tried to insinuate his hands under herÂ clothes, and proposed unnatural connexion.
NN: I am not sure if Watson is suggesting Frank proposed to commit anal sex on her, or that she give him oral sex. Is the author hinting at possibly Frank having an extremely short male member? I don’t know. It is just a little bit vague here.Â The word “sodomy” back then could mean any kind of sex that was not penis-vagina.
Nellie Pettis, later Wood, told Frank to “go to hell.”
That the cord had been around Mary Phagan’s neck a long time was proved by the purple-black color of her face, and the deep impression in her flesh.
NN: The blood had of course stopped flowing between her head and body because of the cord, and was stopped up in her face, which became purplish-black — a sign of strangulation. The cord had been left tied around her neck, so she had not been chocked to death by hands; she had been choked by the cord, left tied around her neck.Â
That the cord had been around Mary Phagan’s neck a long time was proved by the purple-black color of her face, and the deep impression in her flesh.
NN: So the cord left around her neck had bitten deeply into her skin. Frank, in his rage at being spurned, had used extreme force to strangle her.Â
The strip torn by Frank from her underskirt, and folded under her head to catch the blood, was there to show for itself: and it had served the purpose of keeping the blood off the floor in the metal room.
NN: Obviously, Leo Frank, when he saw this blood gushing out from this girl’s scalp, realized:
“Oh man, I have a lot of evidence of a crime here…. and there is blood pouring out onto the floor….It’s going to be a mess. It’s going to also soak right into the wooden floor…. and how am I going to clean all this up? I’ve got a real problem here now.”
All the evidence is that Leo Frank had “only” wanted to rape her; he had not intended to murder her. He had thought he was going to have his way with her as he had had with other women. When he lost his temper and hit her, he wasn’t intending to kill her either.
But then, being just a little girl, just four-foot-eleven, she just flew backwards from the punch to the eye. The back of her head hit that lathe machine and the handle sticking out.
This knocked her out and ripped her scalp open — at least a two-inch gap — and blood started pouring out of the back of her head. Â
So suddenly all this happens, all unplanned. Her had thought he was going to have his way with her and then pat her on the fanny and tell her “Off you go, little girl, heh-heh-heh.”
Well, it didn’t work out that way. Â Now he’s facing an unconscious girl, bleeding profusely.
And this unconscious girl is going to WAKE UP at some point too. So now Leo Frank is in big trouble. Things are not going according to his plan. Â Â
If Jim hadn’t let the body fall, no blood would have been found anywhere, except in her hair, and on that cloth!
Her hands were folded across her bosom — so stiffly fixed in position that they did not come apart when she was being dragged sidewise, and partly on her face. Jim’s story is that he put them down, easy, on the second floor, when he went to where she was lying on her back, dead. Reject his statement, and you can’tÂ explain the position of those little hands.
(There is a detail here that has baffled me. The girl had evidently been carrying her handkerchief either in her mesh bag, or in her hand. How came it to be bloody? Jim nowhere mentions that it was bloody when he picked it up from the floor in the metal room. But it was found near the body, in the basement, and it was bloody: how came it so?Â Either Frank, or Conley must have wiped his hands on it.)
NN: This comment by Watson reveals yet again his mind as as a trial lawyer for decades; this was his day job when he was not a politician or publisher. He was in many murder trials as well.
You can see how Watson was really trying to get at the truth, trying to work out all the details in his own mind. And indeed, murders are “interesting,” and his readers were interested too. So he is becoming also a “detective” here, and really Watson has in fact solved many details of this story…. just as did the prosecutor, Hugh Dorsey.
And the jury figured it out.
And the two detectives hired by Leo Frank figured it out! Â And what they figured out was that Leo Frank was guilty. Â
So it is quite interesting putting together the pieces of the puzzle.
And here we see Thomas Watson, even after the lynching,Â
still, in his mind, working out some more details. 😉
3). The negro‘s story was corroborated by Frank’s physical condition the morning after the murder.
The two officers who went out to his house, not to arrest him, but to invoke his assistance in finding clues to the criminal, found him in a rickety state of nerves, and calling for coffee to drink.
NN: You know, cops deal with a lot of drunks. Â You know how if a cop pulls you over in your car, he always asks you to roll down the window, and he puts his face right up to yours and he wants to see if he can smell alcohol on your breath.
And they make you get out of the car and walk along a line to see if you’re weaving and swaying; they want to see if you’re drunk. cops are looking for signs of drunkenness, such as slurry speech, or just a sickly look in your skin as if you’d thrown up a lot…had too much to drink and don’t look good.
So the police describe him as a man who had been drunk the night before.
They knew nothing on that line, and were not looking for evidences of a debauch, but that is what they describe — “the morning after” [NN: that is, a hangover] was there.
So much so that Detective John Black….
Detective Black with night watchman Newt Lee
…..advised Mrs. Frank to give her husband …..
….a drink of whiskey.
NN: This was a folk remedy, to have a small glass of alcohol against a hangover. Today I think people would advise to drink a lot of water, or apple cider vinegar, and there are other things you can do. But it is clear that they saw the guy had been heavily drinking. And the question then is WHY had the guy been heavily drinking?
The answer given was that Frank’s father-in-law [NN: that is, Mr. Selig, the owner of the house which he let his daughter, Lucille, and his son-in-law, Leo, use as their home as well] had himself used it all up during the night. His father-in-law, Mr. Emil Selig, had had acute indigestion, it was said, and had used all the whiskey in the house that night on this sudden and always alarming illness.
I’m not doctor enough to say whether whiskey is the usual remedy for acute indigestion, but I am lawyer enough to see in Selig’s sudden use for it on that particular night, a most suspicious corroboration of that [negro cook] Minola McKnight who swore, namely, that Frank had gotten wildly drunk on the same night Selig got his acute indigestion.
