Steve Oney, Journalist-Author of 'And the Dead Shall Rise, The Murder of Mary Phagan and Lynching of Leo Frank' (2003)(PID:7253853374) Source
posted by Leo Frank alias Leo Max Frank on Wednesday 23rd of May 2012 05:18:03 AM
And The Dead Shall Rise: The Murder of Mary Phagan and the Lynching of Leo Frank (742 pages) by Steve Oney, published in 2003, through Pantheon Books in New York. Available at www.Amazon.com and other major online bookstores. Background Information on Steve Oney Steve Oney is a journalist-author who was born in metro Atlanta, Georgia, in 1954, and currently resides in the Hollywood Hills section of Los Angeles, California. Oney was raised and educated in Georgia during his most formative years. He graduated from Peachtree High School (Varsity football, basketball, and baseball) in Dunwoody, GA (1972). According to Dr. Sherrie Whaley (2004), “Oney was educated at the University of Georgia, Grady College [and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in Journalism, with a minor in English], 1979, and a Harvard Nieman Fellow, 1982. After brief tours as a reporter for The Greenville (S.C.) News and The Anderson (S.C.) Independent, he worked for many years as a staff writer for Atlanta Weekly, the Sunday magazine of The Atlanta Journal & Atlanta Constitution.” Not exclusive to the East Coast, his wide range of journalistic experience on the ground stretches to California where he moved in the 1980s, “Steve Oney was a senior editor at Los Angeles magazine (Forward, May Issue, 2009). Oney has contributed to “Playboy, GQ, Premiere, Esquire, New York Times” (Welcome Steve Oney, Journalism Department Professional in Residence, Nov. 1 through 5, October, 2004). Steve Oney is happily married to a Jewish woman (Jewish Journal, February 5, 2004) named Madeline Stuart, an interior decorator and fashion designer. Together the creative couple raise their beloved dog named Beatrice, a professional Jack Russell terrier. Within his 700 plus page "magnum opus" about the Leo Frank case, what Steve Oney shamelessly failed to inform the reader, is who ultimately solved the Mary Phagan murder mystery in 1913! Spoiler Alert: Leo Frank made an admission during the final week of his 29-day trial that amounted to a murder confession. On Monday morning April 28, 1913, Leo Frank was taken down to the Atlanta Police Station, for routine questioning during the critical first 48 hours of the Mary Phagan murder investigation. In an interrogation room, Leo Frank was flanked by his two elite Lawyers, Luther Zeigler Rosser and Herbert Haas, and encompassed by a team of police, staff and detectives. Leo Frank made a deposition concerning his whereabouts during Confederate Memorial Day, Saturday, April 26, 1913, and about his "brief" encounter with Mary Phagan at minutes after highnoon. Leo Frank's statement was stenographed by a cleanly shaved (Steve Oney is incorrect he is not Mustachioed) government magistrate, named Mr. G. C. Febuary, and the statement became part of the official record at the Leo Frank trial, registered as State's Exhibit B (Leo Frank Trial Brief of Evidence, 1913). Leo Frank specifically said Mary Phagan entered his 2nd floor office on Saturday, April 26, 1913, between "12:05 pm and 12:10 pm, maybe 12:07 pm". The Monday morning, April 28, 1913 interrogation went like this (Atlanta Constitution, August 2nd, 1913): Q. What is your position with the company? A. I am general superintendent and director of the company. Q: How long have you held that position? A: In Atlanta I have held that position since August 10th, 1908, My place of business is at 37-41 South Forsyth Street. Q: About how many employees have you there? A: About 107 in that plant? Q: Male or female? A: Mixed. I guess there are a few more girls than boys. Q: On Saturday, April 26, I will get you to state if that was a holiday with your company? A: Yes, sir, it was a holiday. The factory was shut down. Several People in Building. Q: Who was in that building during the day? A: Well, there were several people who come in during the morning? Q: Was anyone in the office with you up, to noon? A: Yes, sir, the office boy [Alonzo Mann] and a stenographer. Q: What time did they leave? A: About 12 or a little after. Q: Have you a day watchman there? A: Yes, Sir. Q: Was he on duty at 12 o'clock? A: No, sir, he left shortly before. Q: Who came in after the stenographer and the office boy left? A: This little girl. Mary Phagan, but at the time I didn't know that was her name. She came in between 12:05 and 12:10, maybe 12:07, to get her pay envelope, her salary. Frank Pays Mary Phagan: Q: You paid her? A: Yes, sir, and she went out of the office. Q: What office was you in at that time? A: In the inner office at my desk, the furtherest office to the left from the main office. Q: Could you see the direction she went in when she left? A: My impression was she just walked awayl I didn't pay any particular attention. Q: Do you keep the door locked downstairs? A: I didn't that morning, because the mail was coming in. I locked it at 1:10 p.m. when I went to dinner. Q: Was anyone else in that building? A: Yes, sir, Arthur White and