FREE Delivery in the UK.
Temporarily out of stock.
Order now and we'll deliver when available. We'll e-mail you with an estimated delivery date as soon as we have more information. Your account will only be charged when we dispatch the item.
Dispatched from and sold by Amazon.
Gift-wrap available.
Quantity:1
The Leo Frank Case has been added to your Basket
+ £2.80 UK delivery
Used: Good | Details
Condition: Used: Good
Comment: FREE TRACKING/DELIVERY CONFIRMATION ON ALL ORDERS!! A great value for the avid reader! GOOD can range from a well cared for book in great condition to average with signs of slight wear. Overall, All text in great shape! Ships Safe, Secure, & Fast! 100% MONEY BACK GUARANTEE!
Trade in your item
Get a £1.74
Gift Card.
Have one to sell?
Flip to back Flip to front
Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more
See this image

The Leo Frank Case Paperback – 15 Sep 2008


See all 9 formats and editions Hide other formats and editions
Amazon Price New from Used from
Paperback
"Please retry"
£19.50
£16.34 £6.33
Unknown Binding
"Please retry"
£19.50 FREE Delivery in the UK. Temporarily out of stock. Order now and we'll deliver when available. We'll e-mail you with an estimated delivery date as soon as we have more information. Your account will only be charged when we dispatch the item. Dispatched from and sold by Amazon. Gift-wrap available.

Special Offers and Product Promotions

  • When you trade in £15 or more you’ll receive an additional £5 Amazon.co.uk Gift Card for the next time you spend £10 or more.


Trade In this Item for up to £1.74
Trade in The Leo Frank Case for an Amazon Gift Card of up to £1.74, which you can then spend on millions of items across the site. Trade-in values may vary (terms apply). Learn more

Product details

  • Paperback: 280 pages
  • Publisher: University of Georgia Press; Revised edition edition (15 Sept. 2008)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0820331791
  • ISBN-13: 978-0820331799
  • Product Dimensions: 14 x 1.6 x 21.6 cm
  • Average Customer Review: 5.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
  • Amazon Bestsellers Rank: 471,462 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, and more.

Product Description

Review

"The author's research has been painstaking and thorough; material was located in many Northern as well as Georgian collections. The selection of Georgia newspapers was judicious and representative."--"Journal of Southern History"

About the Author

Leonard Dinnerstein is an emeritus professor of American history at the University of Arizona, where he directed the Judaic Studies Program. His books include "America and the Survivors of the Holocaust" and "Antisemitism in America."

What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?

Customer Reviews

5.0 out of 5 stars
5 star
2
4 star
0
3 star
0
2 star
0
1 star
0
See both customer reviews
Share your thoughts with other customers

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

3 of 4 people found the following review helpful By A Customer on 17 July 1999
Format: Paperback
Dinnerstein does a beautiful job in eloquently presenting the facts of the famous Leo Frank case. All angles of the case are examined in a thorough, impartial manner. A must read for anyone familiar with the Frank case, and well worth looking into for anyone who loves a good murder mystery.
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
By Mr Producer on 18 Jan. 2015
Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
Another interesting read!
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again

Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)

Amazon.com: 11 reviews
28 of 34 people found the following review helpful
A great historical account 6 July 2000
By Elisabeth - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Paperback
I got interested in this case after reading a large write up in the local paper, the Atlanta Journal constitution, which is quoted many times in the book. I like historical books and was really amazed at the semitic overtones in the south during the civil war. As stated by reveiwer C. Ellen, it was written well and put into context with other goings on in that period. Being from Atlanta myself, I could very easily relate to the narative and it held my facination throughout. It told what I beleive to be the complete story and facts as well as being updated for NEW release in 1987 by adding an additional preface. Anyone who is interested in civil war reads, the laws of the time , or who lives in or around Atlanta , will be interested in this book. Over 50 pages of it are dedicated to the bibliography and all facts are well documented. It is a story that is all to reminiscent of famous cases that have arrisen in the past few years. It's a sad commentary on just how far the attitudes of this nation have come in the past 100 years or so. If interested in further information after reading this book, then I suggest trying to contact the Atlanta Journal Constitution for their brilliant account of the incident in the June 11, 2000 addition of their paper. It also gives a partial list of the lynching mob, held in secretcy until this time. A great book to own for any historical book collection.
18 of 23 people found the following review helpful
An excellent treatment of the subject 21 Dec. 1999
By C. Ellen Connally - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
As a judge, a lawyer and an historian I had heard about the Leo Frank case but did not know the details. Leonard Dinnerstein does an excellent job of relating the story of Leo Frank in a fair and unbiased manner. He also puts the entire affair in a historical context. This would be an excellent read for any student of racism in America and of the New South. It is easy to read and has an excellent bibliography.
14 of 18 people found the following review helpful
Well written, impartial treatment of the Frank Case 17 July 1999
By Lauren (lauverf@aol.com) - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Paperback
Dinnerstein does a beautiful job in eloquently presenting the facts of the famous Leo Frank case. All angles of the case are examined in a thorough, impartial manner. A must read for anyone familiar with the Frank case, and well worth looking into for anyone who loves a good murder mystery.
16 of 22 people found the following review helpful
A sad, necessary history for all Americans 24 Mar. 2005
By Erik Cooke - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Paperback
The circumstances and attitudes that coincided in the trial of Leo Frank, had very little to do with the accused or the victim. They were both surrogates for a larger battle; Leo Frank was proxy for Northern industrialists and "Little Mary Phagan" stood in for the victimized South who had been taken advantage of by Northern opportunists.

