On Saturday, 19 August, We Met On The Parking Lot Of The Library And Left At 6:30 A: Fill & Download for Free

This answer may contain sensitive images. Click on an image to unblur it.The Jewish ADL claims Leo Frank's 1913 trial for murder was motivated by anti-Semitism. What is the evidence for or against it?Testing the question to make sure it is legitimate:Before we take a deep dive into answering this very relevant request we should probably make sure the inquiry isn’t a loaded-question making a controversial assumption. The question “What is the evidence for or against it?” referring to the controversial postulation of anti-Semitism in the Leo Frank case, appears to be preceded by a presumptive statement, “The Jewish ADL (Anti-Defamation League) claims Leo Frank’s 1913 trial for murder was motivated by anti-Semitism. ” Let's start by first making sure there is evidence supporting the pronouncement that the ADL does, in fact, claim Leo Frank’s trial was motivated by anti-Semitism. We begin to check whether this is true or not by visiting the Mount Carmel Cemetery in NYC, where there is a granite monument right at the very entrance to the memorial park.We discover the Frank-Stern family plot is not far away, only a hop skip and a jump, but before we visit the grave of Leo Frank lets take a look more closely at the entrance where the ADL on their 90th anniversary placed a granite monument attempting to codify the allegation of anti-Semitism.Not so easy to read from the angle of the photograph, but at the top of the granite monument, we see the words: “On the Anti-Defamation League’s 90th anniversary, 1913–2003”. But what does the face of the monument say? Let us look at a different photo from a level and direct view.LEO FRANK: The trial of Leo Frank was motivated by rampant anti-Semitism at the time. The founding of the [Jewish] anti-Defamation League that same year was motivated by the passion to eradicate such injustice and bigotry. Despite his innocence[,] Frank was abducted from jail (sic) [a Penitentiary] in 1915 and lynching. ADL remembers the victim Leo Frank and rededicates itself to ensuring there will be no more victims of injustice and intolerance.The anti-Gentile monument is at Mount Carmel Cemetery (Queens) - Wikipedia.Ensuring there will be no more victims of injustice and intolerance—except for the racist accusations by Jewish academics and members of Jewish civil rights groups wrongfully accusing the African American Jim Conley, for a crime Leo Frank was duly convicted. These accusations as of 2021 have been ongoing for 107+ years.And, ensuring there will be no more victims of injustice and intolerance— except for Mary Phagan the victim, who can have no justice or rest in peace because Jewish supremacists continue to seek after the goal of having Leo Frank’s conviction set aside.And, ensuring there will be no more victims of injustice and intolerance— except for the Armenians. Abraham Foxman tried to lobby the U.S. Congress and Senate not to recognize the Armenian Genocide.And, ensuring there will be no more victims of injustice and intolerance— except for Muslims when they tried to open a peaceful and scholarly education center in downtown Manhattan. Abraham Foxman tried to lobby against them opening the center, a brief and sanitized explanation for it can be found on the ADL Wikipedia article.And, ensuring there will be no more victims of injustice and intolerance— except for Palestinians who are brutalized under the Israeli occupation, and ADL acts as an apologist for the expansionist pariah, claiming criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism.The Latest Attempts to Exonerate Leo Frank with the Anti-Semitism HoaxTheir first failed effort to get Leo Frank exonerated was in the 1980s, and they have renewed their effort on the 106th rape-murder anniversary of Little Mary Phagan on April 26, 2019, by creating a Georgia conviction integrity unit, inspired by the Leo Frank Case, with amounts to the expressed mission of falsifying history by stating Leo Frank’s trial was anti-Semitism and then giving that recommendation to a kangaroo activist judge in the region who will declare Leo Frank’s trial was not due process of the law. The final result will thereby nullify his August 25, 1913 conviction. Dale Schwartz after the 2018 rededication of the Leo Frank lynching marker in Marietta, described the thought process in detail of how they intend to do it.Related 1: Did Leo Frank kill Mary Phagan? 106 years later, we might finally find out for sure by Pro-Frank Journalist-Author Steve Oney. He promotes the Mary Phagan bitemark hoax in his propaganda book on the case.Related 2: Infamous Leo Frank trial, lynching to be reexamined by new Fulton County task force (Former Governor Roy Barnes promotes the Jewish supremacist hoax that is commonly promoted as an anti-Gentile hate crime hoax about mobs shouting anti-Semitic death threats at the trial jury every morning.)Related 3: Leo Frank Gets Second Look (This article also quotes the above-mentioned anti-Gentile hoax about mobs chanting anti-Semitic death threats at the jury).Related 4: Phagan Family’s Statement on the Latest Attempt to Exonerate Leo Frank - Little Mary PhaganFormer Governor of Georgia, Roy Barnes, has been caught on TV promoting a hate crime hoax. Researchers and scholars searched Leo Frank’s appeals records and the newspaper accounts of the trial, and there is no evidence that crowds of people were shouting anti-Semitic death threats at the jury every morning of the month-long trial. This is another anti-Gentile hate crime hoax being promoted about the case and perhaps good evidence for the future disbarment of racial hoaxers. A thorough explanation for this criminal behavior is found here Racial hoax - Wikipedia. The goal of promoting this anti-Gentile blood libel is to trick the Georgia C.I.U. into recommending Leo Frank’s conviction be nullified because the jury was terrorized into convicting him. Try to imagine what a grotesque and vile monster a person has to be to use hate crime hoaxes in order to vindicate a bona fide homicidal sodomite and serial rapist-pedophile.Background: B’nai B’rith is a Jewish secret society that founded the Jewish ADL which today, many people believe racketeers anti-Semitism regarding the Leo Frank case.The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (ADL) was founded late-September 1913, in 1987 (74 years later) they severed ties with B’nai B’rith International after they had gotten the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles to grant Leo Frank, a very odd and disappointing, “No-Pardon Pardon”, which did not officially exonerate Leo Frank of the Mary Phagan rape-murder. Apparently, ADL distanced themselves from the B’nai B’rith name because Leo Frank was Atlanta B’nai B’rith president (1912 - 1914) to obscure the connection and make it seem like their renewed mission to get Leo Frank exonerated was an unbiased civil rights goal, rather than what it really is, an anti-Gentile Jewish Supremacist crusade to exonerate a Hebrew homicidal child-molester. Hebrew was the more common term my coreligionists were called up until the early 1950s, not long after WW2, when the racial-religious designation started to go out of vogue. Today, we are just simply called Jewish.Fighting Anti-Semitism or Fabricating Anti-Semitism?B’nai Brith International founded the ADL (Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith) after the conclusion of rapist-pedophile Leo Frank’s trial and his well-publicized August 25th conviction for the rape-murder of 13 yearsold Ms. Mary Phagan (1899 - 1913). On August 26th, the judge Leonard Strickland Roan (1849 - 1915), who officiated that three-week courtroom affair, sentenced the 29 yearsold child killer, Leo M. Frank, to capital punishment by the method of hanging—scheduled for six weeks hence—with the execution date set for October 10th, 1913, but a request for a new trial was entered by Leo Frank’s attorneys as an appeal August 27th, so the judge granted a temporary stay of execution. His execution would be stayed several more times, until it was finalized for June 22nd, 1915.Circa 1909, a rare photo of Little Mary Phagan with her Aunt Mattie Phagan, rocking a stylish hairdo I have seldom ever seen on a modern woman. Source: Breman Museum. A common feature of impoverished working-class people a century ago is that they might live an entire life of five decades (the average life expectancy was about half a century during the early 20th century) and leave only behind a baker’s dozen photos.Little Mary Phagan as she was known was only 4′11″ tall, and was 5 weeks away from turning 14 years old on June 1st, 1913, before the serial sodomite Leo Frank physically assaulted, sexually abused, and lynched her with sturdy shipping twine, fashioned into a crude hangman’s noose. When he was done satisfying his violent lust, he left her near the entranceway to the men’s toilet stall.B’nai B’rith forges a new subsidiary, Anti-Defamation LeagueOn September 23rd, 1913, while Leo Frank was incarcerated at the Atlanta Tower Jail in the capital of Georgia, his 500 active associates in his local B’nai B’rith secret society—the Gate City Lodge #144—voted unanimous to reelect him as their lodge president for the second term of 1-year (Atlanta Constitution, September 24, 1913). Thereafter, the B’nai B’rith International, headquartered in Chicago, created the Jewish Anti-Defamation League to fight against anti-Semitism. Ever since its nascent beginnings, it has been on a wild galloping goose crusade to convince people he was innocent, even to the extent of promoting hate crime hoaxes on their website, claiming, crowds of anti-Semites were screaming anti-Semitic lynching threats at the jury outside the courthouse, where the windows were open and people inside courtroom could here the alleged death chants.Seeking the Posthumous Exoneration of Leo FrankFrom the Jewish Telegraph Agency, 1983 when Jewish groups pursued exoneration of Leo Frank, yet all they got was an embarrassing “No-Pardon Pardon” for him. They have been seething with anti-Gentile anger and rage since. They intend on getting his conviction thrown out based on the anti-Semitism hoodwink. They are playing up the anti-Semitism hoax really hard on the ADL website and in mainstream news publications. They have been at this game for 107 years and counting, 2021 makes it 108 years. The goal of all the relentless false claims of anti-Semitism is to show everyone this is a long game of controlling the orthodoxy of the case.The founding of ADL was first publicly announced October 1st-1913 in a B’nai B’rith newsletter.The Leo Frank case which galvanized the founding of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith can be best summarized as the “To Kill a Mocking Bird” of 1913, where a racist White man sexually-assaulted and murdered a child laborer working for him, and then afterward tried to frame two black men for that grisly crime of violence. If anyone does not know the full story behind “To Kill a Mocking Bird”, I assertively suggest they read the book To Kill a Mockingbird - Wikipedia and watch the movie To Kill a Mockingbird (film) - Wikipedia to get a nearly parallel and adjacent to understanding the Leo Frank case’s background, about how a black man is wrongfully being accused of a rape-murder by the White Jewish community. Going forward, whenever the Leo Frank case is being taught, my recommendation is it should be explained with the similarities of ‘To Kill A Mocking Bird’ and whenever “To Kill A Mocking Bird” is taught it should be compared to the Leo Frank case how a White supremacist Jew tried to frame 2 black men for sexually molesting a dead adolescent.To Kill A Mocking Bird by Harper Lee. This book can help students of the Mary Phagan rape-murder to learn poignant lessons about how the ADL and Jewish groups have been investing enormous resources to rehabilitate and get the conviction overturned for a man with a devious sexual penchant for young boys and girls. In one case he murdered the girl after sodomizing her because it was not consensual.The Jewish Supremacist and deeply racist Leo Frank by a hair’s breadth almost got 2 black employees—who worked as low-wage laborers at his pencil making sweatshop— lynched, for his anti-Gentile sex murder. Presently, 108 years later—as a modern, liberal, enlightened, and secular Jew—I regret to say that Jewish Supremacist hate mongers continue to perpetuate the viciously racist and anti-Gentile hoax that a black man committed the molestation-slaughter and that Leo Frank was wrongfully convicted because of anti-Semitism. In this