Strange to say, Selig went on the stand at the trial of Frank, swore to eating breakfast as usual; swore to eating dinner as usual ; and never said one word about that night attack of acute indigestion which had caused him to exhaust the entire whiskey supply the night after the crime.
Selig, on Sunday morning, had not only made a full recovery from his alarming indigestion, but showed no bad effects from the liquor either.
It was actually his son-in-law that looked and acted just like the man who had been attacked by indigestion, and who had drunk up all the whiskey.
As you know, the murder of Mary Phagan was committed on the Southern Memorial day, April 26th, 1913. At that time Leo Frank was entering the 32d year of his age, and Mary lacked a few days of being fourteen. For sentimental reasons, Nathan Straus, William J. Burns, and the Jewish press generally have referred to Frank as a “boy,” and Governor Slaton went so far as to say in defense of his virtual pardon of his own client, that Frank was “too delicate” to have struck Mary the blow which knocked her down.
This delicate middle-aged Jew [NN: 32 was middle-aged back then when the average person only lived to be 62 or so; very few people lived into their eighties, nineties or hundreds a century ago] weighed 127 pounds, and was so full of vitality that no ordinary amount of venery [ = sexual indulgence] could satisfy him. His eyes, mouth, chin, nose, ears and neck typed him as a sexual pervert. His lawyers announced “ready for trial” when his case was called in court, and they did not suggest a change of venue. They had had months to prepare; they were intimate with local conditions: and, while their management of themselves, their client and their witnesses, showed the grossest lack of discretion and preparedness, they never at any time moved for a mistrial.
Let me explain [NN: Again, this is Watson now writing as an experienced trial lawyer, not just a guy with an opinion but a man who had defended men in murder trials] to the layman that a presiding judge will stop a trial, discharge the jury, and set another time for the case to be tried, and before another jury, if anything occurs in the courtroom to prejudice the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
Had any “mob spirit,” any “jungle fury,” and “psychic drunkenness,” or any “blood lust” manifested itself in the sight or hearing of the jury, it would have been the duty of Frank’s lawyers to have put an end to the proceedings, then and there, by moving that a mistrial be declared.
No such motion could be made, because no such facts existed. Frank’s lawyers filed a lengthy affidavit as a part of their extraordinary motion for a new trial, yet nowhere do they state that anything [untoward] occurred in the courtroom, outside those inevitable peals of laughter when one lawyer “chaws” another.
[NN: To “chaw” was to tease, or let a zinger or clever “dig” fly. The trial was conducted with great seriousness — a man was on trial for his life for an atrocious crime, and it was the most famous and important trial then going on in the entire United States. There was no “mob spirit.” And no one wanted to “screw up,” not District Attorney Dorsey, nor the Frank defense team, or the bailiffs, the newspaper reporters, or the judge.
Had Judge Leonard Roan conducted the trial wrong, he knew a motion would be made by the Frank legal eagles to overturn the verdict and order a new trial, which would both have disgraced him, and given the murderer Frank a second chance to “get off.”
Judge Roan was surely convinced of Frank’s guilt, which is indicated clearly by his unusually harsh order that Frank be hanged on his next birthday, April 17, 1914.]
Judge Roan, then dying of cancer, was determined that his last and most famous trial be conducted perfectly.Â
I went over this affidavit of Frank’s lawyers [NN: part of their requesting a new trial], reading it carefully, and was amazed to see that they did not even accuse the court of tolerating any misbehavior.
These lawyers explicitly say that the jury was not present at all, for example, when the audience in the courtroom applauded a ruling by Judge Roan in favor of Solicitor Dorsey.
It seems that Dorsey was hailed out in the streets with cheers, and these cheers were all that the lawyers of Frank could allege in support of the charge of mob violence, mob spirit, jungle fury, psychic drunkenness and blood lust.
On the contrary, it was shown by the affidavits of the Sheriff, and all his deputies, and the court bailiffs, that no disorders took place during the trial.
[NN: The sheriff, who was of course an elected official, as with all sheriffs, and maybe feared Jewish clout) was pro-Leo Frank, but he had a reputation to protect by keeping strict order in the jail, in the courthouse, in the courtroom, and on the street.
He did not want to tolerate any mob behavior, or threats against the jury, the judge, the defendant, the Frank lawyers, the witnesses or the prosecutor, Hugh Dorsey.
Everybody was safe; everybody got to say or testify what was on their mind, and no one was threatened. The sheriff’s job was to make sure there was “order in the court” and everywhere else, and no one wanted the scandal of a mistrial.]
Colonel E. E. Pomeroy of theÂ Fifth Georgia Regiment [NN: This was the Georgia state militia, now known as the Georgia National Guard] swore to the same thing, and so did the newspaper reporters.
Every member of the jury made affidavit to the good order maintained, and to their freedom from any disturbance, interruption or attempted influence.
Megalomanic signature of Leo Frank in a December 1914 lawsuit against the sheriff, alleging mob pressure during his trial. (http://www.leofranklibrary.org/library/trial/leo-m-frank-against-c-wheeler-mangum.pdf). There was zero evidence of mob pressure, and no reason to sue the sheriff, so the pedophilic strangler’s lawsuit was dismissed.Â
But it is the Sunday American (Mr. Hearst’s Atlanta paper), that furnishes the most remarkable evidence as to what was thought at the time of the fairness of Frank’s trial. On Sunday, August 21, 1913,Â “Hearst’s Sunday American” published a story of the four-weeks-long trial, written, quote, “By an old Police Reporter,” unquote, which concludes as follows:
[NN: This came out after the trial was over but before the jury returned with its guilty verdict; as you will see, the Hearst paper admitted and emphasized that the trial had been conducted very professionally.]
Regardless of all things else, the public is unstinting in its praise and approval of the brilliant young Solicitor General of the Atlanta Circuit, Hugh Dorsey, for the superb manner in which he has handled the State’s side of the case.