The fact is that the case of Leo Frank acted as a steam valve, in many respects, to the buildup of Southern frustration and anger that had grown since the Civil War, then through Reconstruction and its aftermath. Southern Pride took a near-mortal blow when Lee surrendered to Sherman at Appomattox, humiliating the survivors of hundreds of thousands of dead. Reconstruction brought in Northern carpetbaggers who participated in the governments of the states that they had just defeated. Southern anger accumulated, especially as attempts to overturn it were thwarted until the contested election of 1876, in which Rutherford B. Hayes won on the condition of agreeing to end Reconstruction.

Reconstruction allowed Southern states to exact a measure of revenge on black populations, although resentment toward the North remained unavenged. In an honor-bound society such as the South, it is very difficult to imagine that wrong to one's family would go without settling the score. Such is the larger metaphor of the South as a whole to the North. Southern society and culture prided itself on being a distinct and cultured entity from the slavish industrialists of the North.

Thus, when a stereotypical Northern carpetbagger, a Jew no less, found himself in connection with the violent death of a Southern belle, vengeance became a powerful a prevailing force. Upon Leo Frank was heaped all of the indignation from Southern loss to the North - the industrialization, forcing young girls to work in factories; the ownership of capital; the imposition of Reconstruction; Lincoln marching into Richmond - all Southern rage at the North was embodied in the trial of Leo Frank. (Ironically, a Northern newspaper magnate, William Randolph Hearst, fed the flames through his acquisition of the Atlanta Georgian, which led the pack in sensationalizing the trial.)

All of this is to say that the forces which demanded that Leo Frank be the sacrificial lamb for the North's crimes against the South were too powerful for rational legal procedures. If the governor had reversed the conviction or the commuted the sentence, he would have been denying the mob the satisfaction of revenge. The lynching of Frank did give rise to the Klu Klux Klan, however the immediate reaction of Georgia (and the South) was a demand for justice, even though it was at the end of a rope.

It is telling that Frank did not receive a pardon of his conviction until 1986, and even that was amid controversy in the South. Those eighty years had to pass before rational analysis of a crime could be carried out and a form of justice could be executed, which lends perspective to the heft of the event in the history of the South. Tom Watson's remark was an astute reflection of the prevailing sentiment of the day and offers a glimpse into larger, unresolved tensions of the day.
12 of 18 people found the following review helpful
40 years of pseudo-academic research culminated in perfection, resulting in a politically correct masterpiece of pseudo-history 25 July 2011
By Mark Cohen - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Paperback
Review of 'The Leo Frank Case' by Dr. Leonard Dinnerstein, PhD:

In 1963, nearly 50 years after the most sensational criminal case in the annals of Southern jurisprudence, initially became a national cause celebre for American Jewry - causing division amongst the citizenry of the United States along sectarian lines - an Ivy League graduate student named Leonard Dinnerstein (born May 5, 1934), became engaged in conducting academic thesis research about this celebrated legal affair. Three years later in 1966, Dinnerstein completed his PhD dissertation on the Leo Frank Case for political science department of Columbia University, & his thesis became the impetus of his book, 'the Leo Frank Case' (first edition, 1968).

Since the late 1960's, Dinnerstein's "The Leo Frank Case", has undergone numerous tweaks, additions, & revisions, as he's republished numerous editions over the years & decades that ensued. Forty years later, his latest edition (as of this review posting), retelling this case that refuses to gather dust, published almost a century after the trial, is the culmination of nearly 50 years of research into the Leo Frank epic saga.