answer, I will present both the false claims of anti-Semitism by the bigots and also the evidence gathered to indict and convict Leo Frank, including trial testimony. And how Leo Frank solved the murder mystery by giving away the solution to the crime on the witness stand.Jewish Scholar Amy Goodman - Wikipedia Interviews Former High-Ranking Israeli Shulamit Aloni - Wikipedia About Anti-Semitism and its Use as a Racial hoax - Wikipedia.As it has been with other high profile Jewish criminal cases, is anti-Semitism yet another trick regarding Leo Frank?The charge of anti-Semitism, in this criminal case, is a grotesque attempt at rehabilitating a violent bigot who embodies the dictionary definition of a pervert, pedophile, sexual harasser, and violent sexual predator, one who was the archetype of a homicidal sodomite, and moreover, one who preyed on the most vulnerable people in our society, children—even worse, child laborers toiling 60 hours a week for 75 cents a day in a vile sweatshop.An old photo of Leo Frank at Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 1906. He graduated with a degree in mechanical engineering. “If looks could kill”The loudest voices today that Leo Frank was the victim of anti-Semitism comes from the Jewish ADL, and its newish leader Jonathan Greenblatt, and also the former leader of the group, Abraham Foxman, who served as the group’s national director from 1987 to 2015 (28 years). They both have taken on the mantle of this anti-Gentile cause celebre to rehabilitate Leo Frank.At present, there is a truculent movement in the halls at the capitol of Georgia, energized by Marietta Jews, to get the deadly childmolester’s conviction nullified and his name cleared.Dale Schwartz, Famous ADL LawyerOn the anniversary of Mary Phagan’s slaying, April 26, 2019, they Frank exoneration committee pressured the then, Atlanta District Attorney to found the Georgia Conviction Integrity Unit in honor of Leo Frank, their mission is to fabricate evidence to declare his trial was anti-Semitic and then find a kangaroo judge to give the dead man Leo Frank a new trial, and then declare a mistrial for Leo Frank when the Zombie doesn’t show up and thus forever clear his name. They literally intend to do it this way, Dale Schwartz an ADL lawyer explained it this way.Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, replaced ADL national director Abe Foxman in the summer of 2015, the centennial of Leo Frank’s lynching.Go to Anti-Defamation League and search on “Leo Frank antisemitism” or “Leo frank anti-Semitism” and you can find what you need on the perpetuation of this anti-Gentile hoax that has been going strong for more than a century.29-year-old Leo Frank sodomized a little girl at the sweatshop he operated, the national pencil company, and then he racistly tried to make the Atlanta police think it was an old black man, 53-year-old Newt Lee. When the police figured out Frank’s fabricated evidence against Lee was bogus, Leo Frank then changed course and tried to make the police think it was his accessory after the fact, Jim Conley. His double racist whammy was uncovered, so his defense team resorted to a third racist approach, the false accusation of anti-Semitism, and his defenders continued that tradition for 107 years. The Leo Frank case was the Jewish version of ‘to kill a mocking bird’ of it’s time, where a White Supremacist Jew tried to put his sodomy-murder case onto two innocent black men.False Accusations of Anti-Semitism as an Anti-Gentile Canard and Blood LibelThe plentiful accusations of anti-Semitism in the Leo Frank case are largely anti-Gentile canards perpetuated by a full-spectrum of Jewish nationalist intellectuals in the academy, fascistic Jewish activist groups using the cover of liberalism and civil rights, Hollywoodism’s radical producer/director circles, and Broadway's greater sphere of influence at international theaters. It’s easy to see how this came about thanks to Google books in conjunction with the library of congress moving their news and book collection online. It’s all easy to chart their manufactured consensus now.At Wikipedia, the claim that the consensus of researchers or scholars is Leo Frank was innocent and African-American Jim Conley is the guilty culprit, is really no dispassionate consensus at all, but a well-concocted racist house of cards, fabricated by Jewish supremacist hatemonger in order o frame an innocent black man who admitted to being his sex-killer boss’s accessory-after-the-fact. This critical information partly helped the police solve the rape-murder whodunnit. Monteen Stover’s testimony put a bow on top of it, as it inspired Leo Frank to make a statement about a call of nature at his trial that would not let him escape from the jaws of guilt.Noam Chomsky a true hero of Human Rights and justice for Palestinians, unlike the fake civil rights group ADL, which is really nothing more than a fascistic PR firm to rehabilitate Leo Frank and Israel’s 72-year history of crimes against humanity.To understand this better, one of the most brilliant Jewish-American scholars alive today, Noam Chomsky described that phenomenon more generically regarding the anti-Semitism accusation, describing it as a kind of manufactured consensus. Chomsky speaks a lot about how Jewish pseudo-intellectuals use their academic credentials to create a multigenerational chain of repetition, a choreographed cacophony over time—if you will, of “manufactured consensus” in many subjects related to Jews, in order to justify, deflect, manipulate and be apologetic for covering up Israel’s crimes against humanity. Chomsky’s term “manufactured consensus” is absolutely brilliant, it summarizes the 107-year-old narrative that Leo Frank was falsely accused and his trial was motivated by rampant anti-Semitism.Growing up in the Jewish community their espionage was always minimized and downplayed, and the anti-Semitism canard was in full play by the four-flushers who told us they were wrongfully convicted by self-hating Jews. The prosecutor and presiding judge on their case were both Jews. Had they not been we can’t even imagine the explosive level of anti-Semitism hoaxing we would be drowning in today over their case.We often see these anti-Gentile blood libels in other high-profile criminal cases involving Jews like the Rosenbergs, Pollard, Dreyfus, and most especially in Leo Frank. Jews experiencing negative outcomes from engaging in criminal behavior is not anti-Semitism, but Jewish activists playing this dirty race-hatred/religious-hatred game to defend Jewish criminals is most certainly anti-Gentilism.Dreyfus transcribed his espionage onto notepaper of secret military diagrams and then gave them to the spy chief at the German embassy in Paris. The spymaster at that said embassy tore the diagrams up into six pieces after having a draftsman copy them. The German embassy did not know a femme fatal of a maid who cleaned their offices was really a deep cover French spy. She found the treason, put together the 6-piece puzzle, and gave it to the French authorities. It was a perfect match to the handwriting of Alfred Dreyfus comporting with his segmentation and rank. He was convicted twice, but 12 years of agitation by radicals behind the scene got him reinstated after 5 years in jail. Today his defenders decry anti-Semitism, but people who read the trial transcripts of his case understand he was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, both times. Anti-Semitism is another hoax promoted in this case.With my face a shower of tears over the believing of lurid fairy tales about anti-Semitic persecution. During my coming of age in The Bronx, the Jewish folklore was that the Rosenbergs, Pollard, Dreyfus, and Leo Frank were victims of anti-Semitism. When we investigate these true-crimes as adults, we discover the unsettling realization the “Anti-Semitism” accusation was all dripping with anti-Gentile lies. It really hurts to be part of a community willing to play the race card or ethnocard to rehabilitate the most atrocious Jewish criminals—treasonous backstabbers who acted as traitor spies of espionage, and a homicidal-pervert who attempted to molest upward of 19 or 20 children.It’s very unnerving that credentialed historians and journalists are writing books derivative books solely designed to rehabilitate such nefarious agents of evil for college student consumption.Autopsy photo of Mary Phagan, April 27, 1913.Did Leo Frank Confess?Against the backdrop of the anti-Semitism hoax, there were however allegations the police and prosecution had in hand information supporting Leo Frank confessing, albeit second hand (hearsay), from two sources:-Firstly-Minola McKnight, African-American maid for the Selig family.An African-American servant Magnolia McKnight who worked as the cook for the Selig family, heard Lucille discussing the fact that Leo Frank was drunk on the night of the murder, made her sleep on the floor in their private bedroom, opined with regret about committing murder, and asked for his pistol so that he could commit suicide.We learn of these insights through this transcript in State exhibit J, Leo Frank's trial brief of evidence.State Exhibit J, Leo Frank Trial Brief of Evidence, 1913, Fulton County, Atlanta, Georgia:The state of Georgia, County of Fulton.Personally appeared before me, a notary public in and for the aboveState and county, Minola McKnight, who lives in the rear of 351 Pulliam St., Atlanta, Ga., who being duly sworn deposes and says:On Saturday morning, April 26, 1913, Mr. [Leo] Frank left home abouteight o’clock, and Albert [McKnight], my husband, was there Saturday, too. Albert [McKnight] got there I guess about a quarter after one [1:15 PM] and he [Albert McKnight] was there when Mr. [Leo] Frank come for dinner (Dinner is what they called Lunch back then), which was about half-past one [1:30 PM], but Mr. Frank did not eat any dinner (Lunch), and he left in about ten minutes [1:40 PM] after he [Mr. Leo Frank] got there.Mr. [Leo] Frank come back to the house at seven o’clock that night, and Albert [McKnight] was there when he [Leo Frank] got there. Albert [McKnight] had gone home that [early] evening but he come back. I don’t know what time he [Albert McKnight] got there, but he come sometime before Mr. [Leo] Frank did, and Mr. [Leo] Frank eat supper about seven o’clock, and when I left there that night about eight o’clock, I left Mr. [Leo] Frank there.Sunday morning I got there about eight o’clock, and there was anautomobile standing in front of the house and I didn’t pay any attentionto it. I saw a man in the automobile get a bucket of water and pour intoit. Mr. [Leo] Frank’s wife [Lucille Selig Frank] was downstairs and Mr. [Emil Selig] and Mrs. [Josephine] Selig were upstairs. Albert [McKnight] was there Sunday morning, but I don’t remember what time he got there. I called them down to breakfast about half past eight [8:30 AM] and I found out that Mr. [Leo] Frank was gone.Mr. [Emil] Selig and Mrs. [Josephine] Selig eat breakfast, but Mrs. [Lucille] Frank didn’t eat until Mr. Frank come back and then they eat breakfast together. I didn’t hear them say anything at the breakfast table. After dinner, I understood them to say that a girl and Mr. [Leo] Frank were caught at the office Saturday. I don’t know who said it, Miss Lucile (Mrs. Frank) and Mr. [Emil Selig] and Mrs. [Josephine] Selig and Mr. [Leo] Frank were standing there talking, after dinner when they said it; I understood them to say it was a Jew girl.On Tuesday, Mr. [Leo] Frank says to me, ‘It is mighty bad Minola, I mighthave to go to jail about this girl, and I don’t know anything about it.’Sunday, Miss Lucile said to Mrs. Selig that Mr. Frank didn’t rest so goodSaturday night; she said he was drunk and wouldn’t let her sleep with him, and she said she slept on the floor on the rug by the bed because Mr. [Leo] Frank was drinking.Miss Lucile [Selig Frank] said Sunday that Mr. [Leo] Frank told her Saturday night that he was in trouble, and that he didn’t know the reason why he would murder, and he told his wife to get his pistol and let him kill himself. I heard Miss Lucile [Selig Frank] say that to Mrs. [Josephine] Selig, and it got away with Mrs. [Josephine] Selig mighty bad; she didn’t know what to think. I haven’t heard Miss Lucile say whether she believed it or not. I don’t know why Mrs. Frank didn’t come to see her husband, but it was a pretty good while before she would come to see him, maybe two weeks. She would tell me, ‘Wasn’t it mighty bad that he was locked up,’ she would say, ‘Minola, I don’t know what I am going to do.’When I left home to go to the solicitor general’s office, they told me to mind how I talked. They pay me $3.50 a week, but last week they paid me $4.00, and one week she paid me $6.50. Up to the time of the murder I was getting $3.50 a week and the week right after the murder I don’t remember how much she paid me, and the next week they paid me $3.50, and the next week they paid me $6.50, and the next week they paid me $4.00 and the next week they paid me $4.00. One week, I don’t remember which one, Mrs. Selig gave me $5, but it wasn’t for my work, and they didn’t tell me what it was for, she just said, ‘ Here is $5, Minola.’I understood that it was a tip for me to keep quiet. They would tell me to mind how I talked and Miss Lucile gave me a hat.”Question: “Is that the reason you didn’t tell the solicitor yesterday all about this, that Miss Lucile and the others had told you not to say anything about what happened at home there’?”Answer: “Yes, sir.”Question: “Is that true?”Answer: “Yes, sir.”Question:. “And that’s the reason you would rather have been locked up last night than tell?'”Answer: “Yes, sir.”Question: “Has Mr. Pickett or Mr. Cravens or Mr. Campbell or myself influenced you in any way or threatened you in any way to make this statement? ”Answer: “No, sir.”Question: “You make it of your own free will and accord in their presence and in the presence of Mr. Gordon, your attorney?”Answer: “Yes, sir.”