Harry Denham, They were working on machinery, doing repair work, working on the top floor of the building, which is the fourth floor, toward the rear, or about the middle of the building, but a little more to the rear. Q: What kind of work were they doing? A: They were tightening up the belts; they are not machinists, one is a foreman in one department and the other is an assistant in another, and Denham was just assisting White, and Mrs. White, the wife of Arthur White, was also in the building. She left about 1 o'clock. I went up there and told them I was going to dinner, and they had to get out and they said they had not finished, and I said, "how long will it take?" and they said until some time in the afternoon, and then I said, "Mrs. White, you will have to go, for I am going to lock these boys in here. " Door was Locked: Q: Can anyone from the inside open those doors? A: They can open the outside door, but not the inside door, which I locked. Q: In going in the outside door, is there any way by which anyone could go in the basement from the front? A: Yes sir, through the trap door. Q: They would not necessarily have to go up the steps? A: No, sir, they couldn't get up there if I was out. Q: You locked the outer door? A: Yes, sir, and I locked the inner door. Q: What time did you get back? A: At 3 o'clock, maybe two or three minutes before, and I went to the office and took off my coat and then went upstairs to tell those boys I was back, and I couldn't find them at first, they were back in the dipping room, in the rear, and I said, Are you ready? and they said, We are just read, and I said, all right, ring out when you go down, to let me know when you go out, and they rang out, and Arthur White come in the office and said, Mr. Frank, loan me $2, and I said, What's the matter? We just paid off, and he said, My wife robbed me, and I gave him $2 and he walked away, and the two of them walked out. Newt Lee Arrives. Q: And you locked the doors behind them? A: I locked the outer door, when I am in there, there is no need of locking the inner door. There was only one person I was looking for to come in, and that was the nightwatchman. Q: What time did he get there? A: I saw him twenty minutes to 4 [3:40 p.m] Q: Had you previously arranged for him to get there? A: Yes, sir. On Friday night I told him, after he got his money, I gave him the keys and said you had better come around early tomorrow, because I may go to the ball game, and he came early because of that fact. I told him to be there by 4 o'clock and he came 20 minutes to 4. I figured I would leave about 1, and would not come back, but it was so cold I didn't want to risk catching cold, and I came back to the factory as I usually do. He came in, and he said, Yes, sir, and he had a bag of bananas with him, and he offered me a banana. I didn't see them, but he offered me one, and I guess he had them. We have told him, once he gets in that building never to go out. I told him he could go out, he got there so early, and I was going to be there. He came back about four minutes to 6, the reason I know that, I was putting the clock slips in, an the clock was right in front of me. I said, I will be reading in a minute, and he went downstairs and I came to the office and put on my coat and hat, and followed him and went out. Saw Newt and Gantt Talking Q: Did you see anybody with him as you went out? A: Yes, sir; talking to him was J.M. Gantt - a man I had fired about two weeks previous. Q: Did you have any talk with Gantt? A: Newt told me he wanted to go up to get a pair of shoes he left while he was working there, and Gantt said to me, Newt dont want me to go up, and he said you can go with me, Mr. Frank, and I said, that's all right, go with him Newt and I went on home and I got home about 6:25 p.m. Q: Is there anything else that happened that afternoon? A: No, sir, thats all I know. Q: You dont know what time Gantt came down after he went up? A: Oh, no, I saw him go in and I locked the door after him, but I didn't try them. Q: Did you ask Newt? A: Yes, sir, I telephoned him. I tried to telephone him when I got home. He punches the clock at half hour intervals, and the clock and the phone is in the office and didn't get an answer, and at 7 o'clock I called him and asked him if Gantt got his shoes, and he said yes, he got them and I said is everything all right, and he said yes, and the next thing I know they called me at 7:30 a.m. the next morning. Did Lee Let People In? Q: Do you know whether your watchman at any time has been in the habit of letting people in there any time? A: No, sir. Q: did you ever have any trouble with any watchman about such as that? A: No, sir. Q: Do you know whether any of your employees go there at night? A: Yes sir, Gantt did when he was working there, he had a key and sometimes he would have some work left over. I never have seen him go but untill I go out, I go out and come back, but he has come back before I left, but that is part of his duty. Q: Did you take a bath yesterday or Saturday night? A: Yes, sir. Saturday night at home. Q: Did you change your clothes? A: Yes sir. Q: The clothes that you changed are