Readability of the book: one or two stars out of five stars.

Dinnerstein lacks the eloquence of a wordsmith, producing flat cardboard colored social history. Dinnerstein's prose are mostly formulated in stale & dated writing styles. Moreover, if it weren't for the fascinating subject, this book would probably be boring to read, given Dinnerstein's overwhelmingly bland syntax.

Historical Honesty, Integrity & Reliability of the Facts: one star out of five stars.

Given how many decades Dinnerstein spent studying this case (nearly half a century), it seems almost incomprehensible the sheer number of conspicuous errors, misquotes, mistakes, fabrications, misrepresentations, frauds, deception, falsifications & shameless omissions made in every edition of his book on the Leo Frank Case from 1968 all the way through to 2008. Going even further back, & closely examining Dinnerstein's 1966 PhD dissertation, reveals early-on his central thesis is based upon paranoid pathological obsessions with accusing *non-existent* widespread anti-Semitism, as the primary reason Leo Frank was indicted & convicted. Dinnerstein believes the Leo Frank conviction was an anti-Semitic outburst & episode, that erupted from "anti-Semitic Southern culture", despite the consensus among Jewish & Gentile historians that anti-Semitism was virtually non-existent in the South. Moreover, given the fact Jews were considered an integral part of European-American culture in the South, meant that Leo Frank being a German-Jew more likely helped him than hurt him (see: The Jew Accused: Three Anti-Semitic Affairs 1894-1915, Lindemann, 1992).

Dinnerstein goes to unbelievable lengths in his book to obfuscate the 1,800 pages of legal files that survived into the 21st century from the Georgia Supreme Court, records that showed to what criminal extent Leo Frank's friends & legal defense team (including Governor John Slaton) were willing to go, tricking witnesses into: perjuring themselves, signing false affidavits, & retracting their trial testimony. After omitting all the incriminating evidence against Leo Frank from his monograph, Dinnerstein then claims Leo Frank was innocent, despite the fact every level of the United States legal system from 1913 to 1986, did not disturb the guilty verdict of the trial jury. Moreover, if the presiding judge Leonard Strickland Roan had any real doubts about Leo Frank's guilt, he could have given him a new trial when the defense petitioned him on 107 grounds.

Anti-Semitism?

The question that arises concerning the May 24, 1913 indictment rendered against Leo Frank: What compelled 21 grand jurors (with several Jewish members amongst them) to vote unanimously against Leo Frank (when only 12 out of 21 votes were needed to indict), was it the compelling facts, testimony & evidence presented to them, or some kind of anti-Semitic blood-libel conspiracies?

We can't answer this question from Dinnerstein's overly simplistic book, because he intentionally obfuscates & omits nearly the entire Leo Frank Trial Brief of Evidence (1913) & Coroner's Inquest Testimony. Dinnerstein also doesn't tell his readers who testified during the Grand Jury tribunal, so people have no choice but to do their own research, to find out for themselves & then look back in the records, to see what these particular witnesses testified about at the Coroner's Inquest before the Grand Jury hearings & then later after the Grand Jury concluded, what these same witnesses testified during the Leo Frank Trial.

Let me explain in detail why this book is quackery at its finest:

Dinnerstein uses his agitprop hate-propaganda book to invoke the age-old racist blood-libel canards against Whites, but this time against European-American Southerners, indicting them all as part of a vast anti-Semitic UFO conspiracy theory, to indict & convict Leo Frank "without evidence", but with rumors & hearsay. Moreover, Dinnerstein accuses the "unscrupulous" & "ambitious" prosecutor, the solicitor general Hugh Dorsey (1871 - 1948), of knowingly playing along with the public in clamoring to "frame" & thus ostensibly committing anti-Semitic murder of an "innocent" Jew, for the long term purpose of advancing his own political career in Atlanta. Dinnerstein is suggesting that one of Georgia's most progressive Statesmen, a man who openly advocated against vigilante lynching (when it was dangerous & politically unpopular to do so), knowingly murdered an innocent Jew, as a stepping stone to become Governor.

What Dinnerstein failed to mention is Hugh Dorsey became close friends & roommates with the famous Jewish-American lawyer Henry Alexander during law school while they were students, & that after graduation Dorsey had numerous Jewish law partners & associates he worked with throughout the course of his life. The charge of anti-Semitism & anti-Semite has become the racial epithet of spineless cowards, who use it as a smear to stifle open discuss about political, legal, or social issues concerning Jews.