(Signed) MINOLA McKNIGHT.Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 3d day of June 1913.(Signed) G. C. FEBRUARY, Notary public, Fulton County, Ga.-Secondly-Jim Conley’s testimony.JAMES CONLEY, sworn for the State, June 4, 5, and 6.I had a little conversation with Mr. Frank on Friday, the 25th of April. He wanted me to come to the pencil factory that Friday morning that he had some work on the third floor he wanted me to do.All right, I will talk louder.Friday evening about three o’clock Mr. Frank come to the fourth floor where I was working and said he wanted me to come to the pencil factory on Saturday morning at 8:30; that he had some work for me to do on the second floor. I have been working for the pencil company for a little over two years.Yes, I had gone back there that way for Mr. Frank before, when he asked me to come back. I got to the pencil factory about 8:30 on April 26th. Mr. Frank and me got to the door at the same time. Mr. Frank walked on the inside and I walked behind him and he says to me, “Good morning,” and I says, “Good morning, Mr. Frank.” He says, “You are a little early this morning,” and I says,” No, sir, I am not early.” He says, “Well, you are a little early to do what I wanted you to do for me, I want you to watch for me like you have been doing the rest of the Saturdays.” I always stayed on the first floor like I stayed the 26th of April and watched for Mr. Frank, while he and a young lady would be upon the second floor chatting, I don’t know what they were doing. He only told me they wanted to chat. When young ladies would come there, I would sit down at the first floor and watch the door for him. I couldn’t exactly tell how many times I have watched the door for him previous to April 26th, it has been several times that I watched for him. I don’t know who would be there when I watched for him, but there would be another young man, another young lady during the time I was at the door. A lady for him and one for Mr. Frank. Mr. Frank was alone there once, that was Thanksgiving day. I watched for him. Yes, a woman came there Thanksgiving day, she was a tall, heavy built lady. I stayed down there and watched the door just as he told me the last time, April 26th. He told me when the lady came he would stomp and let me know that was the one and for me to lock the door. Well, after the lady came and he stomped for me, I went and locked the door as he said. He told me when he got through with the lady he would whistle and for me then to go and unlock the door. That was last Thanksgiving day, 1912. On April 26th, me and Mr. Frank met at the door. He says, “What I want you to do is to watch for me today as you did other Saturdays,” and I says, “All right.” I said, ”Mr. Frank, I want to go to the Capital City Laundry to see my mother,” and he said, “By the time you go to the laundry and come back to Trinity Avenue, stop at the corner of Nelson and Forsyth Streets until I go to Montags.” I don’t know exactly what time I got to the corner of Nelson and Forsyth Streets, but I came there sometime between 10 and 10:30. I saw Mr. Frank as he passed by me, I was standing on the corner, he was coming up Forsyth Street toward Nelson Street. He was going to Montag’s factory. While I was there on the corner he said, “Ha, ha, you are here, is yer.” And I says, “Yes, sir, I am right here, Mr. Frank.” He says, “Well, wait until I go to Mr. Sig’s, I won’t be very long, I’ll be right back.” I says, “All right, Mr. Frank, I’ll be right here.” I don’t know how long he stayed at Montag’s. He didn’t say anything when he came back from Montag’s, but told me to come on. Mr. Frank came out Nelson Street and down Forsyth Street toward the pencil factory and I followed right behind. As we passed up there the grocery store, Albertson Brothers, a young man was up there with a paper sack getting some stuff out of a box on the sidewalk, and he had his little baby standing by the side of him, and just as Mr. Frank passed by him, I was a little behind Mr. Frank, and Mr. Frank said something to me, and by him looking back at me and saying something to me, he hit up against the man’s baby, and the man turned around and looked to see who it was, and he looked directly in my face, but I never did catch the idea what Mr. Frank said. Mr. Frank stopped at Curtis’ Drug Store, corner Mitchell and Forsyth Streets, went into the soda fountain. He came out and went straight on to the factory, me right behind him. When we got to the factory we both went on the inside, and Mr. Frank stopped me at the door and when he stopped me at the door he put his hand on the door and turned the door and says: “You see, you turn the knob just like this and there can’t nobody come in from the outside,” and I says, “All right,” and I walked back to a little box back there by the trash barrel. He told me to push the box up against the trash barrel and sit on it, and he says. “Now, there will be a young lady up here after awhile, and me and her are going to chat a little,” and he says, “Now, when the lady comes, I will stomp like I did before,” and he says, “That will be the lady, and you go and shut the door,” and I says, “All right, sir.” And he says, “Now, when I whistle I will be through, so you can go and unlock the door and you come upstairs to my office then like you were going to borrow some money for me and that will give the young lady time to get out.” I says, “All right, I will do just as you say,” and I did as he said. Mr. Frank hit me a little blow on my chest and says, “Now, whatever you do, don’t let Mr. Darley see you.” I says, “All right, I won’t let him see me.” Then Mr. Frank went upstairs and he said, “Remember to keep your eyes open,” and I says, “All right, I will, Mr. Frank.” And I sat there on the box and that was the last I seen of Mr. Frank until up in the day sometime. The first person I saw that morning after I got in there was Mr. Darley, he went upstairs. The next person was Miss Mattie Smith, she went on upstairs, then I saw her come down from upstairs. Miss Mattie walked to the door and stopped, and Mr. Darley comes on down to the door where Miss Mattie was, and he says,” Don’t you worry, I will see that you get that next Saturday. ” And Miss Mattie came on out and went up Alabama Street and Mr. Darley went back upstairs. Seemed like Miss Mattie was crying, she was wiping her eyes when she was standing down there. This was before I went to Nelson and Forsyth Streets. After we got back from Montag Brothers, the first person I saw come along was a lady that worked on the fourth floor, I don’t know her name. She went on up the steps. The next person that came along was the negro drayman, he went on upstairs. He was a peg-legged fellow, real dark. The next I saw this negro and Mr. Holloway coming back down the steps. Mr. Holloway was putting on his glasses and had a bill in his hands, and he went out towards the wagon on the sidewalk, then Mr. Holloway came back up the steps, then after Mr. Darley came down and left, Mr. Holloway came down and left. Then this lady that worked on the fourth floor came down and left. The next person I saw coming there was Mr. Quinn. He went upstairs, stayed a little while and then came down. The next person that I saw was Miss Mary Perkins, that’s what I call her, this lady that is dead, I don’t know her name. After she went upstairs I heard her footsteps going towards the office and after she went in the office, I heard two people walking out of the office and going like they were coming down the steps, but they didn’t come down the steps, they went back towards the metal department. After they went back there, I heard the lady scream, then I didn’t hear no more, and the next person I saw coming in there was Miss Monteen Stover. She had on a pair of tennis shoes and a raincoat. She stayed there a pretty good while, it wasn’t so very long either. She came back down the steps and left. After she came back down the steps and left, I heard somebody from the metal department come running back there upstairs, on their tiptoes, then I heard somebody tiptoeing back towards the metal department. After that I kind of dozed off and went to sleep. Next thing I knew Mr. Frank was up over my head stamping and then I went and locked the door, and sat on the box a little while, and the next thing I heard was Mr. Frank whistling. I don’t know how many minutes it was after that I heard him whistle. When I heard him whistling I went and unlocked the door just like he said, and went on up the steps. Mr. Frank was standing up there at the top of the steps and shivering and trembling and rubbing his hands like this.[Illustrating – Jim Conley stood up in the arena, bent his knees and started buckling them back and forth together]He had a little rope in his hands–-a long wide piece of cord. His eyes were large and they looked right funny. He looked funny out of his eyes. His face was red. Yes, he had a cord in his hands just like this here cord. After I got up to the top of the steps, he asked me,” Did you see that little girl who passed here just a while ago?” and I told him I saw one come along there and she come back again, and then I saw another one come along there and she hasn’t come back down, and he says, “Well, that one you say didn’t come back down, she came into my office awhile ago and wanted to know something about her work in my office and I went back there to see if the little girl’s work had come, and I wanted to be with the little girl, and she refused me, and I struck her and I guess I struck her too hard and she fell and hit her head against something, and I don’t know how bad she got hurt. Of course you know I ain’t built like other men. The reason he said that was, I had seen him in a position I haven’t seen any other man that has got children. I have seen him in the office two or three times before Thanksgiving and a lady was in his office, and she was sitting down in a chair and she had her clothes up to here, and he was down on his knees, and she had her hands on Mr. Frank. I have seen him another time there in the packing room with a young lady lying on the table, she was on the edge of the table when I saw her.He asked me if I wouldn’t go back there and bring her up so that he could put her somewhere, and he said to hurry, that there would be money in it for me. When I came back there, I found the lady lying flat of her back with a rope around her neck. The cloth was also tied around her neck and part of it was under her head like to catch blood. I noticed the clock after I went back there and found the lady was dead and came back and told him. The clock was four minutes to one. She was dead when I went back there and I came back and told Mr. Frank the girl was dead and he said “Sh-Sh!”He told me to go back there by the cotton box, get a piece of cloth, put it around her and bring her up. I didn’t hear what Mr. Frank said, and I came on up there to hear what he said. He was standing on the top of the steps, like he was going down the steps, and while I was back in the metal department I didn’t understand what he said, and I came on back there to understand what he did say, and he said to go and get a piece of cloth to put around her, and I went and looked around the cotton box and got a piece of cloth and went back