Interview With the NOI Research Group:
The Jewish Hoax of Leo Frank
The emergence of Donald Trump after the contentious 2016 presidential election has heightened racial rhetoric and tensions in America. The controversies over the national anthem, the police shootings of unarmed Blacks, and the Civil War monuments have forced a reexamination of the history of racial oppression in America.
Jewish people were particularly incensed by the protesters who displayed Nazi symbols and chanted “Jews will not replace us.” Within the angst-filled Jewish commentary a largely unfamiliar name was invoked over and over. That name was Leo Frank—a Jewish B’nai B’rith leader who was lynched in 1915 for the murder of a young Gentile girl, a crime his supporters say he did not commit. A Black man, Jews say, was the real murderer, and they present Frank as a Jewish martyr who paid the ultimate price as a victim of white racism and bigotry. Frank’s killing is considered by Jews to be “the worst case of anti-Semitism” in America’s history.
But a new book by the Nation of Islam probes the Leo Frank case and casts serious doubt on that century-old Jewish point of view. NOI researchers say the commonly believed story of Leo Frank is based on falsified data, cunning propaganda, and outright deception, and has little at all to do with the known facts of the case. Further, that falsified Jewish history is being dishonestly used by Jewish leaders for political and racial advantage. We sat down with the researchers of The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, Vol. 3, subtitled “Leo Frank Case: The Lynching of a Guilty Man,” to learn more about this largely unknown case.
Describe for us the murder and how it developed into such an explosive case.
Leo Frank managed a pencil factory in Atlanta, Georgia, and he was also the president of the southern regional chapter of B’nai B’rith, the most prominent Jewish secret society. Thirteen-year-old Mary Phagan was one of about 120 child laborers working in the factory. She operated a machine that attached the metal band that holds the rubber eraser to the wooden pencil.
On Saturday April 26, 1913, when the factory was deserted, the little girl came to the office of Leo Frank to get her pay of $1.20. In very much the same way as Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein is accused of doing, Frank used his power as the factory boss to lure her to a back area and attempt to sexually assault her. Mary resisted and in the struggle Frank struck her and knocked her unconscious, and then strangled her to death. He left a trail of clues leading to himself, so within a few days of the murder he was arrested. He was later tried, convicted, and ultimately sentenced to death. After two years of legal appeals Frank was kidnapped from his Georgia prison cell and lynched. He is claimed to be the only Jew ever lynched in America.
Jews also claimed that somebody else committed the crime and that Frank was unfairly tried and that he was the victim of “anti-Semitism.” The case became an international cause célèbre for Jews—as infamous as the O.J. Simpson case. And just as with the O.J. case the story of Leo Frank has immense racial overtones.
You mentioned Harvey Weinstein—his method of targeting young girls seems chillingly similar to the Leo Frank scenario.
Very much so. Frank found himself in the identical predicament that Weinstein is in. According to testimony at his 1913 murder trial, many of Leo Frank’s own female employees testified about how he had tried to corner them and about how he had proposed sexual acts to them. One by one these teenagers took the witness stand and spoke of his lewd behavior. One employee said he had looked through a keyhole to find Frank performing oral sex on a woman—right in the factory! Another said Frank had offered her money for sex. The testimony was so explicit that the judge had to clear the courtroom of women. What’s worse, after this barrage of salacious stories, Frank’s lawyers argued that his behavior was not wrong—that it was a sign of more liberal times! One even said, “Deliver me from one of these prudish fellows that never looks at a girl and never puts his hands on her…” Another telling similarity between Harvey Weinstein and Leo Frank is that all the girls that Frank hunted down were all Gentiles, and that caused much resentment among the white men of Georgia. Weinstein, at least so far, seems to have adopted that familiar M.O. in his targeting of young women.
What does the case have to do with Black people?
The Leo Frank case is much like the Plessy-Ferguson or Dred Scott case is to Black people—it is a pillar of Jewish identity. And from the very beginning of this landmark Jewish case, Blacks were intimately involved. At first, Jews said a Black night watchman at the factory named Newt Lee was the real murderer. He was arrested and almost lynched, until he was found to have an iron-clad alibi. Then the Jews said that the real murderer was another employee, a Black man named James Conley, who was a sweeper at the factory.
The night watchman you mentioned, Newt Lee—how was he implicated in the case?
Newt Lee was working that night and in the early morning, during his rounds, it was Lee who found the body in the basement. He alerted the police and they—seeing a Black man near a dead white body—immediately arrested him. Incredibly, Frank’s own legal team actually planted a bloody shirt at Newt Lee’s home to make him look guilty. At the same time Lee’s factory time card, which gave him a strong alibi, was mysteriously altered to show that he had had the time to commit the crime. Only Frank and his crew of lawyers and hired detectives had the ability to frame Newt Lee like that. When the newspaper reported that a bloody shirt was found at Lee’s home, it almost got an innocent man lynched. Luckily for Lee, Frank’s legal eagles and private eyes did such a sloppy job at planting the shirt that the police were not fooled at all and suspected Frank even more. This is the point in the case where the people of Atlanta came to believe—and rightly so—that Leo Frank was the murderer.
Tell us more about James Conley. What is his involvement in the Leo Frank case?
James Conley was the most pivotal individual in the whole case. He was a 29-year-old Black man and a janitor at the pencil factory, and the Jews say he essentially teamed up with Atlanta, Georgia’s white police and white prosecutors to falsely charge and condemn his employer, Leo Frank. For a century Conley has been portrayed as an enemy of the Jewish people—maybe the first “Black anti-Semite.”