Dinnerstein has spent his entire academic career writing about the evils of anti-Jewish bigotry, but has spewed his own disgusting blood-libel racism against European-Americans for over 40 years in edition after edition of his 'the Leo Frank Case' (1968 to 2008). Indeed, there seems to an infinite supply of activists who make it a career to denounce anti-Jewish racism, but usually when you scratch the surface of these people, underneath you find out that deep down, these same denouncers are prejudiced, racist & bigoted against others. Dinnerstein is no exception & hides his own anti-Gentile racism behind the tribal obsession of blame. Yet, ignorance, racism & prejudice are wrong no matter who the perpetrator or victim.

Was the Georgia Supreme Court & United States Supreme Court anti-Semitic when their majority decisions where against Leo Frank? Was the Georgia Supreme Court Anti-Semitic when they stated affirmatively the evidence presented at the Leo Frank trial sustained his conviction?

This is what makes every version of the book, 'The Leo Frank Case' written by Dinnerstein so disappointing: In order to maintain his position of politically correct racism directed against White & Black Southerners, it necessitated the most relevant facts, evidence & testimony of the Frank trial being surreptitiously expunged or distorted into racist incidents. Do we really want racist anti-Gentile activist professors, who will go to the most extreme lengths to deceive people, being allowed to teach college students?

Dinnerstein's myopic weltanschauung about Jewish-Gentile relations first revealed itself in his 1966 PhD thesis, indicating that he lacks the neutrality & intellect of a dispassionate researcher, one who can look back on history with new, penetrating & lucid eyes, to unlock its sociological & historical mysteries. However these mental shortcomings of Dinnerstein, guaranteed he would have a bright future in the politically charged world of ivory tower academia. Indeed, some forty years later, the 2008 edition of the Leo Frank Case, confirms Dinnerstein lived up to every measure of his potential as an academic pseudo-historian amongst America's politically correct intelligentsia. Here's why: Dinnerstein's book was central in shaping the popular culture myths surrounding the Frank-Phagan case over the last half a century. By first transforming the well documented truecrime legal case about a sadistic child molester, into a semi-fictionalized social-history morality tale about Gentile anti-Semitism & wrongful conviction, it then became another cultural weapon in the un-American arsenal to agitate against & demoralize Black & White Americans for their role in putting away a Jewish serial pedophile, rapist & child killer.

Leonard Dinnerstein vs. Every Level of the United States System of Justice:

Dinnerstein (February 23, 2008, Tucson, Arizona), concluding in the final words of his introductory 'Preface to Revised Edition' states, "I have no doubts: [Leo] Frank was innocent.", this statement sets the underlying tone of his book, that goes against the majority decisions of every level within the United States legal system, where more than a dozen experienced judges - infinitely more qualified than Dinnerstein to sift the evidence - reviewed the Frank trial testimony, affidavits, facts & weighing them all in-context, came to the correct conclusion, sustaining the fairness of the trial & leaving verdict undisturbed.

If an academic professor was subpoenaed to testify at a criminal trial involving a 29-year old man accused of bludgeoning, raping & strangling a 13-year old girl, & this academic professor witness, knowingly falsified & withheld evidence about the defendant, that's called perjury. If the witness provided perjured testimony & it was later proven so beyond a reasonable doubt, that witness-perjurer would likely find themselves incarcerated in prison for a number of years, but when an academic pseudo-scholar spends 40 years of his life muddling facts, withholding evidence, fraudulently manipulating official legal records & falsifying testimony of a real criminal case, he is called: "historian", by academia & popular culture!

I have read nearly everything ever written by Leonard Dinnerstein, not just his blandly written books, but his numerous magazine, journal & news articles. When I purchased every edition of Leonard Dinnerstein's books, I took the time to read, cross reference & compare his works against the sources he cites in his bibliographies. The only conclusion I am able to come to, is Leonard Dinnerstein shows an unrelenting pattern of inventing facts, misquoting, lying, aggrandizing, befogging, embellishing, over stating & over simplifying incidents in all his books. Dinnerstein's books that are supposedly meant to be non-fiction & wrongly labeled as such, are filled with sometimes falsely convincing pseudo-pedantic analysis & research.

Dinnerstein shows us a perfect example of how to artificially create popular-culture social history, by writing with a deceptive tone of authority, but only when checked against primary sources do we realize his relentless historical inaccuracies. You would think someone who spent nearly a lifetime studying the case, & putting out numerous editions of his book, would at least try to give you some kind of basically honest & accurate portrayal of this pivotal era from the annals of US history. What we got instead is the neurotically lachrymose rendition of history, by a long-time tribally quixotic professor, one who made his career working within the cognitive & intellectual confines of the anti-Semitism lobby. I find it truly astonishing the number of tenured college professors (Dinnerstein is now retired) who write with an air of authority, but knowingly make up stuff out of thin air, & use flawed research, most of which does not measure up to even minimum academic standards of what constitutes reliable sources.