It all along has been freely admitted that those two veterans of criminal practice, Luther Rosser and Reuben Arnold [Frank’s lawyers], would take ample care of the defendant. Two more experienced, able and aggressive attorneys it would be impossible to secure in any cause.
When it was first learned that Rosser and Arnold were to defend Frank, the public realized that the defendant hadÂ determined to take no chances, and had selected from among the cream of the Georgia bar.
That the State’s interests, quite as sacred as the defendant’s, would be looked after so jealously, so adroitly, and so shrewdly in the hands of the youthful Dorsey, howeverâ€”that was a matter not so immediately settled!
[next subheading] Dorsey an Unknown Quantity
“Dorsey was known as a ‘bright young chap,’ not widely experienced, willing and aggressive enough, but â€” “He had been but lately named Solicitor General, and he hadn’t been tried out exhaustively.
Maybe he could measure up to theÂ standard of Rosser and Arnold, but itÂ a long way to measure up, nevertheless!
It soon became evident that Dorsey was not to be safely underrated. He could not be sneered down, laughed down, ridiculed down, or smashed down.
He took a lot of lofty gibing, and was called ‘bud’ and ‘son’ right alongâ€”but every time they pushed him down, he rose up again, and generally stronger than ever!
Time and again he out-generaled his more experienced opponents.Â He forced them to make Frank’s character an issue despite themselves. He got in vital and far-reaching evidence, over protest long and loud.
Whenever the Solicitor was called upon for an authority [NN: an expert witness, such as a doctor, policeman, female employees of Frank, etc.] he was right there with the goods.
They never once caught him napping. He had prepared himself for the Frank case in every phase of it.
The case had not progressed very far before the defense discovered unmistakably that it had in Dorsey a foeman worthy of its most trustworthy and best-tempered steel!
And the young Solicitor climaxed his long, sustained effort with a masterful speech that will long be remembered in Fulton County! In places he literally tore to pieces the efforts of the defense. He overlooked no detailâ€”at times he was crushing in his reply to the arguments of Rosser and Arnold, and never was he commonplace!
Fixed His Fame by Work
Whatever the verdict, when Hugh Dorsey sat down, the Solicitor General had fixed his fame and reputation as an able and altogether capable prosecuting attorney â€” and never again will that reputation be challenged lightly, perhaps!
Much credit for hard work and intelligent effort will be accorded Frank Hooper, too [photos], for the part he played in the Frank trial.
He was at all times the repressed and pains-taking first lieutenant of the Solicitor, and his work, while not so spectacular, formed a very vital part of the whole case made out and argued by the State.
He was for fourteen years the Solicitor General of one of the most important South Georgia circuits, and his advice and suggestions to Dorsey were invaluable.
A noteworthy fact in connection with the Frank trial is that it generally is accepted as having been as fair and square as human forethought and effort could make it. It may be true that a good deal of the irrelevant and not particularly pertinent crept into it, but one side has been to blame for that quite as much as the other side.
Rulings Cut Both Ways.
The judge’s rulings have cut impartially both waysâ€”sometimes favorable to the State, but quite as frequently in favor of the defense. Even the one big charge of degeneracy, which many people hold had no proper place in the present trial, went in without protest from the defense, and cross-examination upon it even was indulged in.
Unlimited time was given both the state and the defense to make out their cases; expense was not considered.
This trial has lasted longer than any other in the criminal history of Georgia. Nothing was done or left undone that could give either side the right to complain of unfairness after the conclusion of the hearing.
It is difficult to conceive how human MINDS AND HUMAN EFFORTS COULD PROVIDE MORE FOR FAIR PLAY THAN WAS PROVIDED IN THE FRANK CASE.
Mark it ! This was published after the evidence was all in and while Dorsey was closing the argument for the State. Nobody knew what the verdict would he. But Hearst’s Atlanta paper told the world that it is difficult to conceive how human minds and human efforts could provide more, FOR FAIR PLAY, than was provided in the Frank case.
The trial had been generally regarded as [having been] “as fair and square as human forethought and human effort could make it.’
So said the Hearst papers on Sunday before the verdict had been rendered.
After the verdict of “Guilty” was Hearst one of the men who bitterly denounced the jury, and the courts?
When the officers told Frank that a girl named Mary Phagan had been found in his basement, he did not make any exclamation of surprise and horror ! He took the news as a matter of course. He did not ask anything about the condition of her body, the physical evidences of the crime, or the probable time, place, manner and motive of the act. He did not offer any surmise as to who did it. He expressed no concern whatever.
His demeanorÂ was exactly that of a man who knew all about it and who had no questions to ask, after being told of the murder. Was that the conduct of an innocent employer whose little employee had been found dead in his house?
If Mary Phagan had been a cow that had been choked to death in Frank’s enclosure, his conduct could not have been more unfeeling, more stoical. He did say that he did not know anyÂ girl of her name, and couldn’t tell, until he consulted his pay-roll, whether Mary Phagan had worked for him, or not.
In passing to the toilet daily for a year, he had almost brushed Mary on his way; and four disinterested white witnesses swore that he knew her well, and familiarly called her “Mary.”
Not only that, he seemed jealous of [bookkeeper] John M. Gantt [photo] because of his apparent intimacy with the girl, and he spoke to Gantt about it. An unexplained shortage in the cash account was soon afterwards discovered, and when GanttÂ denied responsibility, and refused to make it good, Frank discharged him.
So recently had Frank got rid ofÂ Gantt that the man came back to the factory to get two pairs of shoes whichÂ he had left there, and this was on the same day that the Jew killed the girl.
To fasten the crime upon someone else, and to hang an innocent man, Leo Frank accused the night-watch in the two notes, describing him twiceâ€”which Jim Conley could not have done, for he had never seen the night-watch and did not know he was “tall,” “slim” or “black.”
Frank also secreted the true time-slip that was in the clock the night after the murder and substituted another which left one hour of the watchman’s time unaccounted for.