there. The girl was lying flat on her back and her hands were out this way. I put both of her hands down easily, and rolled her up in the cloth and taken the cloth and tied her up, and started to pick up her, and I looked back a little distance and saw her hat and a piece of ribbon laying down and her slippers and I taken them and put them all in the cloth and I ran my right arm through the cloth and tried to bring it up on my shoulder. The cloth was tied just like a person that was going to give out clothes on Monday, they get the clothes and put them on the inside of a sheet and take each corner and tie the four corners together, and I run my right arm through the cloth after I tied it that way and went to put it on my shoulder, and I found I couldn’t get it on my shoulder, it was heavy and I carried it on my arm the best I could, and when I got away from the little dressing room that was in the metal department, I let her fall, and I was scared and I kind of jumped, and I said, ‘Mr. Frank, you will have to help me with this girl, she is heavy,” and he come and caught her by the feet and I laid hold of her by the shoulders, and when we got her that way I was backing and Mr. Frank had her by the feet, and Mr. Frank kind of put her on me, he was nervous and trembling, and after we got up a piece from where we got her at, he let her feet drop and then he picked her up and we went on to the elevator, and he pulled down on one of the cords and the elevator wouldn’t go, and he said, Wait, let me go in the office and get the key,” and he went in the office and got the key and come back and unlocked the switchboard and the elevator went down to the basement, and we carried her out and I opened the cloth and rolled her out there on the floor, and Mr. Frank turned around and went on up the ladder, and I noticed her hat and slipper and piece of ribbon and I said, “Mr. Frank, what am I going to do with these things?” and he said, “Just leave them right there,” and I taken the things and pitches them over in front of the boiler, and after Mr. Frank had left I goes on over to the elevator and he said, “Come on up and I will catch you on the first, floor,” and I got on the elevator and started it to the first floor, and Mr. Frank was running up there. He didn’t give me time to stop the elevator, he was so nervous and trembly, and before the elevator got to the top of the first floor Mr. Frank made the first step onto the elevator and by the elevator being a little down like that, he stepped down on it and hit me quite a blow right over about my chest and that jammed me up against the elevator and when we got near the second floor he tried to step off before it got to the floor and his foot caught on the second floor as he was stepping off and that made him stumble and he fell back sort of against me, and he goes on and takes the keys back to his office and leaves the box unlocked. I followed him into his private office and I sat down and he commenced to rubbing his hands and began to rub back his hair and after awhile he got up and said, “Jim,” and I didn’t say nothing, and all at once he happened to look out of the door and there was somebody coming, and he said, ” My God, here is Emma Clarke and Corinthia Hall,” and he said “Come over here, Jim, I have got to put you in this wardrobe,” and he put me in this wardrobe, and I stayed there a good while and they come in there and I heard them go out, and Mr. Frank come there and said, “You are in a tight place,” and I said “Yes,” and he said “You done very well.” So after they went out and he had stepped in the hall and had come back he let me out of the wardrobe, and he said “You sit down,” and I went and sat down, and Mr. Frank sat down. But the chair he had was too little for him or too big for him or it wasn’t far enough back or something. He reached on the table to get a box of cigarettes and a box of matches, and he takes a cigarette and a match and hands me the box of cigarettes and I lit one and went to smoking and I handed him back the box of cigarettes, and he put it back in his pocket and then he took them out again and said, “You can have these,” and I put them in my pocket, and then he said, “Can you write?” and I said, “Yes, sir, a little bit,” and he taken his pencil to fix up some notes. I was willing to do anything to help Mr. Frank because he was a white man and my superintendent, and he sat down and I sat down at the table and Mr. Frank dictated the notes to me. Whatever it was it didn’t seem to suit him, and he told me to turn over and write again, and I turned the paper and wrote again, and when I done that he told me to turn over again and I turned over again and wrote on the next page there, and he looked at that and kind of liked it and he said that was all right. Then he reached over and got another piece of paper, a green piece, and told me what to write. He took it and laid it on his desk and looked at me smiling and rubbing his hands, and then he pulled out a nice little roll of greenbacks, and he said, “Here is $200,” and I taken the money and looked at it a little bit and I said, “Mr. Frank, don’t you pay another dollar for that watchman, because I will pay him myself,” and he said, “All right, I don’t see what you want to buy a watch for either, that big fat wife of mine wanted me to buy an automobile and I wouldn’t do it.” And after awhile Mr. Frank looked at me and said, “You go down there in the basement and you take a lot of trash and burn that package that’s in front of the furnace,” and I told him all right. But I was afraid to go down there by myself, and Mr. Frank wouldn’t go down there with me. He said, “There’s no need of my going down there,” and I said, “Mr. Frank, you are a white man and you done it, and I am not going down there and burn that myself.” He looked at me then kind of frightened and he said “Let me see that money” and he took the money back and put it back in his pocket, and I said, “Is this the way you do things?” and he said, “You keep your mouth shut, that is all right.” And Mr. Frank turned around in his chair and looked at the money and he looked back at me and folded his hands and looked up and said, “Why should I hang? I have wealthy people in Brooklyn,” and he looked down when he said that, and I looked up at him, and he was looking up at the ceiling, and I said,” Mr. Frank what about me?” and he said, ” That’s all right, don’t you worry about this thing, you just come back to work Monday like you don’t know anything, and keep your mouth shut, if you get caught I will get you out on bond and send you away,” and he said, “Can you come back this evening and do it?” and I said “Yes, that I was coming to get my money.” He said, “Well, I am going home to get dinner and you come back here in about forty minutes and I will fix the money,” and I said, “How will I get in?” and he said, “There will be a place for you to get in all right, but if you are not coming back let me know, and I will take those things and put them down with the body,” and I said, “All right, I will be back in about forty minutes.” Then I went down over to the beer saloon across the street and I took the cigarettes out of the box and there was some money in there and I took that out and there was two paper dollar bills in there and two silver quarters and I took a drink, and then I bought me a double header and drank it and I looked around at another colored fellow standing there and I asked him did he want a glass of beer and he said “No,” and I looked at the clock and it said twenty minutes to two and the man in there asked me was I going home, and I said, “Yes,” and I walked south on Forsyth Street to Mitchell and Mitchell to Davis, and I said to the fellow that was with me “I am going back to Peters Street,” and a Jew across the street that I owed a dime to called me and asked me about it and I paid him that dime. Then I went on over to Peters Street and stayed there awhile. Then I went home and I taken fifteen cents out of my pocket and gave a little girl a nickel to go and get some sausage and then I gave her a dime to go and get some wood, and she stayed so long that when she came back I said, “I will cook this sausage and eat it and go back to Mr. Frank’s,” and I laid down across the bed and went to sleep, and I didn’t get up no more until half past six o’clock that night, that’s the last I saw of Mr. Frank that Saturday. I saw him next time on Tuesday on the fourth floor when I was sweeping. He walked up and he said, “Now remember, keep your mouth shut,” and I said, “All right,” and he said, “If you’d come back on Saturday and done what I told you to do with it down there, there wouldn’t have been no trouble.” This conversation took place between ten and eleven o’clock Tuesday. Mr. Frank knew I could write a little bit, because he always gave me tablets up there at the office so I could write down what kind of boxes we had and I would give that to Mr. Frank down at his office and that’s the way he knew I could write. I was arrested on Thursday, May 1st, Mr. Frank told me just what to write on those notes there. That is the same pad he told me to write on.The girl’s body was lying somewhere along there about No. 9 on that picture State Exhibit A (map of the factory). I dropped her somewhere along No. 7. We got on elevator on the second floor. The box that Mr. Frank unlocked was right around here on side of elevator. He told me to come back in about forty minutes to do that burning. Mr. Frank went in the office and got the key to unlock the elevator. The notes were fixed up in Mr. Frank’s private office. I never did know what became of the notes. I left home that morning about 7 or 7:30. I noticed the clock when I went from the factory to go to Nelson and Forsyth Streets, the clock was in a beer saloon on the corner of Mitchell Street. It said 9 minutes after 10. I don’t know the name of the woman who was with Mr. Frank on Thanksgiving day. I know the man’s name was Mr. Dalton. When I saw Mr. Frank coming towards the factory Saturday morning he had on his raincoat and his usual suit of clothes and an umbrella. Up to Christmas, I used to run the elevator, then they put me on >the fourth floor to clean up. I cleaned up twice a week on the first floor under Mr. Holloway’s directions. The lady I saw in Mr. Frank’s office Thanksgiving day was a tall built lady, heavyweight, she was nice looking, and she had on a blue looking dress with white dots in it and a grayish-looking coat with kind of tails to it. The coat was open like that and she had on white slippers and stockings. On Thanksgiving day Mr. Frank told me to come to his office. I have never seen any cot or bed down in the basement. I refused to write for the police the first time. I told them I couldn’t write.