For people who have carefully studied the three major Atlanta newspapers (Georgian, Constitution & Journal) through the years 1913 to 1915, covering the Leo Frank case in detailed accounts, & then cross referencing them with official legal records of the Leo Frank trial & appeals, Leonard Dinnerstein's book is a colossal let down, failure & disgrace to 20th & 21st century historiography. Dinnerstein's poorly researched books belong in the ashbin of history.

Evidence of Academic Dishonesty:

For example, from the prestigious American Jewish Archive Journal (1968) Volume 20, Number 2, Dinnerstein wrote & published an article about the Leo Frank case, claiming mobs of revelers outside the court room were shouting into the open windows during the Leo Frank trial, "Crack the Jews Neck!" and "Lynch Him!", & that people were making open death threats against the trial jury, that they would be individually or collectively lynched if they didn't lynch the "damn sheeny", but none of the three major Atlanta newspapers (Constitution, Journal & Georgian), who had teams of journalists documenting feint-by-feint the events in the courtroom, while other journalists teams of the same newspapers, were milling around outside the Fulton County Superior Courthouse, ever reported these incidents. Are we to believe that newspapers & reporters, intensely competing against each other & looking to advance their careers & readership, wouldn't mention such incidents? Never were these alleged vociferous death threats ever reported by anyone, including the judge, jury, spectators, media, police, prosecution or defense. During the two years of Leo Frank's appeals, none of these alleged anti-Semitic death threats were ever reported by the defense in the unabridged 3,000 pages of official Leo Frank legal records, that fortunately survived into the 21st century - this despite the fact Reuben Arnold played the race card, claiming during his closing arguments that Leo Frank was tried only because he was a Jew. The patently false accusations that European-American Southerners, on more than one occasion, openly terrorized the jury during the Leo Frank trial in full public view, forcing them with unequivocal death threats, into convicting Leo Frank, is an unforgivable racist blood libel & hate crime hoax created by Dinnerstein. If these things had actually happened in reality, the national media would have gone into foaming at the mouth rabid frenzies, & we would have never heard the end of it, even today. Dinnerstein's lachrymose fabrication of anti-Semitic incidents that never happened are nothing more than maudlin & tawdry hatecrime hoaxes.

Another Dinnerstein Fraud & Hoax:

Dinnerstein in a video interview segment, during the Leo Frank documentary 'The People vs. Leo Frank' (2009), makes authoritative comments on the interrogation of Jim Conley by the Atlanta Police (May, 1913) as they break him down in one of the docudrama scenes.

Dinnerstein, States to Director Ben Loeterman:

They [The Atlanta Police] asked him [Jim Conley] about the [Mary Phagan death] notes, he [Jim Conley] said, "i cant read and write", that happened to come up in a conversation, between the [Atlanta] police and [Leo] Frank, and [Leo] Frank said, "of course he [Jim Conley] can write, I know he [Jim Conley] can write, he [Jim Conley] used to borrow money from me [(Leo Frank)], and sign promissory notes", so [Jim] Conley had not been completely honest with the police (People v. Leo Frank, 2009).

This Dinnerstein segment is available on either YouTube or one can review it on the docudrama 'People v. Leo Frank' by Jewish-American director Ben Loeterman (available on Amazon.com).

Dinnerstein made a bald faced lie, during this interview, a lie that is easily verified by the Leo Frank Trial Brief of Evidence, & Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court records, 1913 & 1914.

Leo Frank was arrested by Atlanta Police on Tuesday, April 29, 1913, at 11:35 am. Jim Conley was arrested on Thursday, May 1, 1913. Leo Frank never informed the police, he knew Jim Conley could read & write on a semi-literate level, until it was weeks too late. It was Harry Scott who got the tip Jim Conley could read & write from a detective who spoke to a pawn broker, NOT Leo Frank who concealed the fact he managed Jim Conley's hand written pawnshop contracts. On May 18, 1913, after 2.5 weeks of interrogating Jim Conley -- using the third degree method (good cop vs bad cop) -- Atlanta police finally began to break Jim Conley down, & got him to admit he wrote the Mary Phagan "Death Notes", but Conley revealed it was at the behest of Leo Frank, who was trying to frame his Negro nightwatchman Newt Lee. With each successive interrogation after that, Atlanta police finally got approximately what chain of events that likely had occurred in the shuttered National Pencil Company on Saturday, April 26, 1913. Leo Frank was given on several occasions, the opportunity to confront Jim Conley face-to-face, but Leo Frank refused, even with his high powered lawyers present.