Had not Jim Conley broken down and confessed, it is practically certain that the William Burns [Detective] Agency would have hired Ragsdale [NN: a black Atlanta minister who took a bribe from a Burns agent; he then liedÂ thatÂ one of his parishioners had revealed to him that Jim Conley had confessed to that parishioner to having “killed a little white girl”; the ashamed minister later recanted] and Barber to swear that it was the night watchman whom they heard confess the crime, instead of Jim Conley.
This deliberately planned scheme to lay the crime on the night-watch reveals itself in the notes, in the forged time-slip, in the ”planted” shirt, and in Frank’s sinister suggestions to the [Atlanta] detectives that “the night-watch ought to know more about it.”
If a black case could be made blacker, this diabolical attempt to hang the innocent negro, while shielding the guilty one, would deepen the darkness of this terrible crime.
Night watchman Newt Lee
During the days of excitement, suspense, eager inquiry, and tireless research that followed the crime, Leo Frank never uttered a syllable which would implicate Jim Conley. Yet he was familiar with Conley’s crude ”hand-write,” had seen the notes when they were first found, and saw that in those notes Jim Conley was describing and accusing the night-watch, who had only been [working there for] three weeks and whom Conley had never seen!
Standing out in the turbid waters of this case are three peaks upon which the Ark of Life would have rested, had the Jew been innocent :
NN: The reference is to something familiar to Southern Christian readers, Noah’s Ark in the Old Testament, which, after the Flood subsided, came to rest on Mount Ararat….Â
NN: The next point that Watson makes is one that I consider to be extremely important. It has been gone over in earlier Tom Watson articles.
I have been married myself several times, I’ve had a number of girlfriends, and I think it is a very important point. And the point is about the wife…. not visiting her husband in jail.
If there is any kind of loving relationship at all between a husband and a wife, and your spouse has been unjustly suspected of a terrible crime — such as murdering a girl — you, as the loyal wife, spouse, or husband, are going to go visit your mate right away in jail!
It is certainly a most miserable time, especially if you are falsely accused of murder. That is when you need your loved ones to rally to you. But Lucille Frank did NOT –for three weeks — go visit her husband. Â
1. He would have explained, and had his parents-in-law come in to explain [NN: to the newspapers and the public], why their daughter, who was Frank’s wife, shunned her imprisoned husband forÂ three whole weeks after he was committed to jail.
His father-in-law and his mother-in-law both went on the stand to testify to Frank’s [supposedly] natural conduct on the Saturday night of the crime, and the Sunday following.
Why didn’t they explain the unnatural conduct of their daughter? The Sollicitor could not have gone into this, for it would have been using wife against husband, which our law will not allow. But the defendant could have gone into it full, to ex plain an extraordinary fact that was already in evidence.
Why didn’t Frank’s lawyers call upon the Seligs to tell the jury why their daughter shrank away from her husband for three whole weeks, when he was in jail, accused of rape and murder ?
Lucille and Leo Frank in the courtroom in August 1913
2. When eleven white girls swore to Frank’s vicious character, the indignation of an innocent man would have prompted him to a rigid cross-examination of those witnesses. The innocent man would have faced those perjured women, and fired at them questions like these:
What did you ever see me do, or at tempt to do, that was immoral?
What did you ever hear me say that was lewd?
Did I ever attempt to mislead you? If so, where and when? What did I say, and what did you say?
Did you ever notice any lascivious conduct of mine in the factory? If so, with whom?
Were you ever in my employ, and did you quit, or were you discharged? [NN: that is, fired]Â
If you voluntarily quit, what was your reason?
If you were discharged, what was the cause?
To whom, before now, have you ever stated that my character was lascivious ?
In other words, if these women were perjurers, defendant knew it, and his lawyers should have riddled them on cross-examination.
On the contrary, if they were telling the truth, defendant knew it, and it was better not to make matters worse by a cross-examination.
Which course did Frank and his lawyers adopt?
3. Beleaguered by false witnesses and suspicious circumstances, the innocent man invites investigation, he courts inquiry, and offers to explain away what is otherwise inexplicable.
The guilty man fears investigation, and shuns inquiry. It told heavily against [New York City] police lieutenant, Charles Becker, of New York, that he did not go to the witness stand. His seeming fear of cross-examination hurt him badly in public opinion.
[NN: This Becker case refers to a major and then infamous New York City crime ring which Watson had previously discussed in the January, March and especially the September 1915 issues ofÂ his Watson’s Magazine.
Watson was of course interested in the Becker case as a former trial lawyer who had defended men accused of murder and was very interested in both criminal law and the workings of the criminal mind. But he also knew his readers were highly interested in famous crimes and interesting criminals too.
Described in Wikipedia as the “Rosenthal murder case,” this story was quite the sensation in 1912 in New York City and was covered around the United States.
A crooked cop named Charles Becker [photo] was in cahoots with the Italian and Jewish mafias.
When three Jewish gangsters gunned down another Jew, aÂ bookmaker named Rosenthal, Â at the urging of Becker, eventually they all were tried for murder, found guilty, and were sent to the electric chair at Sing Sing prison.
The point that Thomas Watson emphasized in the September issue of his magazine was that the big, rich, educated Jews did not care about those three Jewish gangsters who were executed, and so no one in the jewspapers or B’nai B’rith began wailing about “antisemitism.”
However, when Leo Frank, an Ivy League-educated German Jew, committed a far worse and more execrated crime — raping and murdering, not another gangster, but a beautiful, honest, hardworking 13-year-old girl of immaculate character and from a good family — the so-called Big Jews committed themselves totally, and totally foolishly, to getting him off.
Not only did this insane campaign fail to save Leo Frank, but this led to an eruption of antisemitism in a region, the Deep South, that previously had never been antisemitic at all, and it triggered to the rise of the Second Ku Klux Klan, which unlike the first one, which began right after the Civil War, was not only anti-black but also antisemitic.