at home? A: Yes sir, and this is the suit of clothes I was wearing Saturday. After I left the shop I went to Jacobs Pharmacy and bought a box of candy for my wife and got home about 6:25. Leo Frank would maintain the murder-alibi for 3.5 months that he never left his office on April 26, 1913, between twelve noon and 12:45 pm. However, Leo Frank's timeline alibi would dramatically change at his trial (July 28 to August 21, 1913) on August 18, 1913, when he mounted the witness stand. At the trial of Leo Frank accused of murdering Mary Phagan, a young 14-year old girl named Monteen Stover, who formerly worked at the National Pencil Company, testified she went there to collect her pay envelope inside Leo Frank's office on Saturday, April 26, 1913, at 12:05 p.m. and found Leo Frank's office completely empty. Monteen Stover described waiting inside the office for five minutes until 12:10 pm and then left, because she thought the factory might have been deserted. If Monteen Stover was telling the truth, she had inadvertently broken Leo Frank's alibi concerning his whereabouts on that fateful day. What was ironic about Monteen Stover is that she was a positive character defense witness for Leo Frank, unlike 19 of his other employees and associates whose testimony suggested Leo Frank was a lecherous, licentious, lascivious and libertine boss. Leo Frank specifically answered on August 18, 1913, why Monteen Stover found his office empty on Saturday, April 26, 1913, between 12:05pm and 12:10pm, and in doing so, Leo Frank solved the Mary Phagan murder mystery. Three weeks into the trial on August 18, 1913, Leo Frank mounted the witness stand at 2:15 pm to make an unsworn courtroom speech to the Judge and Jury on the record. During Leo Frank's 4-hour trial statement, he refused to be examined or cross examined by defense and prosecution counselors, but he answered the question everyone wanted to know, by directly responding to the testimony of Monteen Stover about why his office was empty on April 26, 1913, between 12:05 pm and 12:10 pm. Leo Frank contradicted his earlier statement to the police and explained this five minute absence with a newfangled admission saying he might have "unconsciously" gone to the bathroom in the Metal Room! Leo Frank Seated Firmly In The Witness Stand Looking the Jury Foreman in the Eyes and Declared to everyone in the courtroom: Now gentlemen [of the jury], to the best of my recollection from the time the whistle blew for twelve o’clock [high noon on Georgia Confederate Memorial Day, Saturday, April 26, 1913] until after a quarter to one [o'clock (12:46 p.m.)] when I went up stairs [two flights] and spoke to Arthur White and Harry Denham [at the rear of the fourth floor], to the best of my recollection, I did not stir out of my [inner] office [located at the front of the second floor]; but it is possible that in order to answer a call of nature or to urinate I may have gone to the [metal room] toilet [located at the rear N.E. corner of the second floor]. Those are things that a man does unconsciously and can not tell how many times nor when he does it. Now, sitting in my [inner] office at my desk [located at the front of the second floor], it is impossible for me to see out into the outer hall [and anteroom of my business office] when the [4.5 foot tall] safe door is open, as it was that morning [on Confederate Memorial Day, Saturday, April 26, 1913], and not only is it impossible for me to see out [of my inner office into the anteroom], but it is impossible for people [in the anteroom of my office] to see in and see me there [in my inner office]. (Source: Leo Frank Trial Brief of Evidence, 1913, p. 186) Face Palm! Doh! It was an unexpectedly astonishing, jaw dropping, and spine-tingling new admission by Leo M. Frank that left everyone in courtroom gobsmacked, because there was only one set of toilets that existed on the second floor according to prosecution and defense diagrams of the building, and they were located inside the metal room - the very place the State of Georgia's prosecution attorneys built their entire case was actually the initial location of the murder, that is before Mary Phagan's lifeless corpse was removed to the basement in order to conceal the real crime scene and cover-up the crime. Leo Frank not only put himself in the metal room where all the forensic evidence suggested Mary Phagan had been originally murdered (Magnolia Kennedy found blood spatter on the floor near the entry way to the mens toilet and another employee RP Barret found blood soaked hair twisted around the crank handle of his lathe), but he (Frank) put himself in the very precise location that Jim Conley testified he had initially found the dead body of Mary Phagan (see: trial testimony and affidavits of Jim Conley in the Leo Frank Trial Brief of Evidence, 1913). The newfangled explanation delivered by Leo Frank on August 18, 1913, at 2:45 pm to the judge, jury and speechless spectators was considered by his skeptical detractors as the equivalent of a murder confession, because the State's prosecution team spent the entire duration of the four week long trial building a chain of