-snip of Conley's full testimony-Two African-Americans gave evidence and testimony, albeit second hand (hearsay) that Leo Frank confessed to murdering Mary Phagan.The police knew about when Mary Phagan was killed at the national pencil company because her mother fed the child at 11:30 a.m. that morning on April 26, 1913, and after eating a poorgirl's sandwich the kid headed off to downtown where the factory was located, arriving there about noon. She was raped and murdered by Leo Frank shortly thereafter, and the autopsy showed little digestion to cabbage and bread. So they were able to pinpoint the time of her death.Sunday, April 27, 1913, Leo Frank told the police investigators who brought him to the factory that Mary Phagan arrived at his office at minutes past noon.Monday, April 28th, 1913 (the digest published as state’s exhibit B, Leo Frank trial brief of evidence and the full transcript August 2nd, 1913 in the Atlanta Constitution) Leo Frank said Mary Phagan arrived between 12:05 and 12:10 pm.But another little girl, Monteen Stover, stated she went to Leo Frank’s office between 12:05 pm and 12:10 pm to find the room vacant, so what did Leo Frank tell the jury in response to the fact he was caught in a lie? He placed himself at the scene of the crime, at the exact time of the murder.This is the oral statement of Leo Frank sitting in the witness stand’s chair, made to the jury that solved the Mary Phagan murder mystery on August 18, 1913:Now, gentlemen [of the jury], to the best of my recollection from the time thewhistle blew for twelve o’clock [NOON] until after a quarter to one [12:45] when I went upstairs [from the second floor to the 4th floor] and spoke to Arthur White and Harry Denham, to the best of my recollection, I did not stir out of the inner office [on the front of the second floor]; but it is possible that in order to answer a call of nature [defacate] or to urinate [at the men's stall located at the back of the second floor] I may have gone to the toilet. Those are things that a man does unconsciously and cannot tell how many times nor when he does it. Now, sitting in my office at my desk [at the front of the second floor], it is impossible for me to see out into the outer hall when the [4.5 foot tall] safe door is open, as it was that morning, and not only is it impossible for me to see out, but it is impossible for people to see in and see me [the 5′8″ tall Leo Frank] there. (Citation—Leo Frank trial brief of evidence, Fulton County Superior Court, Monday, August 18, 1913).The hair soaked with blood on the lathe that Leo Frank forgot to clean off after he assaulted, raped, and lynched Mary Phagan.It’s in the trial brief of evidence that Leo Frank sitting on the witness stand explained why Monteen Stover found his office empty between 12:05 pm and 12:10 pm because Leo Frank was in the metal room using the toilet at this time he stated. It just so happens that Leo Frank told the police he was alone with Mary Phagan in his office at this same exact time. The death notes also seem to point to Mary Phagan going to the toilet to (make water) urinate too, when she was sexually assaulted by the “nightwatchman Newt Lee”.There are only one set of toilets on the second floor, they’re in the metal room. The metal room was where Mary Phagan’s blood and hair strands soaked with blood were found. Leo Frank raped her and murdered her in the men’s toilet. Upward of nineteen or Twenty girls sworn under oath at Leo Frank’s trial testified he was a sexual predator and that his character for lasciviousness was bad.Now let us look to see if there is circumstantial evidence related to Leo Frank’s wife Lucille Selig to sustain Magnolia “Minola” McKnight’s deposition to the Atlanta Police on June 3rd, 1913.We can believe Leo Frank was innocent or guilty based on our own personal biases and political agenda no matter what the evidence. However, let’s for just a moment take an objective 360-degree view of the Leo Frank case—without presuming he was either innocent or guilty. With that mental exercise and the brief notion of dispassion, let us take a little closer look at the woman who was closest to him during the last 5 years of his life, that woman was his wife, who spent almost 3 years sleeping in the same bed as him from their wedding night of November 30th, 1910, until the day Leo Frank was arrested on April 29th, 1913 (likely with few exceptions).Frank was incarcerated at the city jail for a little more than 2 years, before finally being transferred to a penitentiary June 22nd, 1915, till August 16th, 1915, when he was abducted, by top brass, some of the leading men amongst the state government, and then finally hanged at a sheriff’s densely wooded backyard in Marietta on the morning of August 17th, 1915.With this chronology in place, we can evaluate things more clearly.From what has been given to us in the trial record and news publishings, Minola was employed by the Frank-Selig’s for 2 years up to the event of Leo Frank’s arrest on April 29th, 1913, giving us a frame of reference for her enduring relationship with the Selig family in their home. She remained as their personal chef, until she had served her purpose at the Leo Frank trial concluded in August 1913. She was their personal cook and maid with whom they trusted enough to allow her into their personal home and she undoubtedly in such a small residence could easily hear the conversations. We know the size of their home because the blueprints of it were submitted as exhibits as part of the trial brief of evidence. Lucille trusted Minola enough to convey her stress about not knowing what she was going to do over the situation.This woman, Lucille Selig (1888 –1957), likely ate thousands of Minola’s home-cooked meals with Leo in the family dining room. Among other intimate marital things with her husband in their bed-chamber. Given how close she was to him, given how well she had likely come to know his psychology and work schedule. There are some curious circumstantial evidence scenarios that indicate she likely believed him to be guilty and that State Exhibit J was likely accurate. Lucille’s actions in the immediate aftermath of the Phagan murder and her last overture at the end of her life, give veracity to State Exhibit J, June, 3rd, 1913.Let us zoom in closely at Lucille's passing away on April 23rd, 1957.Isn’t it strange that in the aftermath of Leo Frank’s lynching and in the final years of her life, she made a clean break from him and decided not to be buried in the grave reserved for her next to his in the Mount Carmel Cemetery? Not if she secretly thought him to be guilty.That grave which was reserved for Lucille Selig at the Mount Carmel Cemetery in Queens New York is still empty today 65 years after she died of heart failure (a broken heart as one journalist put it). We know what Lucille had wanted because, in the early 1990s, journalist-author Steve Oney interviewed her nephew living on the West Coast of Florida to learn the inside story. It also speaks volumes that she wanted her ashes spread in an Atlanta park, but because of an ordinance against it, her family members buried her ashes between her parent's tombstones.The fact Lucille Selig notarized her last will and testament in 1954 and requested in those official documents not to be buried with her husband in NYC but instead cremated, speaks immensely as to her being intelligent enough to know for sure her husband had committed that rape-murder decades prior. It was a quite unusual thing for a Jewess in the 1950s to break our tradition of burial, to choose a very uncommon approach at the time, which meant that she would not be buried next to her husband. It’s a very powerful statement as to her own life long verdict on his innocence or guilt. When she wrote her will and had it notarized in 1954, she had about 40 years to contemplate his case.“Snapshooters”Let us zoom in closely at Lucille’s behavior when Leo Frank was arrested.Isn’t it strange that when Leo Frank was arrested, his wife didn’t visit him for 2 weeks? Not if she thought him guilty.Whether he was meant to get out early or stay for the long haul, she did not visit him in jail until the middle of May 1913, one week after the Coroner’s Inquest ended May 8th, 1913. Would a caring and faithful wife who loved her husband and thought him innocent of rape-murder, not visit him because of the possibility of snapshooters taking photos and her wanting to avoid that? That was Leo Frank’s explanation at his capital murder trial of why his wife didn’t visit him because he didn’t want anyone taking a photograph of her. It’s unconvincing. It’s hokey. It doesn’t pass the common sense test.Common sense tells us that a wife wouldn’t care about the paparazzi and would want to visit her husband if she really thought he was innocent. No individual photographer or an army of photographers would stop a determined woman from visiting her husband, we know this because we have a hundred years of history and common sense to back it up.If your mission is to believe Leo Frank is innocent no matter what logic or commonsense is presented than the above won’t make a difference in your opinion, but for objective people, these two incidents of behavior powerfully sustain Minola McKnight’s deposition to the police in the presence of her lawyer five weeks after the slaying occurred which was directly related to her employer, Leo Frank.Reference web sites of the Anti-Semitism Hoax conflating anyone who thinks Leo Frank was guilty based on the evidence with Hitler.Neo-Nazis Use Leo Frank Case for Anti-Semitic Propaganda Push (The Jewish Daily Forward)ADL: Anti-Semitism Around Leo Frank Case Flourishes on 100th Anniversary (ADL)Leo Frank - WikipediaAPPENDIXThe trial of Leo Frank, July 28, 1913Further Remarks:What was all this evidence that pointed to the janitor Jim Conley as the murderer? The defense made a feeble effort to blame Jim Conley. The trial brief of evidence indicates Leo Frank’s defense team tried to frame Jim Conley for the murder of Mary Phagan. They also tried to suggest that Newt Lee was hiding information about the crime, suggesting he was in on the rape-murder in some capacity, and concealing evidence.Leo Frank and his wife LucilleThe prosecution presented weeks worth of evidence against Frank in the form of testimony and exhibits. Their theory was that Leo Frank convinced Mary Phagan to walk with him to the metal room to see if the brass sheet metal had arrived to determine whether or not Mary Phagan would get her job back. Leo Frank then made an indecent proposal to Mary Phagan using her employment status as a species of sexual coercion. When she repulsed Frank, he struck her with his fists. She fell backward, hit her head on the handle of a lathe, leaving behind blood-soaked hair, and then she fell to the ground unconscious. Frank dragged her to the men’s toilet, sodomized her, and lynched her with a packing cord. Leo Frank then enlisted his black janitor, Jim Conley, to help him move the freshly killed cadaver to the basement, and then make it look like she was killed there by the African American nightwatchman.One of the most common hoaxes of the Leo Frank case is claims there were mobs shouting death threats at Leo Frank’s trial jury. There is no evidence of any mob yelling “death to the Jew” outside the courthouse. There is nothing about it in the newspaper reports of 1913 or Leo Frank’s appeals from 1913–1915.Nothing in the Atlanta daily newspapers state “the jew” (alluding to Leo Frank’s religion) molested anyone, but there were upward of 19 or 20 factory girls who essentially testified at the trial that Leo Frank was a sexual pervert and a child molesting predator, whose behavior for lasciviousness was bad. They literally testified his character for lasciviousness was bad at the trial, these child laborers formerly working at the National Pencil Company.Fact 1 (read the Leo Frank trial brief of evidence): upward of 19 to 20 white girls who were former child laborers at the National Pencil Company factory testified that Leo Frank’s character for lasciviousness was bad. As far as I’m concerned, you can get a few girls to lie, but you’re not going to get upward of 19 to 20 girls to lie. Leo Frank was also seen by C.B. Dalton entertaining prostitutes and he testified about it at the trial. And Jim Conley accidentally walked in on Leo Frank twice, at different times, performing cunnilingus on some of Atlanta's prostitutes in the factory. I guess they had a delivery service back then. The child laborers in Leo Frank’s sweatshop, saw him taking factory girl Rebecca Carsen into the lady’s dressing room for trysts. So there is a lot of evidence support to support Leo Frank’s pedophilic behavior and sexual degeneracy. And then there’s Dewey Hewell, now there’s a pretty twisted testimony that came out about Leo Frank, seducing one of his child laborers and then biting her on the vagina and scarring her (the judge wouldn’t allow it into the record as it would sink Frank’s trial). Yeah, a lot of fiendish stuff came out about that homicidal pedophile once the Phagan murder occurred and investigators began interviewing the people who worked at his factory past and present, at the time.Yes, it’s a fact, usually, when a pedophile rapes and murders a child, people want justice, so therefore it’s no surprise the people of Georgia wanted justice after Leo Frank raped and strangled to death Ms. Phagan in that Atlanta industrial plant.Judge Leonard Strickland Roan, presiding the Leo Frank trial. Roan was Luther Rosser’s law partner in the 1890s. With that fact in play, it’s no wonder he gave him a business courtesy by making a lukewarm statement that gave Leo Frank a false hope that he could eventually be vindicated with frivolous appeals.If judge Roan had doubts about Leo frank’s conviction, why did he reject all 110 appeals made to him for a new trial by Leo Frank and his high-powered attorneys on October 31st, 1913?If judge roan had doubts about Leo Frank’s conviction, why did he sentence him to death, when he could have just sentenced him to life in prison. Both are equally possible punishment sentences for murder. Judge Roan sentenced Leo Frank to hang 6-weeks hence.Georgia’s most corrupt governor John Marshal Slaton.Georgia Governor Slaton had a 25% stake in the ownership of the law firm that represented Leo Frank, which means he got 25% of Leo Frank’s $15,000 retainer paid to Luther Rosser to be his lead counsel at his summer murder trial. Slaton was a law partner with Luther Rosser. Slaton