The lynchers called themselves “the Knights of Mary Phagan,” as the grand-niece, Mary Phagan Kean, points out in her book, The Murder of Mary Phagan.
Just a few months after they avenged her murder, the second, and openly anti-Jewish Klan was in fact founded, on Thanksgiving evening, 1915, and at the spectacular Stone Mountain, Georgia, located 20 miles east of Atlanta and the town of Marietta where Frank had been hanged. A huge cross was lit on the summit of the 1,700-foot-high mountain.
Stone Mountain is a giant quartz dome
The side of the mountain features a giant rock carving like Mount Rushmore, but it shows, on horseback, the Confederate president, Jefferson Davis, Â and the great Southern generals Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson
This second Klan had five million members by 1920, many of them in northern states such as Oregon, Illinois and Indiana. Thousands of them marched down Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC in 1926. And it all began with the lynching of Leo Frank.
But Leo Frank went to the stand, and occupied many, many hours talking to the jury, and then refused to allow the Sollicitor to ask him one solitary question !
Our Georgia law gives that privilege to every defendant, and this most lenient of codes gives the jury the light to believe the unsworn, unsifted statement of the defendant in preference to all the sworn and sifted testimony.
–Accused by a “low-down, drunken, shiftless negro!”
–Accused of indescribable practices in his place of business!
–Accused of proposing the obscene thing to a girl on the second day of her employment!
–Accused of bringing a most dissolute woman of the town into his office, and acting lower than any beast with her!
–Accused of taking Rebecca Carson into the ladies’ private room, and shutting himself in there with her alone for 15 to 30 minutes â€” with the girl’s mother heing a worker on the same floor!
–Accused of lusting after Mary Phagan, pushing his attentions on her, laying a trap for her by refusing to send her pittance by her chum.
–Accused of giving Jim Conley his instructions the morning of the crime, and causing him to come and be ready to watch the front door when the doomed child should arrive.
–Accused of decoying the little one to the metal room on the pretense of looking to see whether there would be material for her to work with the next work day!
–Accused of shutting the door on this employee of his, and attempting to get her to let him do with her what Miss Nellie Woods swore he wanted to do with that girl, and what Dewey Mollis told Judge Roan, to Frank’s face, that he did [actually] do with her! [This would likely refer to either anal sex or cunnilingus, both of which were both shocking at that time, illegal then as perversions under Georgia law, and in fact were right until the 1970s.]
–Accused of resenting the girl’s horrified refusal, and of knocking her down, committing the act with her, after she was down, and then, to prevent exposure and punishment, tying a hemp cord around her throat and choking her to death.
–Accused of dragging the dead girl by the heels over the basement floor, until she was lying prone upon her purpled face, in the obscurest nook of that dark room, and of then turning down the gas-jet, until it was no bigger and brighter than a “lightning bug,” so that the night-watch would never see that gruesome figure lying â€” all rumpled, and bruised, and bloody â€” away off there by the back door.
–Accused of all this, menaced by the coinciding testimony of more than forty white witnesses, encircled by a chain of physical facts which no human power could annihilate, ignore, confuse, or elucidateâ€”compassed round about in this way, and then stand upon the privilege of not allowing a single question to be asked him?
Never in God’s world did Innocence so act, never!
After theÂ verdict of guilty, the defendant made a motion for a new trial, alleging many errors committed by Judge Roan, and, also, that there was not sufficient evidence to support the verdict.
After a long, careful, conscientious consideration of the motion, Judge Roan overruled it.
In doing so he said that he himself did not know whether Frank were guilty, but that the law placed the responsibility for that issue upon the jury.
Of course it does. For hundreds of years, juries have been the judges of the facts.
The Leo Frank jury July-Aug. 1915
Fred Winburn, jury foreman
Governor Slaton stated the legal principle in almost the same words when in 1914, he denied the application for clemency in the Nick Wilburn case. He did the same thing last year in the Umphrey and Cantrell cases. Frank’s lawyers took the case to the [Georgia] Supreme Court [photo], where the alleged errors were elaborately argued.
The majority Justices held that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, and that Judge Roan had not committed any substantial errors of law. The minority Justices held that Judge Roan had committed one error, to-wit: He had allowed the evidence of Dalton and Conlev to establish independent acts of licentiousness on the part of Frank.
NN: What this refers to is the fact that the prosecuting attorney, Hugh Dorsey, had brought up previous perverted sexual acts towards other women and girls — orgies and whatnot in the factory, whores… And, some said, well, Â maybe he was a skirt-chaser; maybe he was a sex maniac; but that doesn’t prove he murdered THIS girl.
AÂ minority of the justices felt that his previous sex mania was irrelevant to the question whether he tried to rape and did kill this girl, but the majority of the justices felt that this was NOT irrelevant, his previous behavior. Â Â
This evidence, however, was merely cumulative, there being enough other unquestioned testimony before the jury to convince them of Frank’s vices.
The majority Justices [in the Supreme Court of Georgia] reasoned that the evidence in question was properly admitted, because it tended to prove Frank’s character and conduct in the place where the crime was committed; and, therefore, tended to establish the identity of the criminal.
The State’s theory being that the murder was incidental to a sexual act, and there being evidence to support this theory, it was competent to introduce testimony to prove that it was Frank who used the factory for sexual acts.
NN: What this refers to is the consensus back then that Leo Frank was not per se a murder. He was a sex maniac; he was a pervert, he harassed women and his female employees; he threatened to fire them if they did not sleep with him, or give him sex.
He expected to get sex from Mary Phagan, wrongly; he wasn’t planning to murder her, though.
It was when she slapped him, or gave him a stinging verbal rebuke, that he punched her “and one thing led to another.” Â
So the point is that the majority of the Georgia Supreme Court Justices said ‘this man is accused of a sexual crime which turned into murder.’