evidence proving that Leo Frank murdered Mary Phagan in the metal room on April 26, 1913, between 12:05 pm and 12:10 pm. It was a slam dunk for the district attorney Hugh M. Dorsey and his co-counsel, the dapper attorney Frank Arthur Hooper. The metal room was down the hall some 150 feet from Leo Frank's office, and the place Mary Phagan had toiled for more than a year at a wage of 7 and 4/11th cents an hour (She typically earned $4.05 per week for 55 hours of labor). The metal room was where Leo Frank went to use the men's toilet each and everyday, as he worked down the hall in his second floor office at the front section of the National Pencil Company. Based on the diagrams, Defendant's Exhibit 61, and State's Exhibit A, it was clear that when Leo Frank went to the bathroom each day, between the years time during the Spring of 1912 and 1913 that Mary Phagan was employed full-time, he had to immediately pass by her work station within a matter of a few feet, but Frank still unbelievably repeated his claim again to all the listening ears at his the trial about not knowing Mary Phagan's name (recall that he had first denied knowing her name upon contact with Atlanta PD at the Selig residence on Sunday morning, April 27, 1913), and it became an incriminating point of contention against him given the evidence that was unfolding. James "Jim" Conley Discovers Little Mary's Lifeless Remains At the trial Jim Conley reported that he discovered the dead body of Phagan in the machine department (known colloquially as the metal room by employees) in the bathroom area at the behest of Leo Frank. Conley stated that Leo Frank asked him to move the cadaver of Mary Phagan to the basement furnace staging ground in the rear corner where garbage was normally placed before being incinerated. Leo Frank told Jim Conley to "Burn that Package" In the fallout of Jim Conley fearfully refusing to complete the last stage of the murder cover-up job by stuffing the dead little girl into the gapping maw of the roaring oversized furnace (and thereby incinerating the primary incriminating evidence via cremation), Conley instead agreed to ghost write in his own semi-literate negro dialect, the "death notes", intended for pinning the bludgeoning, rape and strangulation of Mary Phagan on a 6'3" tall, dark complected, slim and old Negro named Newton "Newt" Lee, the factory's newly hired nightwatchman (colloquially known as the nightwatch), who had been hired in early April, 1913, he functioned as the NPCo's factory graveyard shift security guard and firelookout. In faded blue bibbed overalls and with a smoky lantern in his hand dangling from his long lanky arms, Lee's job was to clatter and clamber, respectively, up and down the stairs of the factory, stopping at each level, to pace slowly across the perimeter of the floors of the pitch black four story building that currently served as the National Pencil Company, formerly years prior the Old Venable Hotel, and prior to that for short time the Granite Hotel. The NPCo was located prior to it being demolished in the 1950s on 37-41 South Forsyth Street, its imposing size was some 200 feet deep and 40 feet wide, with high ceilings. The beanstalk, middle aged Negro with a little pot belly, had his work cut out for him as he shoe shuffled until his shift ended at half-passed 6:00 o'clock a.m. Lee's Mandate was to ensure the proper safeguarding of the factory's expensive manufacturing equipment (burglary was not uncommon in downtown Atlanta's industrial sector) and keep an eye out for any fires (the entire interior of the building was made of an old dark hardwood frame and brown oily floor boards, all fitting snuggly within the granite fascade and brickwall exterior making up the side and back of the building). In Leo Frank's racist anti-Gentile subplot , Old Newt Lee appeared to be the perfect patsy, he had recently employed at the factory for less than 3-weeks before the murder of Phagan and therefore no one really knew much about him. The contrived "death notes" that had been found by police next to the dead body of Mary Phagan just before 4:00 o'clock a.m. on April 27, 1913, describe her going to "make water" (urinate), in the only place she would have gone to peepee, which was the women's toilet in the metal room bathroom area, near her workstation in the section called the tipping department. There was no bathroom accessible on the first floor lobby of the building and the "Earthen Closet" at the rear section of the dark eerie basement was racially segregated for "Negroes Only". Forensic Evidence in the Metal Room Discovered: On Monday morning, April 28, 1913, a factory employee named Robert P. Barret discovered a blood-dried tress of hair tangled and dangling on the handle of his lathe in the metal room, and moments later a 5" inch wide fan shaped blood stain on the floor of the metal room in front of the girls dressing room next to the bathroom. Barret testified about the forensic evidence he found and it pointed to the same conclusion about the metal room being the scene of a heinous crime of violence and a very poor clean-up job. All of the evidence presented by the