In over a million Police interrogations conducted across the United States over the last 100 years, criminally involved people are typically not always forthcoming, & often lie or hide facts initially. It sometimes takes long grueling interrogation sessions & pointing out inconsistencies to get people to finally let go, telling what really happened or as close to the truth as possible within probable reason. It's generally known throughout police history to be common for suspects, witnesses & criminals who participated in crimes, to conceal or obfuscate evidence, facts & information. This is why generally speaking, interrogation is usually a process of time, & doesn't always reap significant results in the beginning stages. Though there are many instances where people spill the beans on the first shot. Jim Conley was a tough cookie who held out for nearly 3 weeks. Leo Frank promised Jim Conley $200 if he kept his mouth shut, but weeks of intense interrogation eventually trumped it.

There were 170 employees who worked under Leo Frank at the National Pencil Company in 1913, & eight of the employees were African-Americans, but Leo Frank kept completely quiet about the fact that Jim Conley could read & write for more than 2 weeks, even though Jim Conley - working as a roustabout at the factory - had done written inventory stock work for Leo Frank.

Why did Leo withhold this evidence that Jim could read & write?

After Leo Frank was arrested, he never said a word to the Atlanta police that Jim Conley could write, despite the fact Leo Frank would take out small payments from Conley's weekly wages & pay down the pawnshop owner's contracts. Leo Frank allowed Jim Conley to run a shady side business out of the National Pencil Company, wheeling & dealing pocket-watches under questionable circumstances. Jim Conley even ripped off fellow co-worker, Mr. Arthur Pride, who testified about it at the Leo Frank Trial, but you would never know that reading Dinnerstein's books or magazine articles on the Frank Case.

For nearly 50 years Dinnerstein perpetuates one of the biggest known frauds in Leo Frank case history since 1964:

Dinnerstein knowingly references claims that do not stand up to even minimal scrutiny & he openly supports the 1964 Pierre van Paassen's Leo Frank hoax, that there were in existence in 1922, photographic x-rays at the courthouse archived from 1913, showing Leo Frank's teeth indentures & x-ray photographs of bitemarks on Mary Phagan's neck & shoulder, that did not correspondingly match Leo Frank's dental fingerprint.

The 1964 excerpt from 'To Number Our Days' (available on Amazon.com), that discusses the case of Leo Frank, & Pierre van Paassen's alleged 1922 discovery of photographic X-ray evidence, are on pages 237, 238:

The Jewish community of Atlanta at that time seemed to live under a cloud. Several years previously one of its members, Leo Frank, had been lynched as he was being transferred from the Fulton Tower Prison in Atlanta to Milledgeville for trial on a charge of having raped and murdered a little girl in his warehouse which stood right opposite the Constitution building. Many Jewish citizens who recalled the lynching were unanimous in assuring me that Frank was innocent of the crime.

I took to reading all the evidence pro and con in the record department at the courthouse. Before long I came upon an envelope containing a sheaf of papers and a number of X-ray photographs showing teeth indentures. The murdered girl had been bitten on the left shoulder and neck before being strangled. But the X-ray photos of the teeth marks on her body did not correspond with Leo Frank's set of teeth of which several photos were included. If those photos had been published at the time of the murder, as they should have been, the lynching would probably not have taken place.

Though, as I said, the man died several years before, it was not too late, I thought, to rehabilitate his memory and perhaps restore the good name of his family. I showed Clark Howell the evidence establishing Frank's innocence and asked permission to run a series of articles dealing with the case and especially with the evidence just uncovered. Mr. Howell immediately concurred, but the most prominent Jewish lawyer in the city, Mr. Harry Alexander, whom I consulted with a view to have him present the evidence to the grand jury, demurred. He said Frank had not even been tried. Hence no new trial could be requested. Moreover, the Jewish community in its entirety still felt nervous about the incident. If I wrote the articles old resentments might be stirred up and, who knows, some of the unknown lynchers might recognize themselves as participants in my description of the lynching. It was better, Mr. Alexander thought, to leave sleeping lions alone. Some local rabbis were drawn into the discussion and they actually pleaded with Clark Howell to stop me from reviving interest in the Frank case as this was bound to have evil repercussions on the Jewish community.