didn't conclude anything about Leo Frank being innocent, we have a 29-page copy of his commutation order, it’s clear Slaton gave him life in prison because it was an equal punishment under the law, and Slaton says so on the last page. It was a conflict of interest.The men who hanged Leo Frank were not a lynch mob, Steve Oney explains why in his recent January 2021 Washington Post article on the Leo Frank case.Reference source https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/18/what-jon-ossoff-means-south-its-buried-jewish-pastAlonzo Mann in 1913 published in the local Atlanta dailies.Image of Alonzo Mann 70 years after the fact, he died on March 18th, 1985. He did not live to see the embarrassing posthumous pardon of Leo Frank which did not officially vindicate the sex-killer Leo Frank. The State of Georgia still recognizes Leo Frank as guilty.If Alonzo Mann saw Jim Conley carrying the lifeless body of Mary Phagan on Saturday in the Pencil Factory why did he return to work Monday morning, 2 days later? Why did Alonzo Mann’s parents continue to allow him to work at the National Pencil company, including the new Monday, while Jim Conley hadn’t been arrested yet? It Doesn’t make logical sense, does it? What parents would allow their child to return to their job if they saw a black man carrying a dead child there almost the same age as, Alonzo Mann for instance, Mary was almost 14, Alonzo was 14. Would any sane parent allow their child to return to work on Monday, when their child saw a factory employee carrying a dead murdered girl on the prior Saturday? I think we know the logical answer is no that parents wouldn't allow their child to return to such a place of work 2 days later where someone was seen carrying a dead murdered girl.There is no such thing as Marietta county.It is highly doubtful Leo Frank was innocent, whether any relatives of Phagan read this or not, all the evidence points to his guilt. Leo Frank admitted on the witness stand that he was at the scene of the crime when the murder occurred in the metal room. That was the exact prosecution's theory, Frank supported it.The Leo Frank case was an open and shut case, and the accusations of anti-Semitism against Leo Frank were a hoax then and a hoax at present, and a hoax between all the years from 1913 to now. It’s time for every local government in the United States to pass resolutions against the abuse of the anti-Semitism charge.My final conclusionThe Leo Frank rape-murder case was the “To Kill a Mocking Bird” of 1913, where a racist White man sodomized and strangled to death a child, and tried to frame two black men for the crime. And then disgustingly tried to hide behind religion and false accusations of anti-Semitism. All the evidence of the case supports this conclusion.I dedicate this answer to all the black folks of the last 400 years on the North and South American continents who were wrongfully convicted of crimes they did not commit.Further Reading:Where I read PDF copies of the original Atlanta daily newspaper accounts on the Frank-Phagan case in 1913, at the Phagan family website called Little Mary Phagan, Leo Frank, Jim Conley, 1913 MurderLeo Frank Case ArchiveThe Leo Frank Case Research Library - Information on the 1913 bludgeoning, rape, strangulation, and mutilation of Mary Phagan and the subsequent trial, appeals, and mob lynching of Leo Frank in 1915.CitationsLoaded question - WikipediaRacial hoax - Wikipedia.APPENDIXHere is some good information on that deposition by Leo Frank which tends to sustain State Exhibit J (the deposition by Magnolia McKnight).On Monday morning, April 28, 1913, National Pencil Company factory superintendent, Leo Max Frank, was taken by police officers to the Atlanta Station-House for routine questioning during the critical first 48 hours of the Mary Phagan murder investigation.In an interrogation room at a table, Leo Frank was flanked by his two elite lawyers, Luther Z. Rosser and Herbert Haas, and surrounded by a team of police, staff, and detectives.Leo Frank made a deposition concerning his whereabouts during Georgia Confederate Memorial Day, Saturday, April 26, 1913, and about his “brief” encounter with Mary Phagan minutes after high noon. His statements were recorded by a stenographer, Gay C. Febuary, and released to the public on August 2nd, 1913 in the daily newspaper The Atlanta Constitution, today it is known as the AJC.While Leo Frank was in the hot-seat, here is how the police interrogation went: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 leaveA: 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 [pm] and 12:10 [pm], maybe 12:07 [pm], 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 away 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 [Lee] and [James Milton] Gantt TalkingQ: 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 don't 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, that's all I know.Q: You don't 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 until 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.Source of Question and Answer Deposition:Atlanta Constitution, August 2nd, 1913 and State Exhibit B, Monday, April 28, Leo Frank Trial Brief of Evidence, 1913.According to Leo Frank, the victim’s arrival moved from 12:03 to 12:17:1. Mary Phagan arrived in his second-floor business office at 12:03 PM on April 26, 1913; this information was given by Leo Frank to detectives on Sunday, April 27, 1913, in Leo Frank’s office.2. Mary Phagan arrived in his second-floor business office at “12:05 PM to 12:10 PM, maybe 12:07 PM” according to Leo Frank in State’s Exhibit B, given to the police on Monday, April 28, 1913.Saturday, May 3, 1913, Monteen Stover Tells Police Frank’s Office Empty Between 12:05 to 12:10, when she went to get her weekly wages.3. Mary Phagan arrived in his second-floor business office from 12:10 PM to 12:15 PM on April 26, 1913; this information was given by Leo Frank at the Coroner’s Inquest on May 5 and 8, 1913.4. Mary Phagan arrived in his second-floor business office from 12:12 to 12:17 on April 26, 1913; this information was given by Leo Frank at the murder trial, August 18, 1913, responding to the secretary Ms. Hall.Prime daily newspaper sources from Atlanta in the summer of 1913, provide the direct quotes I cite below:[1] The Atlanta Constitution summer of 1913[2] The Atlanta Georgian summer of 1913[3] The Atlanta Journal summer of 1913some examples….Girls Testify Against Frank At Coroner’s Inquest, May 1913.The most damaging testimony against Frank in regard to his treatment of employees at his factory was saved until the last hours of the hearing. Girls and women were called to the stand to testify that they had been employed at the factory or had had occasion to go there and that Frank had attempted familiarities with them.Nellie Pettis, 1913.Nellie Pettis, of 9 Oliver Street, declared that Frank had made improper advances on her. She was asked if she ever had been employed at the pencil factory.“No,” she answered.Q. Do you know Leo Frank?—A. I have seen him once or twice.Q. When and where did you see him?—A. In his office at the factory whenever I went to draw my sister-in-law’s pay.Q. What did he say to you that might have been improper on any of these visits?—A. He didn’t exactly say—he made gestures. I went to get sister’s pay about four weeks ago and when I went into the office of Mr. Frank I asked for her. He told me I couldn’t see her unless “I saw him first.”Says He Winked at Her.“I told him I didn’t want to ‘see him.’ He pulled a box from his desk. It had a lot of money in it. He looked at it significantly and then looked at me. When he looked at me, he winked. As he winked he said: ‘How about it?’“I instantly told him I was a nice girl.”Here the witness stopped her statement. Coroner Donehoo asked her sharply:“Didn’t you say anything else?”“Yes, I did! I told him to go to h—l! and walked out of his office.”Charges Familiarities.The testimony of Nellie Wood, a young girl of 8 Corput Street, came next.In brief, it was this:Q. Do you know Leo Frank?—A. I worked for him for two days.Q. Did you observe any misconduct on his part?—A. Well, his actions didn’t suit me. He’d come around and put his hands on me when such conduct was entirely uncalled for.Q. Is that all he did?—A. No. He asked me one day to come into his office, saying that he wanted to talk to me. He tried to close the door, but I wouldn’t let him. He got too familiar by getting so close to me. He also put his hands on me.Q. Where did he put his hands?—A. He barely touched my breast. He was subtle with his approaches and tried to pretend that he was joking but I was too wary for such as that.Quit His Employ.Q. Did he try further familiarities?—A. Yes.Q. When did this happen?—A. Two years ago.Q. What did you tell him when you left his employ?—A. I just quit, telling him that it didn’t suit me.-end (can read more at the newspaper library links where the transcriptions are well documented)Leo Frank trial reference sources disproving the anti-Semitism charge and proving that the evidence overwhelmingly proves that Leo Frank was a sexual predator and well beyond a reasonable doubt murdered Little Mary Phagan:The Coroner’s Inquest is where the people of Atlanta Georgia learned that sweatshop operator Leo Frank was using his weekly payday of Saturdays at noontime to proposition young girls into prostitution with him. Read: Leo Frank: The Coroner’s InquestAn introduction to one of the most fascinating rape-murder trials of the early 20th century. 100 Years Ago Today: The Trial of Leo Frank Begins (100 Years Ago Today: The Trial of Leo Frank Begins)Leo Frank Trial Week One The Leo Frank Trial: Week One (The Leo Frank Trial: Week One)Leo Frank Trial Week Two The Leo Frank Trial: Week Two (The Leo Frank Trial: Week Two)Leo Frank Trial Week Three The Leo Frank Trial: Week Three (The Leo Frank Trial: Week Three)An amazing summary of Leo Frank in the witness chair delivering an oral statement to the jury at his rape-murder trial. 100 Years Ago Today: Leo Frank Takes the Stand (100 Years Ago Today: Leo Frank Takes the Stand)The Leo Frank Trial: Week Four, Listen to the Leo Frank Trial: Week Four.Four Perorations. The Leo Frank Trial: Closing Arguments of Hooper, Arnold, and Rosser (The Leo Frank Trial: Closing Arguments of Hooper, Arnold, and Rosser) and the Leo Frank Trial: Closing Arguments, District Attorney, Listen toThe Leo Frank Trial: Closing Arguments, Solicitor Dorsey.The presiding judge Leonard Strickland Roan Charge to the Court. Listen to New Audio Book: The American Mercury on Leo Frank - Judge Leonard Roan’s Charge to the JuryOne of the most amazing series of arguments why Leo Frank was convicted, not because of anti-Semitism, but the facts. Listen to 100 Reasons Leo Frank Is GuiltyAn impressive background and overview of the Leo Frank case, and why the racist and anti-Gentile charge of anti-Semitism is false: Three Deaths by Strangling: Mary Phagan, Leo Frank, and TruthAlonzo Mann’s late in life fraudulent claims to trick the public into thinking Leo Frank was innocent. The effort failed and Leo Frank was given a half-baked posthumous pardon which did not officially clear his name of the Phagan murder. The Astounding Alonzo Mann HoaxLucille Selig the wife of Leo Frank did not visit her husband for two weeks after he sexually molested and garroted Mary Phagan, she also refused to be her remains be buried by his side at the Mount Carmel cemetery in Queens New York. The Amazing Story of Mrs. Leo FrankU.S. Congressman Tom Watson (House of Representatives and Senator) wrote five separate analytical reviews of the Leo Frank case, aspects. Why Was Leo Frank Lynched?Thirteen part audiobook by the great-niece of the murder victim, Mary Anne Phagan. By far one of the best books ever written about the Leo Frank case. New Audio Book: The Murder of Little Mary PhaganState Exhibit B in the Brief of Evidence at Leo Frank’s Trial, 1913.Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court Records:If you want to read the affidavits of factory employees who testified against Leo Frank at the trial but afterward admitted they committed perjury they are available on The Internet Archive, direct access to the account (free) User Account (archive.org) ←click here.Guess what happened? They never, after the trial, admitted they committed perjury, they had been bribed and tricked to sign their affidavits. It’s in the Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court records and I implore you to read them. Read what the witnesses at the Leo Frank trial had to say here: User Account (archive.org) in response to claims they repudiated their trial testimony.