prosecution at the trial kept pointing to the metal room as the real scene of the crime. Leo Frank pitched a Grand-slam to the Prosecution during the last inning of the trial. Jim Conley saying he found Mary Phagan dead within the metalroom's bathroom at the behest of Leo Frank and Leo Frank telling the jury he might have "unconsciously" gone to the bathroom in the metal room at the same time he originally told the police that Mary Phagan was in his office (see: State's Exhibit B, Leo Frank Trial Brief of Evidence 1913), which was at the exact same time Monteen Stover testified Leo Frank's office was empty (see: trial testimony of Monteen Stover), resulted in everything coming together at the murder trial in absolute perfection and harmony. Leo Frank entrapped himself beyond escape during the final week of his trial, seated at the witness stand on August 18, 1913, at 2:45 pm. This is the big secret of this famous affair that has been suppressed for more than 100 years. In the 21st century, everybody who has come to the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that Leo Frank is guilty is asking the curious question, how many times in the annals of United States legal history, has the indicted, made a brand spanking new, never-before-made, admission on the witness stand at their own murder trial that almost amounted to an unmistakeable murder confession? At least this is one of the rhetorical questions that comes to minds for students of this true crime legal drama, when one ponders their final conclusions about how all the evidence, testimony and exhibits cross reference amongst each other. To be fair though, despite the intention of the rhetorical question to inspire dialogue and debate, a full confession requires a no holding back, open admission of ones guilt, something contrary to Leo Frank's adamant position that he was innocent and knew nothing about the death of Mary Phagan. March 9th, 1914, Another moment of openness, truth and clarity about the hotly contested innocence or guilt of the most famous convict in early 20th century American jurisprudence: Leo Frank's Authorized Q&A Jailhouse Interview, Published by the Most Widely Read Atlanta Newspaper in Georgia. Leo Frank's August 18, 1913, hand-written and orally delivered statement concerning his "unconscious" bathroom visit to use the toilet or urinate, was something everyone in Atlanta Georgia wanted clarified as to why his business office was empty between 12:05pm and 12:10pm, when Monteen Stover came looking for Mr. Frank to collect her weekly wages. During March 1914, while still in the midst of multiple appeals wending their way through the State Appelate System of the Fulton County Superior Court System and Georgia Supreme Court, an incredible opportunity presented itself to Leo Frank concerning shedding light on that fateful day, April 26th, 1913, some 10 months prior to March 9th, 1914. The people of Georgia had 17 curious questions for Leo Frank that they wanted articulated for more specific clarity and understanding, and that is exactly what they got during a very elucidating examination by a seasoned Atlanta Constitution journalist. The Atlanta Constitution was given permission by Mr. Frank with the approval of his high powered legal dream team to allow him the chance to be quizzed and have the answers shared with everyone in the Antebellum South. The most significant questions on the mind's of Georgian citizens who closely followed the Mary Phagan case in the three daily Atlanta newspapers during the summer of 1913, wanted more specific details about inconsistencies or curious circumstances that presented themselves during the trial. If there are even the most remote doubts about Leo Frank's newfangled trial admission on August 18, 1913 - essentially solving the murder of Mary Phagan - consider reading the actual original March 9, 1914, Atlanta Constitution publishing the earth-shattering authorized jailhouse interview of Leo Frank, where he re-confirms his trial testimony about a metal room bathroom visit, specifically responding to Monteen Stover's testimony about his business office being empty between 12:05 p.m. and 12:10 p.m. on Saturday, April 26, 1913. What is the best approach to determine which of the two primary suspects, between Leo Frank and Jim Conley, has the higher probability of being guilty, concerning who murdered Mary Phagan? The answer can be determined beyond a reasonable doubt and with a very high degree of certainty by comparing and cross-referencing the complete legal documents archive of the official Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court Appellate Records (containing the unabridged Leo Frank Trial Brief of Evidence, 1913), with the 1913, Atlanta newspaper report coverage developments of the Frank-Phagan affair investigation. The Leo Frank trial brief of evidence is the final arbiter concerning the conclusion. Newspaper Wars The Atlanta Constitution, Atlanta Georgian and Atlanta Journal were the three most prominent press organs in the state of Georgia, with their highest readership and dominance in the capital. Despite also having many newspaper rivals outside