Since there was no sperm found in the little girl’s vagina, there was not exactly proof he had raped her, although her vagina was bleeding….And yet she was a virgin, so… some object was in there — a horrible thing.
It was clear that somebody in that factory was a sex manaic. And since Leo Frank was a sex maniac, Â and he had been with her right around the time of the murder, maybe all this was relevant that he had been doing or trying to do with other women and others girls who were his employees.Â
The minority Justices never said that the evidence was not sufficient to support the verdict. After the Georgia Supreme Court decided the case, the trial recommenced, in the newspapers. According to all precedent and practice, the question of Frank’s guilt had been settled. His guilt had been judicially ascertained. The Law had done its due.Â The Law said “It is finished.”
Not so the newspapers.Â The Atlanta Journal (whose managing editor is a Jew, John Cohen), published an inflammatory editorial, demanding that the decision of the Supreme Court he defied!
[JdN: Parenthetically, Margaret Mitchell, Â who wrote the novel Gone with the Wind in 1936 based on her interviews with old Confederate generals, was a reporter for the Journal in the 1920s. Â As for the Jewish newspaper editor, John S. Cohen — (photo, left)Â https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S._CohenÂ —
John S. Cohen
— as the name indicates he had a Jewish father but supposedly was raised as an Episcopalian, that is, as a Christian, by his gentile mother. He was involved in many things, was mysteriously a cadet at the US Naval Academy, but only for two years, Â and was briefly a US Senator in 1932-33 to fill a seat when the senator in office suddenly died.]
The JournalÂ [of John Cohen] announced a new doctrine as to the responsibilities of a State for the administration of justice. It said:
“Responsibility for the enforcement of the law and the punishment of crime rests largely but not exclusively upon the courts. The press also has its share of responsibility, and it seems to the Journal that the time has come for the press to speak. The Journal will do so now even though every other newspaper in Georgia remains silent.”
Now here was a novelty. Never before had any Southern man announced that a portion of the judicial power is vested in the publishers of newspapers.
If the Constitution of [our State of] Georgia puts this responsibility [to judge guilt] on the press, what share? Half, or less than half? Where is the “share” to be allotted, when, and by whom? Did the press tote its “share” in the year 1914, when four Gentiles were hanged for murdering men?
What did the Atlanta Journal do with its “share,” when Lep Myers got off at manslaughter, after going to a Gentile woman’s room, in Macon, and atrociously shooting her to death?
The Journal further said:
The courts have their great responsibilities and their arduous duties to perform, and be it said to their everlasting credit, they discharge those duties to the best of human ability.Â But even juries are sometimes swayed by environment and the judicial ermine is not infallible. Infallibility is an attribute of omnipotence.
The Journal further said:
“Leo Frank has not had a fair trial. He has not been fairly convicted, and his death without a fair trial and legal conviction will amount to judicial murder.”
The Journal further said:
“Unless the courts interfere we are going to murder an innocent man by refusing to give him an impartial trial.”
The Jew editor of the Atlanta Journal further said :
“It was within the power of human judges, human lawyers and human jurymen to decide impartially and without fear the guilt or innocence of an accused man under the circumstances that surrounded the trial.
The very atmosphere of the courtroom was charged with an electric current of indignation which flashed and scintillated before the eyes of the jury. The courtroom and streets were filled with an angry, determined crowd, ready to seize the defendant if the jury had found him not guilty. “
“A verdict of acquittal would have caused a riot.”
When John Cohen published this infamous libel in his Atlanta Journal he fired the signal for every Jewish editor in America. From that day to this, the scurrility of outside writers has been fed on John Cohen’s lying editorial in theÂ Atlanta Journal. The only evidence these hack writers and their honest dupes have had as to “mob spirit,” “mob atmosphere” and the rest of it, has been the unsworn, unsupported, and utterly false statements of this Atlanta Jew.
NN: As I pointed out in an earlier audiobook of mine of another Watson article on the Leo Frank case, there was a process and evolution in Tom Watson over the course of this affair from being not antisemitic at all to becoming extremely so. During the 1913 trial itself, there was no evidence at all of anti-Jewish feelings in Tom Watson, but the former trial lawyer, congressman and vice-presidential candidate of the Populist Party became more and more angry over continuing Jewish efforts to get the vile and convicted rapist-murderer off who had also harassed many other women and girls, and had tried to send two innocent blacks to their death for his crimes.
Watson hated to see the rich escaping deserved punishment because he was a sincere populist, with a big heart for the common people. We actually owe the RFD mail delivery system — “Rural Free Delivery” — Â to Congressman Tom Watson!
This was a federal law that Watson got passed that ordered the US Post Office to deliver the mail not just in the cities but also in rural areas, to the farmers, loggers, fishermen, ranchers, etc., “out in the sticks.” Before Watson’s law, which went into effect in 1896, they all had to hitch up their horse and buggy and drive many miles into the nearest town and get their mail from the hardware store owner or whoever else doubled as the local postmaster, and so many of them only got mail once a week, if that.Â But city dwellers could get their mail, including newspapers and magazines, delivered to their door twice a day!
Â Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Free_Delivery):
Congressman Thomas Edward WatsonÂ
That year, 82 rural routes were put into operation. A massive undertaking, nationwide RFD service took several years to implement, and remains the “biggest and most expensive endeavor” ever instituted by the U.S. postal service.Â
So Watson cared about fair treatment for all.
So when the jewspapers began besmirching all Georgians and all Southerners, not to mention himself, we see Watson becoming more and more furious. In the wording of his articles, he mentioned more and more various “Jewish” editors, publishers, businessmen, lawyers, etc. But by this article it is has become “this Jew…” Â “the Jew John Cohen”….Â
One can see the same progression in the Gospels of the new Testament. In Matthew, Mark and Luke, we read “Jesus said to the Pharisees” or “Jesus said to the High Priest.”