Ebony Magazine published in 1959, Martin Luther's experience in visiting India:“MY TRIP TO THE LAND OF GHANDI”."My Trip to the Land of Gandhi"Author:King, Martin Luther, Jr.Date:July 1, 1959 to July 31, 1959Location:Chicago, Ill.Genre:Published ArticleTopic:Martin Luther King, Jr. - Political and Social ViewsMartin Luther King, Jr. - TravelsMontgomery Bus BoycottDownload Document:View DocumentDetailsIn his account of his India tour published in Ebony magazine, King notes that Gandhi’s spirit is still alive, though “some of his disciples have misgivings about this when . . . they look around and find nobody today who comes near the stature of the Mahatma.”1Lamenting India’s pervasive economic inequalities, King observes that “the bourgeoise—white, black or brown—behaves about the same the world over,” and he calls upon the West to aid India’s development “in a spirit of international brotherhood, not national selfishness.”For a long time I had wanted to take a trip to India. Even as a child the entire Orient held a strange fascination for me—the elephants, the tigers, the temples, the snake charmers and all the other storybook characters.While the Montgomery boycott was going on, India’s Gandhi was the guiding light of our technique of non-violent social change. We spoke of him often. So as soon as our victory over bus segregation was won, some of my friends said: “Why don’t you go to India and see for yourself what the Mahatma, whom you so admire, has wrought.”In 1956 when Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s Prime Minister, made a short visit to the United States, he was gracious enough to say that he wished that he and I had met and had his diplomatic representatives make inquiries as to the possibility of my visiting his country some time soon. Our former American ambassador to India, Chester Bowles, wrote me along the same lines.2But every time that I was about to make the trip, something would interfere. At one time it was my visit by prior commitment to Ghana.3At another time my publishers were pressing me to finish writing Stride Toward Freedom. Then along came Mrs. Izola Ware Curry. When she struck me with that Japanese letter opener on that Saturday afternoon in September as I sat autographing books in a Harlem store, she not only knocked out the travel plans that I had but almost everything else as well.After I recovered from this near-fatal encounter and was finally released by my doctors, it occurred to me that it might be better to get in the trip to India before plunging too deeply once again into the sea of the Southern segregation struggle.I preferred not to take this long trip alone and asked my wife and my friend, Lawrence Reddick, to accompany me. Coretta was particularly interested in the women of India and Dr. Reddick in the history and government of that great country. He had written my biography, Crusader Without Violence, and said that my true test would come when the people who knew Gandhi looked me over and passed judgment upon me and the Montgomery movement. The three of us made up a sort of 3-headed team with six eyes and six ears for looking and listening.The Christopher Reynolds Foundation made a grant through the American Friends Service Committee to cover most of the expenses of the trip and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the Montgomery Improvement Association added their support.4The Gandhi Memorial Trust of India extended an official invitation, through diplomatic channels, for our visit.5And so on February 3, 1959, just before midnight, we left New York by plane. En route we stopped in Paris with Richard Wright, an old friend of Reddick’s, who brought us up to date on European attitudes on the Negro question and gave us a taste of the best French cooking.6We missed our plane connection in Switzerland because of fog, arriving in India after a roundabout route, two days late. But from the time we came down out of the clouds at Bombay on February 10, until March 10, when we waved goodbye at the New Delhi airport, we had one of the most concentrated and eye-opening experiences of our lives. There is so much to tell that I can only touch upon a few of the high points.At the outset, let me say that we had a grand reception in India. The people showered upon us the most generous hospitality imaginable. We were graciously received by the Prime Minister, the President and the Vice-President of the nation; members of Parliament, Governors and Chief Ministers of various Indian states; writers, professors, social reformers and at least one saint.7Since our pictures were in the newspapers very often it was not unusual for us to be recognized by crowds in public places and on public conveyances.8Occasionally I would take a morning walk in the large cities, and out of the most unexpected places someone would emerge and ask: “Are you Martin Luther King?”Virtually every door was open to us. We had hundreds of invitations that the limited time did not allow us to accept. We were looked upon as brothers with the color of our skins as something of an asset. But the strongest bond of fraternity was the common cause of minority and colonial peoples in America, Africa and Asia struggling to throw off racialism and imperialism.We had the opportunity to share our views with thousands of Indian people through endless conversations and numerous discussion sessions. I spoke before university groups and public meetings all over India. Because of the keen interest that the Indian people have in the race problem these meetings were usually packed. Occasionally interpreters were used, but on the whole I spoke to audiences that understood English.The Indian people love to listen to the Negro spirituals. Therefore, Coretta ended up singing as much as I lectured. We discovered that autograph seekers are not confined to America. After appearances in public meetings and while visiting villages we were often besieged for autographs. Even while riding planes, more than once pilots came into the cabin from the cockpit requesting our signatures.We got a good press throughout our stay. Thanks to the Indian papers, the Montgomery bus boycott was already well known in that country. Indian publications perhaps gave a better continuity of our 381-day bus strike than did most of our papers in the United States. Occasionally I meet some American fellow citizen who even now asks me how the bus boycott is going, apparently never having read that our great day of bus integration, December 21, 1956, closed that chapter of our history.We held press conferences in all of the larger cities—Delhi, Calcutta, Madras and Bombay—and talked with newspaper men almost everywhere we went. They asked sharp questions and at times appeared to be hostile but that was just their way of bringing out the story that they were after. As reporters, they were scrupulously fair with us and in their editorials showed an amazing grasp of what was going on in America and other parts of the world.The trip had a great impact upon me personally. It was wonderful to be in Gandhi’s land, to talk with his son, his grandsons, his cousin and other relatives; to share the reminiscences of his close comrades; to visit his ashrama, to see the countless memorials for him and finally to lay a wreath on his entombed ashes at Rajghat.9I left India more convinced than ever before that non-violent resistance is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom.10It was a marvelous thing to see the amazing results of a non-violent campaign. The aftermath of hatred and bitterness that usually follows a violent campaign was found nowhere in India. Today a mutual friendship based on complete equality exists between the Indian and British people within the commonwealth. The way of acquiescence leads to moral and spiritual suicide. The way of violence leads to bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers. But, the way of non-violence leads to redemption and the creation of the beloved community.The spirit of Gandhi is very much alive in India today. Some of his disciples have misgivings about this when they remember the drama of the fight for national independence and when they look around and find nobody today who comes near the stature of the Mahatma. But any objective observer must report that Gandhi is not only the greatest figure in India’s history but that his influence is felt in almost every aspect of life and public policy today.India can never forget Gandhi. For example, the Gandhi Memorial Trust (also known as the Gandhi Smarak Nidhi) collected some $130 million soon after the death of "the father of the nation." This was perhaps the largest, spontaneous, mass monetary contribution to the memory of a single individual in the history of the world. This fund, along with support from the Government and other institutions, is resulting in the spread and development of Gandhian philosophy, the implementing of his constructive program, the erection of libraries and the publication of works by and about the life and times of Gandhi. Posterity could not escape him even if it tried. By all standards of measurement, he is one of the half dozen greatest men in world history.I was delighted that the Gandhians accepted us with open arms. They praised our experiment with the non-violent resistance technique at Montgomery. They seem to look upon it as an outstanding example of the possibilities of its use in western civilization. To them as to me it also suggests that non-violent resistance when planned and positive in action can work effectively even under totalitarian regimes.We argued this point at some length with the groups of African students who are today studying in India.11They felt that non-violent resistance could only work in a situation where the resisters had a potential ally in the conscience of the opponent. We soon discovered that they, like many others, tended to confuse passive resistance with non-resistance. This is completely wrong. True non-violent resistance is not unrealistic submission to evil power. It is rather a courageous confrontation of evil by the power of love, in the faith that it is better to be the recipient of violence than the inflictor of it, since the latter only multiplies the existence of violence and bitterness in the universe, while the former may develop a sense of shame in the opponent, and thereby bring about a transformation and change of heart.Non-violent resistance does call for love, but it is not a sentimental love. It is a very stern love that would organize itself into collective action to right a wrong by taking on itself suffering. While I understand the reasons why oppressed people often turn to violence in their struggle for freedom, it is my firm belief that the crusade for independence and human dignity that is now reaching a climax in Africa will have a more positive effect on the world, if it is waged along the lines that were first demonstrated in that continent by Gandhi himself.12India is a vast country with vast problems. We flew over the long stretches, from North to South, East to West; took trains for shorter jumps and used automobiles and jeeps to get us into the less accessible places.India is about a third the size of the United States but has almost three times as many people. Everywhere we went we saw crowded humanity—on the roads, in the city streets and squares, even in the villages.13Most of the people are poor and poorly dressed. The average income per person is less than $70 per year. Nevertheless, their turbans for their heads, loose flowing, wrap-around dhotis that they wear instead of trousers and the flowing saries that the women wear instead of dresses are colorful and picturesque. Many Indians wear part native and part western dress.We think that we in the United States have a big housing problem but in the city of Bombay, for example, over a half million people sleep out of doors every night. These are mostly unattached, unemployed or partially employed males. They carry their bedding with them like foot soldiers and unroll it each night in any unoccupied space they can find—on the sidewalk, in a railroad station or at the entrance of a shop that is closed for the evening.The food shortage is so widespread that it is estimated that less than 30% of the people get what we would call three square meals a day. During our great depression of the 1930's, we spoke of "a third of a nation" being "ill-housed, ill clad and ill fed." For India today, simply change one third to two thirds in that statement and that would make it about right.As great as is unemployment, under-employment is even greater. Seventy per