Atlanta, there was intense competition for acquiring advertising dollars. The three top sheets had all shared together in a sense something very special, the possession of a virtual oligopoly over the flow of news and entertainment in Georgia, especially Atlanta the vibrant heart of the new South. Frank-Phagan Affair Coverage The newspaper wars in Atlanta had gained a feverish vitality beginning on Monday, April 28, 1913, as word of mouth about what had happened to a 13-year-old child laborer spread like wildfire across the capital. The slow trickle of forensic evidence discoveries, fact developments and incidents determined to be major breakthroughs concerning the new Mary Phagan's murder mystery, peaked the curiosity of Georgians with great interest. The three Atlanta dailies embraced the great interest of the Phagan case by producing enticing articles published almost daily that keep readers buying papers religiously. Between the four month time period between late April all the way through to the end of August 1913, articles were produced with enticing details and published almost day by day, to keep readers feverishly buying papers. The careful study of these highly competitive Atlanta newspapers during the 120 day periods, with lucid clarity, began to show the callous machinations of Leo Frank's well funded co-religionists who through their collective financial and spiritual support behind Leo Frank, especially because he was president of Atlanta B'nai B'rith and married into a prominent Jewish family. Major Events The three Atlanta daily newspapers covered every major development of the Mary Phagan case starting with the early investigation into the murder mystery, arrest and interrogation of suspects, the establishment of evidence and new intriguing discoveries would continue to be published, causing newspapers to sell like hotcakes. Breakthroughs about behind the scenes efforts transformed the case into a multipart serial. When the papers started publishing transcriptions of the official coroner's inquest, a human face and dimension began to arise as witnesses testified under oath and revealed some curious testimony and evidence. The curiosity amongst the populace ignited into a roaring inferno, when the Atlanta Constitution leaked a report about former factory employee, Monteen Stover, who alleged she discovered Leo Frank's office to be completely empty between 12:05pm and 12:10pm on Confederate Memorial Day Saturday, April 26, 1913, this was considered a major milestone in the Phagan investigation and became breaking news for the great multitudes that were following the case developments closely because the police were already in possession of an unsworn deposition by Leo Frank stating he was all alone with Mary Phagan in his office during this exact same time. Both, Chief of Police, Newport A. Lanford and Stone Mountain District Attorney Hugh Dorsey, pondering the significance of the connection, believed they had found a major inconsistency, thus potentially putting into question Leo Frank's alibi and credibility for telling the truth. This new contentious evidence, had established a turning point in the inquiry into the circumstances surrounding Phagan's death, it would trigger deep curiosity and anticipation concerning how Leo Frank would adequately explain it. Countless folks would develop an insatiable gnawing hunger of anticipation wondering how Leo Frank would provide a meaningful answer to such an important question. The audience present at open court in the Fulton County Superior Court would get one of the most subtle but forthright answers while Leo Frank had been seated on the witness stand. The answer would be one that forever changed form of a retort during the afternoon court session on Monday, August 18, 1913 and then surprisingly again on March 9th, 1914, when they would the same answer but with more A great multitude of people in Georgia were pursuing the latest case updates with much fanfare. Many of those who were of above average intelligence, trying to piece together the puzzle, discussed the threads of significance between all the newspaper reports. The Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith and the 1986 Posthumous Pardon of Leo Frank: Since 1913, ADL has been on the forefront of subverting gentiles with ever more twisted forms anti-Gentile racism and bigotry. The most ugly blood libel they have been promoting Read between the lines of appeasement concerning the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) sponsored Leo M. Frank posthumous pardon - without exoneration - issued on March 11, 1986. The Cunning Tabloid Journalist: Revisionist journalist-author Steve Oney, weaves together a fantastic collage of unsubstantiated Leo Frank hoaxes throughout his entire book, 'and the dead shall rise' (2003), as part of his shameless efforts to re-write history, exonerate Leo Frank of the Mary Phagan murder, and ultimately rehabilitate the image of Leo Frank from a perverted and violent pedophile, rapist and strangler, toward a more kinder and gentler mythological stoic-martyr who was unjustly scapegoated in a vast conspiracy. By cherry picking