But by the last Gospel, that of John, it is “Jesus said to the Jews” .. and “you are from your father, THE DEVIL.” (John 8:44)
One can see from later Watson articles that he had been reading up on the 1890s Alfred Dreyfus case in France, where a Jewish Army officer was selling military secrets to the enemy, and the 1911 Menachem Beilis case in Ukraine/Russia, where a Jew (photo),Â superintendent of a brick factory, Â was correctly accused of committing ritual murder on a little Slavic boy, draining all his blood out while he was conscious in a form of TalmudicÂ tortureÂ magic.
Under gigantic, international Jewish pressure, the monstrous Beilis was let go. Â
His victim,Â Andrei Yushchinsky, had barely a drop of blood in his body from dozens of knife or scalpel wounds. The method was to hang the child victim upside down so the blood would flow downward to the heart and the head, keeping the child alive, screaming, utterly terrified, and conscious to the last.
The pain of the child was itself a goal — agony is a standard feature of all black magic, and the capture of “pain energy” — Â but the continued beating of the heart would press the blood better out of the body. Â
Of course, a torture victim will excrete a huge amount of adrenaline into the blood, which may be one materialistic explanation why torture is “desirable” in the blood-draining process. Children’s blood full of adrenaline from terror and torture is said to give energy and health, and to be taken as medicine by the NWO elites.
Â The drained blood is dried and baked into matzoh for the Jews.
In 2007, top Jewish professor ArielÂ Toaff of Bar-Ilan University in Tel Aviv, Israel (whose father was the Grand Rabbi of Rome who met with Pope John Paul II) wrote a book as the recognized world expert on the history of Italian Jewry, entitled Blood Passover. It confirmed that Jewish ritual murder of gentile children was real and not a libel, and was a top-secret custom carried on between certain trusted, militant Jewish fathers and certain trusted, militant Jewish first sons for centuries.
Crypto-Jewish mega-billionaire David Rockefeller was born in 1915, the year this Watson article was published. Here wasÂ Rockefeller in 1959 with Eleanor Roosevelt, age 44 — and without a gray hair or line.
- Council on Foreign Relations â€“ Honorary Chairman
- Americas Society â€“ Founder and Honorary Chairman
- Council of the Americas â€“ Founder and Honorary Chairman
- Trilateral Commission â€“ Founder and Honorary North American Chairman
- Bilderberg Meetings â€“ Only member of the Member Advisory Group
At age 100
In all three court cases, as Thomas Watson became more and more aware, jewish-controlled newspapers worldwide screamed that the whole world was totally wrong and viciously antisemitic, and all three Jews absolutely innocent victims of gentile bigotry.Â
Judge Leonard Roan had seen no mob “scintillation” [NN: from the Latin word “scintilla,” meaning a “spark”] in the court-room; the other officers of the court swore there was none; the Colonel of the Fifth Regiment [E.E. Pomeroy], testified, on oath, there was none; the reporters of the papers made affidavit there was none; and the Hearst paper emphatically stated before the verdict was known, but after the trial was closed, that there never had been a fairer trial.
Not until the Supreme Court decided against Frank, did John Cohen himself allege that the trial had been unfair. If he knew it to have been unfair, why didn’t he contradict Hearst’s paper the year before when it paid so high a tribute to Judge Roan, and the State?
Why wait until another year, 1914, and then discover that the 1913 trial was a mob-controlled affair, and that Frank’s death under Judge Roan’s sentence would be “judicial murder?”
Not long after John Cohen opened his cannonade on our Courts, Colliers Magazine sent C. P. Connolly to Atlanta to write up the case.
[NN: As I explained in earlier audiobook, C.P. Connolly was a crusading journalist and muckraker who had actually done some good investigations. Â He enjoyed a lot of prestige and was known as a reporter who would dig up the dirt on the powerful. Was he in this case an honest dupe? Did he sincerely believe Frank was innocent? Maybe he did not see the light on the case, but instead the green (money).
Maybe he was offered a huge amount of money to misuse his reputation as Mr. Clean and as the great investigative reporter who took down the bad guys, exposed evil, and challenged the Establishment, standing up for the innocent. Maybe someone slipped him $100,000 so his great reputation could be exploited to get Leo Frank off. Â We just do not know today.]
Connolly took his cue and his tone from Cohen, and other writers followed the lead of Connolly. Concerning the story of our Montana patriot. Collier’s has recently said:
“We cannot find it in us to cry out for vengeance upon the men who lynched Frank. We know as well as anyone else that Frank was innocentâ€”we know it better than some folks, for we think the painstaking investigation made by Mr. Connolly in Collier’s was not excelled in thoroughness or conscientiousness by any other review.
Nevertheless we find it impossible to get up any blood lust of our own. The feeling that the whole thing inspires in us is a good deal nearer to sadness than to anger.
Consider the men who did this act. Consider their motive. It could by no possibility be selfish. They did not expect to make any money out of it. They had no personal feeling against Frankâ€”they had never seen him.
For them there was neither gain nor satisfaction in what they did.
On the other hand, they took grave risksâ€”risks in the shadow of which they will continue to walk until they die. It is impossible to conceive that their motives were other than patriotic. By all accounts they were the best men in the communityâ€”they carefully excluded the violent element from their counsels and their action.
These men were inspired by the kind of high devotion that has frequently made heroes.
[NN: This is actually a very important admission by Collier’s Magazine — the nobility of the motive and intent of these men. I mean that it was not risk-free to break into a state prison and take out the most famous prisoner in the state, the most famous prisoner in the United States of America, and hang him from a tree. Every one of these men could have been arrested himself for murder and conspiracy to murder, and so forth. Technically, legally, in one sense you could say they had no right to do what they did, although they felt that the law had been broken by NOT hanging him since five levels of the court system had confirmed the guilty verdict and the death sentence.