cent of the Indian people are classified as agricultural workers and most of these do less than 200 days of farm labor per year because of the seasonal fluctuations and other uncertainties of mother nature. Jobless men roam the city streets.Great ills flow from the poverty of India but strangely there is relatively little crime. Here is another concrete manifestation of the wonderful spiritual quality of the Indian people. They are poor, jammed together and half starved but they do not take it out on each other. They are a kindly people. They do not abuse each other—verbally or physically—as readily as we do. We saw but one fist fight in India during our stay.14In contrast to the poverty-stricken, there are Indians who are rich, have luxurious homes, landed estates, fine clothes and show evidence of over-eating. The bourgeoise—white, black or brown—behaves about the same the world over.And then there is, even here, the problem of segregation. We call it race in America; they call it caste in India. In both places it means that some are considered inferior, treated as though they deserve less.We were surprised and delighted to see that India has made greater progress in the fight against caste "untouchability" than we have made here in our own country against race segregation. Both nations have federal laws against discrimination (acknowledging, of course, that the decision of our Supreme Court is the law of our land). But after this has been said, we must recognize that there are great differences between what India has done and what we have done on a problem that is very similar. The leaders of India have placed their moral power behind their law. From the Prime Minister down to the village councilmen, everybody declares publicly that untouchability is wrong. But in the United States some of our highest officials decline to render a moral judgment on segregation and some from the South publicly boast of their determination to maintain segregation. This would be unthinkable in India.Moreover, Gandhi not only spoke against the caste system but he acted against it. He took "untouchables" by the hand and led them into the temples from which they had been excluded. To equal that, President Eisenhower would take a Negro child by the hand and lead her into Central High School in Little Rock.Gandhi also renamed the untouchables, calling them "Harijans" which means "children of God."The government has thrown its full weight behind the program of giving the Harijans an equal chance in society—especially when it comes to job opportunities, education and housing.India’s leaders, in and out of government, are conscious of their country’s other great problems and are heroically grappling with them. The country seems to be divided. Some say that India should become westernized and modernized as quickly as possible so that she might raise her standards of living. Foreign capital and foreign industry should be invited in, for in this lies the salvation of the almost desperate situation.On the other hand, there are others—perhaps the majority—who say that westernization will bring with it the evils of materialism, cut throat competition and rugged individualism; that India will lose her soul if she takes to chasing Yankee dollars; and that the big machine will only raise the living standards of the comparative few workers who get jobs but that the greater number of people will be displaced and will thus be worse off than they are now.Prime Minister Nehru, who is at once an intellectual and a man charged with the practical responsibility of heading the government, seems to steer a middle course between these extreme attitudes. In our talk with him he indicated that he felt that some industrialization was absolutely necessary; that there were some things that only big or heavy industry could do for the country but that if the state keeps a watchful eye on the developments, most of the pitfalls may be avoided.At the same time, Mr. Nehru gives support to the movement that would encourage and expand the handicraft arts such as spinning and weaving in home and village and thus leaving as much economic self help and autonomy as possible to the local community.There is a great movement in India that is almost unknown in America. At its center is the campaign for land reform known as Bhoodan. It would solve India’s great economic and social change by consent, not by force. The Bhoodanists are led by the sainted Vinoba Bhave and Jayaprakash Narayan, a highly sensitive intellectual, who was trained in American colleges.15Their ideal is the self-sufficient village. Their program envisionsPersuading large land owners to give up some of their holding to landless peasants;Persuading small land owners to give up their individual ownership for common cooperative ownership by the villages;Encouraging farmers and villagers to spin and weave the cloth for their own clothes during their spare time from their agricultural pursuits.Since these measures would answer the questions of employment, food and clothing, the village could then, through cooperative action, make just about everything that it would need or get it through barter or exchange from other villages. Accordingly, each village would be virtually self sufficient and would thus free itself from the domination of the urban centers that are today like evil loadstones drawing the people away from the rural areas, concentrating them in city slums and debauching them with urban vices. At least this is the argument of the Bhoodanists and other Gandhians.Such ideas sound strange and archaic to Western ears. However, the Indians have already achieved greater results than we Americans would ever expect. For example, millions of acres of land have been given up by rich landlords and additional millions of acres have been given up to cooperative management by small farmers. On the other hand, the Bhoodanists shrink from giving their movement the organization and drive that we in America would venture to guess that it must have in order to keep pace with the magnitude of the problems that everybody is trying to solve.Even the government’s five-year plans fall short in that they do not appear to be of sufficient scope to embrace their objectives. Thus, the three five-year plans were designed to provide 25,000,000 new jobs over a 15 year period but the birth rate of India is 6,000,000 per year. This means that in 15 years there will be 9,000,000 more people (less those who have died or retired) looking for the 15 million new jobs16. In other words, if the planning were 100 per cent successful, it could not keep pace with the growth of problems it is trying to solve.As for what should be done, we surely do not have the answer. But we do feel certain that India needs help. She must have outside capital and technical know-how. It is in the interest of the United States and the West to help supply these needs and not attach strings to the gifts.Whatever we do should be done in a spirit of international brotherhood, not national selfishness. It should be done not merely because it is diplomatically expedient, but because it is morally compelling. At the same time, it will rebound to the credit of the West if India is able to maintain her democracy while solving her problems.17It would be a boon to democracy if one of the great nations of the world, with almost 400,000,000 people, proves that it is possible to provide a good living for everyone without surrendering to a dictatorship of either the "right" or "left." Today India is a tremendous force for peace and non-violence, at home and abroad. It is a land where the idealist and the intellectual are yet respected. We should want to help India preserve her soul and thus help to save our own.1.Four weeks after returning from India, King prepared a draft of this article (Draft, “My trip to India,” April 1959; see also Maude L. Ballou to Lerone Bennett, 17 April 1959). Nine photographs accompanied it, including pictures of King meeting Prime Minister Nehru and the Kings and traveling companion Lawrence Reddick placing a wreath at the site of Gandhi’s cremation.2.Bowles to King, 28 January 1957; see also Homer Alexander Jack to King, 27 December 1956, in Papers 3:496, 498.3.In March 1957 King attended the Ghanaian independence celebrations. For more on King’s trip to Ghana, see Introduction in Papers 4:7-9.4.The Reynolds Foundation provided $4,000 for the trip, SCLC provided an additional $500, and the MIA and Dexter Avenue Baptist Church presented the Kings with a money tree at a “bon voyage” celebration in their honor on 26 January (AFSC, “Budget: leadership intervisitation, visit to India by Martin Luther and Coretta King,” February-March 1959, and “The Kings Leave Country,” Dexter Echo, 11 February 1959).5.See G. Ramachandran to King, 27 December 1958, in Papers 4:552-553.6.Wright, an African American novelist, had lived in Paris since 1947. In a draft of this article, King had crossed out the reference to Wright. For more on King’s visit with Wright, see Introduction, p. 4 in this volume.7.Among those King met were Nehru, President Rajendra Prasad, Vice President Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, and member of Parliament Sucheta Kripalani. King also refers to Gandhi’s disciple Vinoba Bhave.8.King’s draft phrased this differently: “Our pictures were in the newspapers very often and we were recognized by crowds at the circus and by pilots on the planes.” The draft did not include the subsequent sentence or the following two paragraphs.9.See King to Ramdas M. Gandhi, 8 August 1959, pp. 255-256 in this volume.10.This sentence and the remainder of the paragraph were not included in King’s draft.11.King’s draft added the following sentence: “They, like many others, seem to feel that nonviolent resistance means non-resistance, do nothing.” The remainder of the paragraph and the following paragraph were not included in the draft.12.King’s draft included the following paragraph: “We also learned a lot from the India journalists. Our practice was to divide the time of our press conferences between questions they asked us and questions we asked them.”13.King’s draft added the following: “The people have a way of squatting, resting comfortably (it seemed) on their haunches. Many of the homes do not have chairs and most of the cities have very few park or street benches.”14.In King’s draft, he had stricken the following two paragraphs: “There is great consideration for human life but little regard for labor and time. We saw men mending shoes almost without tools. Five persons may be sent to bring down a package that one could carry. Human muscles there do many jobs that our machines do here. Moreover, nobody seems to be in a hurry and it is surprising when arrangements and appointments come off according to schedule.Young boys accost you everywhere, persistently offering to supply you with just about anything your heart could desire and your pocket book can pay for. Begging is widespread though the government has done much to discourage it. But what can you do when an old haggard woman or a little crippled urchin comes up and motions to you that she is hungry?”15.For King's 1959 interview with Vinoba Bhave, see Vinoba, "Dr. Martin Luther King with Vinoba," Bhoodan 3 (18 March 1959): 369-370; see also King to Narayan, 19 May 1959, pp. 209-211 in this volume.16.King's draft indicated that ninety million more people would be looking for work.17.In his draft, King marked the following sentence for deletion: “Her people are remarkably patient but many of them are looking toward their neighbor to the North and noting that China under the discipline of communism seems to be moving ahead more rapidly than India.”Source:Ebony, July 1959, pp. 84-92.© Copyright InformationPublished inThe Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr. Volume V: Threshold of a New Decade, January 1959-December 1960Clayborne Carson, Tenisha Armstrong, Susan Carson, Adrienne Clay, and Kieran Taylor, eds.SEE ALL VOLUMESKing PapersAbout the Papers ProjectVolumesFeatured DocumentsSearch DocumentsResourcesDocumentsDocument Research RequestsFreedom's RingOnline King Records AccessKing Institute PublicationsRecommended ReadingsLiberation CurriculumThe InstituteNews & EventsOur StaffClayborne CarsonOur SupportersVisit the InstituteMake a GiftCypress Hall D, 466 Via Ortega, Stanford, CA 94305-4146P: (650) 723-2092 | F: (650) 723-2093 | [email protected] | Campus MapFacebookTwitterStanford HomeMaps & DirectionsSearch StanfordEmergency InfoTerms of UsePrivacyCopyrightTrademarksNon-DiscriminationAccessibility© Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305.