and misrepresenting enough parts of the case, the subtext of Oney's book is that an innocent and well educated Ivy-League Jew named Leo Frank was ensnared by the real culprit, a semi-literate and drunken stumble bum, the African-American factory sweeper Jim Conley. Oney downplays the fact that Leo Frank and Jim Conley had a personal relationship that was a bit too close for comfort. Leo Frank would often goose and jolly with James "Jim" Conley at the factory. Leo Frank also managed Jim's contracts as Conley had a side business selling watches at the NPCo factory and even ripped off Mr. Arthur Pride who testified about it at the trial. In September 10, 1912, even though Jim Conley served a one month sentence for drunken disorderly behavior, Leo Frank took him back at the National Pencil Company in mid October. Leo Frank knew for a fact Jim Conley could write, but kept this information in confidence until it was too late. Leo Frank never said a single word about Conley to the police, during the early days of the Mary Phagan murder investigation. Even though the "death notes" were clearly written in Ebonics, and their were only 8 African-American employees out of 170 employees in total working at the National Pencil Company factory. Jim Conley worked at the National Pencil Company in various capacities for 2 years and had even done some written inventory work for Leo Frank. Steve Oney never answers why Leo Frank knowingly refused to tell the police Jim Conley could write. What Steve Oney fails to elaborate fully for the reader is Leo Frank's racist subplot of the bludgeoning, rape and strangulation of Mary Phagan, an attempt to pin it on the African-American Nightwatchman Newton "Newt" Lee. Lee was ordered by Leo Frank on Friday, April 25, to arrive at work an hour early, 4:00 pm for that infamous day, so Leo Frank could go to the ballgame with his brother-in-law Mr. Ursenbach. Oney points out in his book that weeks after Leo Frank and Jim Conley were arrested, the police arranged for them to confront each other face to face over the murder, Jim agreed, but Leo refused. Oney never answers the question why an "innocent" White man would refuse to confront an African-American man accusing him of strangling a 13-year old white girl, in the context of a White racial separatist south of 1913, where the word of a negro would never be taken over the word of a white man. Though Steve Oney claims he spent 17 years of his life traveling the country to research and write this colorful and thesaurus-enriched book, his analysis is mostly shallow and myopic at best. Steve Oney in this adventure tends to wear horse blinders and drives with the emergency brakes on during his epic 700+ page journey, and as a result, he does not plumb the depths of the case, or soar above it's centenarian heights like a lucid, and dispassionate researcher, looking back on the case 9 decades later, with new lucid and penetrating eyes. Oney never explores any of the permutations or possible real solutions to the crime making his book a complete waste of time. Oney never answers the myriad of "Whys" either, leaving the reader truly frustrated, unsatisfied and unfulfilled. No real modern forensic analysis is applied to this case by Oney despite the hundreds of pages surviving into the 21st century with crime scene and autopsy descriptions by police, detectives, undertakers and physicians, respectively, turning this book into nothing more than a long winded journalists diatribe that is lost in a labyrinth of Leo Frank partisanship. As a tabloid style journalist-author, who should be writing for the 'National Enquirer', Steve Oney fills his book with every erroneous "fact" and fabricated piece of "evidence" on behalf of Leo Frank's defense, regardless of whether or not the inclusions stand up to even minimal scrutiny. One of the biggest frauds Steve Oney perpetuates within his book like many other Leo Frank partisan authors, was originally fabricated by the tabloid-style journalist Pierre van Paassen in his book, 'To Number Our Days', published in 1964. In this 404 page work, Pierre van Paassen, spends less than 2 pages (p. 237-8) recalling 42 years earlier an incident that happened in 1922, at a time when he was in Atlanta, Georgia, working as a journalist for the Atlanta Constitution, and investigating the Leo Frank Case. 'To Number Our Days', by Pierre van Paassen, Chapter: Short Stand in Dixieland, Page 237, Line 27: "The Jewish community of Atlanta at that time seemed to live under a cloud. Several years previously one of its members, Leo Frank, had been lynched as he was being transferred from the Fulton Tower Prison in Atlanta to Milledgeville for trial on a charge of having raped and murdered a little girl in his warehouse which stood right opposite the Constitution building. Many Jewish citizens who recalled the lynching were unanimous in assuring me that Frank was innocent of the crime. I took reading all the evidence pro and con in the record department at the courthouse. Before long I came upon an envelope containing a sheaf of papers and a number of X-ray photographs showing teeth indentures. The murdered girl had