That someone had blabbed out of school became quite evident when I received a printed warning saying: "Lay off the Frank case if you want to keep healthy." The unsigned warning was reinforced one night or, rather, early one morning when I was driving home. A large automobile drove up alongside of me and forced me into the track of a fast-moving streetcar coming from the opposite direction. My car was demolished, but I escaped without a scratch....

Since Dinnerstein was an academic professor, perhaps he should ask current freshman students majoring in medicine if it was even possible to x-ray bitemarks on skin in 1913 or 2012, because it's not. Not only that, but in 1913, X-ray technology was in its infancy & never used in any criminal case until many years after Leo Frank was hanged. Was Leo Frank's lawyer named "Harry Alexander" or Henry Alexander? Why would the famous attorney who represented Leo Frank during his most high profile appeals say he didn't have his murder trial yet & want to submit evidence to a Grand Jury?! Leo Frank was not lynched on his way to trial in Milledgeville in late June of 1915, Frank was convicted at his trial in August of 1913, & was hanged in Marietta on August 17, 1915 (not Milledgeville, but 170 miles away). It defies high school level physics, logic & reason, that any person driving a motor vehicle in 1922 - when there were virtually no safety features in autos -- slamming into a head on collision with another car, would survive without a scratch.

I can not fathom why a former career university professor emeritus of Judaic studies would surreptitiously re-write history, when one can now easily check all the sources, facts, evidence & testimony of the Leo Frank case, by accessing the primary sources & official legal documents online at the official State of Georgia's Archive know as 'Virtual Vault'. Did Dinnerstein think these official legal records buried in dusty Government vaults, would never make their way online? Did Dinnerstein think Georgia's three major newspapers (1913 to 1915): Atlanta Constitution, Atlanta Journal & Atlanta Georgian, from April of 1913 to August of 1915, would never make their way online?

Dinnerstein's Shameless Coverup of a Racist Plot Against Two African-Americans:

What Dinnerstein shamelessly left out of his books are the juicy details of how Leo Frank botched a racist plot to frame the murder of Mary Phagan on his nightwatchman, Newt Lee, a bald, married, old, tall, slim & dark complected Negro. Leo Frank told the police on Sunday, April 27, 1913, Newt Lee's time card indicated he had punched it perfectly during his shift, once every half hour, on the evening of the day the Phagan murder occurred, but the next day, Leo Frank showed Atlanta Police the same time card, but altered, with 4 hours of unaccounted for time (busted!). Leo Frank had a bloody shirt planted at Newt Lee's shack as the Coup de grace, but he made a huge mistake & used a clean shirt smeared with blood. After that intrigue failed, Leo Frank changed course & tried to frame his accomplice-after-the-fact, James "Jim" Conley, but that also failed. Leo Frank's legal defense team, played every White racist card they could muster against Conley at the trial, thinking Southerners were too stupid to see right through the ignorant White against Black racism.

Jewish Racism Against African-Americans:

Since the end of the Frank trial, the anti-Gentile blood libel smears & false accusations of anti-Semitism conspiracies against European-American & African-American Southerners have never ceased by charlatans who refuse to tell their readers what really happened at the Leo Frank Trial. With that, Dinnerstein perpetuates the racist lie that a bumbling semi-literate Negro janitor, James "Jim" Conley committed the murder alone, & then framed his well educated White boss.

Mockery of Jurisprudence:

The 'Leo Frank Case' by Dinnerstein is a mockery of legal history, because he intentionally left out volumes of the damaging incidents about Frank documented in the GA Supreme Court Case File, thus misleading the reader, & retelling the case with nonsensical half-truths that would never stand up to even the least academic inquiry. The bottom line is Dinnerstein created a book that will be remembered by history as another shameless attempt to use every kind of fraud & deceptive tactic for rehabilitating the image of a sex killer.

I have studied the several thousand pages of Leo Frank trial & appeals records (1913 - 1915), read every book (1913 - 2010) on the subject & reviewed more than once, the three local primary Atlanta newspapers, the Journal, Constitution, & Georgian (1913 - 1915), concerning their coverage of the Leo Frank case, so I feel compelled to state affirmatively, the jury made the correct decision in the summer of 1913, & so did the State & Federal appeals courts in their majority decisions, essentially sustaining the verdict & fairness of the Leo Frank trial.

Governor John Slaton on June 21, 1915, sustained the trial jury & appeals courts on the last page of his commutation order too. Finally, March 11, 1986, the Georgia Board of Pardons & Paroles sustained the verdict of the Jury, by NOT EXONERATING Leo Frank of the murder, even though they gave him a highly political posthumous pardon as an appeasement to the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith & other Jewish pressure groups & individuals involved in the petition.