So they felt they were obeying the higher laws of God.
And Collier’s Magazine was confirming that these were very good men. Â In fact, they had not brought in for the lynching any psychopaths, “white trash” or drunks. It was just the best people in the community who did this. They were careful whom they had involved in the planning and carrying-out of this action.
And that is what Collier’s admits — a very important admission, and it contradicts what the others were saying who were blasting the people of Georgia, claiming they were guilty of murder and should be hanged themselves….. shame, disgrace , and all this stuff.Â
So Collier’s is, maybe as a clever form of propaganda, at first admitting this and saying “We must understand that at least their motives were good….” to sort-of increase the credibility of Collier’s… so they are not seen as “bashing all Southerners.”Â Â
I mean, after all, everyone agreed, north and south, that the rape and murder of a pure, hard-working little girl was a horrendous, heinous crime, and of course people were angry and wanted to find the guilty party. Of course people wanted to HANG the guilty party. Â
So Collier’s maybe had this as their strategy. And that it was perhaps just PR strategy is indicated by what follows. So after saying what we saw in the last sentence, namely “These men were inspired by the kind of high devotion that has frequently made heroes,” now they switch it around.
Back to Watson, quoting again Collier’s….
Of course they were utterly wrong, but the place for the blame, as we see it, is not on the individuals who did the act, but the state of ignorance which made it possible for these individuals to think their act was good.
It is not a time for self-righteousness. It is not a time to cry out against anyone. Georgia is not a neighbor; she is a part of us. It is time for searching of hearts. It is a time for all of us to enlarge our hearts by being charitable.
Collier’s may very well feel like “forgiving” us: whether we can forgive Collier’s, is another question. It lent itselfâ€”if “lent” is the right word â€” to a most unscrupulous falsification of the official record, and is largely responsible for the tragedy of a fugitive governor, an informal enforcement of a formal death-sentence on Leo Frank, and such other tragedies as may attend John M. Slaton’s return to Georgia.
[NN: Watson is clearly implying that Slaton himself would be lynched if he came back to the state.
Slaton hanged in effigy over a sign “John M. Slaton, King of Jews”
And of course Watson was writing this just two months after the lynching, and four months after Slaton had fled the state upon commuting the murderer’s sentence from death to life imprisonment. And in fact Slaton spent many years away from Georgia, his native state, before he finally returned.]
Conclusion (part 3 of 3):
…..Contact and support
John de Nugent
306 S. Steel Street
Ontanagon MI 49953
+1 (906)Â 884-6689 😉
Skype: John de Nugent (Ontonagon)
Need secrecy? Then start a Hushmail.com
or safe_mail.net account andÂ then send me @yahoo.com
your new secret email address.
Â Â Facebook: John D. Nugent (2,438 friends)
(deleted after Zuckerberg-Merkel agreement)
Twitter at John de Nugent @johndenugentESA
â€¦How to donate & recent donors
Financial transaction certified by Stripe.com and SSL certificate. Pls donate $5 or more. Thank you!
I KNOW A FANTASTIC PRO-DISSIDENT WEBMASTER & WEBHOST IF YOU NEED ONE AND CAN PAY A REASONABLE $100/MONTH â€” BACKUPS; ANTIVIRUS; FAST PAGE OPENING; SEARCH ENGINE RANKING; YOU NAME IT. Write me if interested.
This log is to confirm to those who send me useful items â€“cash, valuable coins, checks, money orders, books or other gifts â€” that I did receive them.
If you sent a donation and I did not get it, please let me know at the email addressÂ firstname.lastname@example.org, at email@example.com, or by calling me at (906) 884-6689, or writing me (see below) on Skype or Facebook!
winter (Marine EGA â€“ eagle,globe & anchor â€“ in the window)
I had to take this springtime pic before I cut the lawn. 😉
2 MILLION hits on Google
â€“checks to â€œJohn de Nugentâ€
â€“cash in a greeting card (or aluminum foil)
â€”US postal money order (or Canadian postal money order in US dollars)
even with a fake return address (no risk there!)
IF YOU SEND CASH OR COINS, WRAP THEM IN ALUMINUM FOIL!
â€”Amazon gift card
Send an Amazon gift card by email to firstname.lastname@example.org
First, go to Amazon.com (not Amazon.co.uk or Amazon.fr or any other Amazon site)
Then click on â€œGift Cardâ€ on the top of the page, followed by a click on â€œEmailâ€ at the â€œWays to Sendâ€ menu.
Finally, choose a card and amount. Thatâ€™s it!
I and Margi since 2005
Many supporters have contacted me asking if there is a quicker and easier way to donate to my work.Â The good news is, yes there is.
If you already have a Paypal account, you can get a PayPal reload card, and then send me by email or phone call the numbers off the back and amount.
(Ask me then for the proper email address for Paypal â€” they banned me Â â€” and Andrew Anglin and others â€”Â BUT I have several friends with PPâ€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.. 😉 )
Or get a PayPal account yourself and send funds that way. Rather than filling out forms and re-inputting your card details over and over again, you can donate simply by providing your email and password.
Yes, it really is that simple.Â The solution is to set up a personal PayPal account.Â You will only have to input your details once and then attach your credit/debit card to your account. Â When making a donation in the future, you only need your email and password and it is all done automatically.
Itâ€™s quick, easy and hassle-free â€“ no more filling out endless forms.Â Please set up a personal PayPal account here:
Once your account is set up, please go to the â€œWalletâ€ section and add your credit/debit card and then enjoy the ease and speed of contributing to my Solutrean work in the future.
Â â€“sending valuable jewelry or gold coins
I need your financial help to WRITE MY SACRED ARYAN SCRIPTURE FOR US AND OUR TIMES. Others have been making big sacrifices. How about you?
What is my religion based on?
â€“April 10, 2016 cash from K in Massachusetts
â€“April 3, 2016 cash from Minnesota