been bitten on the left shoulder and neck before being strangled. But the X-ray photos of the teeth marks on her To Number Our Days, Page 238 body did not correspond with Leo Frank's set of teeth of which several photos were included. If those photos had been published at the time of the murder, as they should have been, the lynching would probably not have taken place. Though, as I said, the man died several years before, it was too late, I thought, to rehabilitate his memory and perhaps restore the good name of his family. I showed Clark Howell the evidence establishing Frank's innocence and asked permission to run a series of articles dealing with the case and especially with the evidence just uncovered. Mr. Howell immediately concurred, but the most prominent Jewish lawyer in the city, Mr. Harry Alexander, whom I consulted with a view to have him present the evidence to the grand jury, demurred. He said Frank had not even been tried. Hence no new trial could be requested. Moreover, the Jewish community in its entirety still felt nervous about the incident. If I wrote the articles old resentments might be stirred up and, who knows some of the unknown lynchers might recognize themselves as participants in my description of the lynching. It was better, Mr. Alexander thought, to leave sleeping lions alone. Some local rabbis were drawn into the discussion and they actually pleaded with Clark Howell to stop me from reviving interest in the Frank case as this was bound to have evil repercussions on the Jewish community. That someone had blabbed out of school became quite evident when I received a printed warning saying: "Lay off the Frank case if you want to keep healthy." The unsigned warning was reinforced one night, or rather, early one morning when I was driving home. A large automobile drove up alongside of me and forced me into the track of a fast-moving streetcar coming from the opposite direction. My car was demolished, but I escaped without a scratch.... " Source: To Number Our Days (1964), By Pierre van Paassen. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 64-13633. 404 Pages, see p. 237/8. A recollection about an event that happened more than 4 decades ago provides the first question concerning its veracity. Dental X-rays forensics where in their infancy in 1913, and never used in Georgia for any murder case until countless years after Leo Frank was hanged in Marietta, GA, and buried in Queens, NY, in 1915. Is it "Mr. Harry Alexander" or Henry Alexander? And why would the attorney who represented Leo Frank during his numerous appeals, say Leo Frank didn't have his murder trial yet? Leo Frank was not lynched on the way to Milledgeville for trial or prison in late June 1915, he was lynched 170 miles away in Marietta on August 17, 1915. Bite Marks on Mary Phagan's left shoulder and neck?! None of the numerous examinations or autopsies of Mary Phagan conducted by the undertaker, police, detectives and physicians reported in the official record and newspapers mention any bite marks on Mary Phagan's shoulder, neck or anywhere else on her body for that matter. This journalist claims an attempted murder was made on his life while he was driving his car and forced into a head on collision, his car was demolished, but he escaped without a scratch in 1922 when their were virtually no safety features in a car by modern standards. From beginning to end, Steve Oney's tome about the Leo Frank case is filled with shameless misrepresentations, fabrications, half-truths, omissions and sloppy research. Oney isn't fooling people who studied the Leo Frank case when he pretends to be neutral and unbiased in his book. The definitive book on the Leo Frank case has not been written yet, we are all still waiting for someone to write and publish it. Perhaps it's time for Steve Oney to re-read and carefully study the 1,800 page Georgia Supreme Court File on Leo M. Frank, and put out a new edition of his book without all the easily verified misrepresentations, fabrications, half-truths, omissions and sloppy research. If you found this review useful, please go to www.Amazon.com and purchase this book and verify the veracity of these claims. References of this review are contained within the Leo Frank trial brief of evidence, 1913: 1. Closing Arguments (American State Trials, Volume 10, 1918) 2. State's Exhibit B 3. Leo Frank trial statement, August 18, 1913 4. James Conley testimony, August 4, 5, 6 5. Monteen Stover trial testimony 6. Atlanta Constitution, March 9, 1914 7. Defendant Exhibit 61 8. State Exhibit A 7-19
License and Use
This Woman Within Catalog - steve-oney-journalist-author-of-and-the-dead-shall-rise-the-murder-of-mary-phagan-and-lynching-of-leo-frank-2003- on net.photos image has 575x720 pixels (original) and is uploaded to . The image size is 41632 byte. If you have a problem about intellectual property, child pornography or immature images with any of these pictures, please send report email to a webmaster at , to remove it from web.
Any questions about us or this searchengine simply use our contact form
- Published 08.13.22
- Resolution 575x720
- Image type jpg
- File Size 41632 byte.