The Crowning Achievement of Intellectual Cowardice by Leonard Dinnerstein, PhD:

Frank told Atlanta Police officer John Black & Pinkerton Detective Harry Scott on Sunday, May 4, 1913, that he had never left his office from *noon to 12:45 pm on April 26, 1913*. Leo Frank was sworn under oath (May 5 & 8, 1913) during the Coroner's Inquest (April 30, 1913 to May, 8, 1913) testifying he had never left his office between noon & 12:20 pm on Saturday, April 26, 1913, when Mary Phagan came into his office. Frank maintained this alibi until his trial, when he made a newfangled admission that amounted to a murder confession!

In sifting Frank's trial brief of evidence (1913), on August 18, 1913, at 2:15 pm, Leo mounted the witness stand, changed his 4-month long maintained murder alibi & admitted to the jury he might have "unconsciously" been in the metal room (at the real scene of the crime) using the toilet, to explain why his office was empty between 12:05pm & 12:10 pm on April 26, 1913, which was at the exact same time he formerly gave the murder alibi to the Atlanta Police, that Mary was with him inside his office between 12:05pm & 12:10pm on April 26, 1913, & that he never left his office until 12:45pm.

Leo Frank changed his murder alibi about being alone with Mary Phagan between 12:05pm & 12:10pm & said (direct quote on witness stand):

Now, gentlemen [of the jury], to the best of my recollection from the time the whistle blew for twelve o'clock [noon on Saturday April 26, 1913] until after a quarter to one [12:45 p.m.] when I went up stairs and spoke to Arthur White and Harry Denham [on the fourth floor], to the best of my recollection, I did not stir out of my office [located at the front of the second floor]; but it is possible that in order to answer a call of nature or to urinate I may have gone to the toilet [in the metal room located at the back of the 2nd floor]. Those are things that a man does unconsciously and can not tell how many times nor when he does it (Leo Frank Trial Statement, August 18, Brief of Evidence, 1913, p. 186).

I would highly suggest anyone who is interested in learning about the Leo Frank trial, to read: State's Exhibit B (Leo Frank's deposition to Atlanta Police where he states Mary Phagan had arrived at his office "between 12:05pm & 12:10pm, maybe 12:07pm on April 26, 1913"); Monteen Stover's testimony about going to Leo Frank's office & it being empty between 12:05pm & 12:10pm on April 26, 1913; & Leo Frank's response to Stover's testimony - reversing himself - with an "unconscious" bathroom visit to the metal room between 12:05pm & 12:10pm on April 26, 1913.

Be sure to also read Albert McKnight's Affidavit and State's Exhibit J (Who was Leo saving his kisses for? Why did Leo so thoughtfully buy his wife a two pound box of chocolates from Jacobs pharmacy on the evening of the murder?), and study the National Pencil Company floor plan diagrams (Defendant's Exhibit 61, & State's Exhibit A) to see the only toilets on the second floor were located in the metal room. Finally, read the testimony of Jim Conley, where he describes finding Mary Phagan dead in the bathroom area of the metal room, after Leo Frank confessed to him privately about assaulting her there. This evidence ties it all together when you consider Mary Phagan's bloodied hair was found on Monday morning, April 28, 1913, tangled around the solid iron handle of Robert Barret's lathe, paces away from a 5 inch wide blood stain found diagonally in front of the metal room's bathroom door. Both Mary Phagan's blood & hair were found in the metal room.

Dinnerstein simply does not have the honesty or intellectual bravura, to look back on the case 100 years later with the fearless eyes of a truly dispassionate historian. In fact, I find his book to be one of the most cunning, cowardly & underhanded renditions of the Frank affair, in the same league as books written about the Frank case by authors Harry Golden, Robert Seitz Frey and Elaine Marie Alphin (available on Amazon.com).

The real life Leo Frank Case is filled with his failed racist plots, followed by his gutter mouth legal defense team leader, Luther Ziegler Rosser, spewing every sort of vile racial epithets & stereotypes against African-Americans (Leo Frank Trial Closing Arguments, American State Trials, Volume 10, 1918).

Even though the vast majority of people are not trained in properly analyzing or evaluating legal documents, most sensible people who carefully study the Leo Frank Trial Brief of Evidence (1913), agree with the Georgia Supreme Court's decision, that the testimony & exhibits were sufficient enough to convict Leo Frank beyond a reasonable doubt.

Final Conclusion: Even emeritus professors sometimes falsify legal history.
Were these reviews helpful? Let us know


Feedback