And because there is a Black man in the midst of such a historical Jewish tragedy, it was incumbent upon us to ferret out the truth of the matter. Was Conley a murderer, or was he being set up to take the fall for Leo Frank’s crime? Black scholars—up until now—have left Conley hanging, as it were. He is owed a fair analysis. Is he the first “Black Anti-Semite” or an innocent victim of a Jewish smear campaign?
How did James Conley go from factory janitor to “black anti-Semite”?
Conley says that on the day of the murder Frank ordered him to be a lookout stationed on the first floor as Frank—a married man—“Weinsteined” young females in his second-floor office. Conley said that he had performed that lookout service for Frank several times before, so he was well familiar with the assignment. When an unsuspecting Mary Phagan came in that day to get her pay, she went upstairs to her boss’s office not knowing she was walking into Frank’s trap.
Moments later Frank called Conley upstairs in a panic, explaining that he had accidently struck and killed the girl. Frank then ordered him to help him conceal the body in the basement and swore him to secrecy. As a Black man in 1913 lynch-mob Georgia, Conley did as he was told. But as the case became a front-page sensation, Conley came to believe that Leo Frank was about to scrap their agreement and pin the murder on him. So Conley confessed to the police about his role in helping Frank conceal the body.
His statement was so detailed and the details matched the physical evidence, and thus Conley became one of the strongest witnesses against Leo Frank. It must be noted that a grand jury with five Jewish members (including at least two from Frank’s own synagogue) indicted Leo Frank before Conley came forward. So the evidence clearly pointed to Frank’s guilt before Conley said a word. But once Conley spoke up, Frank and his legal team—and Jewish leaders and scholars for the last 100 years—have used every bit of their wealth, power, and clout to pin the murder of Mary Phagan on the Black man James Conley.
Why is the Nation of Islam interested in this case, a Jewish case?
When studying the historical relationship between Blacks and Jews, we find that the 1913-1915 Leo Frank case is a turning point—a watershed moment. It is claimed that Leo Frank’s lynching caused Jews to feel more sympathy for the oppressed condition of Blacks in America. They say it compelled Jews to join the Civil Rights Movement and caused them to form the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (ADL). They say it led to the rebirth of the Ku Klux Klan as an “anti-Jewish” organization.
In fact, none of that is true. But what IS true is that the Leo Frank case is the first use of “Black anti-Semitism” as a Jewish battle cry, and it marks the beginning of a hundred-year campaign by Jewish leaders to aggressively control and curtail Black progress. Jews insist that Blacks ignore the lengthy history of Blacks and Jews prior to the case and begin our relationship with them at the moment of Frank’s lynching in 1915—when we presumably were “united” in this tragedy. And if you examine the literature on the Black–Jewish relationship, it most often begins right at the very point of the Leo Frank case—as if nothing of historical significance preceded it.
Also, Leo Frank was not of the rank-and-file Jewish citizenry. As the B’nai B’rith president he was arguably the most important Jew in the South. Jews considered him as having, in effect, diplomatic immunity within the white rulership of the Jim Crow South, so his arrest, trial, and conviction shocked, offended, and activated Jews at the highest level. And they have sought to exonerate Frank ever since, but at Black people’s expense.
How did all the propaganda affect your approach to this case?
Our first view of the Leo Frank case accepted the prevailing opinion of Jewish scholars that Frank was innocent and wrongly convicted of murder, but there were red flags about how the case was being presented. We had to wade through reams of propaganda in order to get to the raw data, the primary documents. But once we did, it became clear that not only was Frank guilty of the rape and murder of Mary Phagan, but he and his Jewish defenders had taken anti-Black racism to an entirely new level.
There is no real doubt that Frank murdered Mary Phagan. Four separate investigative agencies—including the two detective firms hired by Leo Frank himself—concluded that Frank was guilty of the murder. A grand jury with five Jewish members indicted him. At least two of those Jewish men were members of Frank’s synagogue and one of them was a B’nai B’rith official! A 12-man jury of his fellow white men needed only a couple of hours to reach a unanimous guilty verdict. Once Blacks and whites decide to examine the ample evidence in the case, the conclusion that Frank was guilty is unavoidable.
What makes the Leo Frank trial problematic for Blacks?
Jews worked hard to pin the murder on two separate Black men. And then the Jewish leaders argued publicly and openly that (1) testimony from witnesses was invalid if they were Black, and that (2) Frank was innocent because murder and rape were “negro crimes.” Had the Jews succeeded in establishing those profoundly racist legal doctrines, crimes in America from then on would have been color-coded, and Blacks would be considered legally incapable of telling the truth! The fact that it was the Jewish community that advanced this wickedness makes the Leo Frank case a landmark case and irreversibly alters our understanding of the Black–Jewish relationship.
Plus, the conduct of the trial by Frank’s defense was appalling. During jury selection Frank’s attorneys eliminated all the Blacks because they wanted to have an all-white jury; they attacked Blacks in open court, calling them “niggers” and “smelly” and “liars.” Frank’s attorney said that if you “hang a nigger in a hopper he’ll drip lies.” He asked one witness if he “ever smelled a nigger.” He told the court that they had “never known of a nigger” to leave sausage on a plate. Frank’s attorneys said that unlike the Jews Blacks were “a law-breaking race.”
Their defense appealed almost entirely to the “racial responsibility” of the all-white jury to exonerate a fellow white man. It is a testament to the sheer power of Jews that they were able to take a trial that may have been the most atrocious example of anti-Black race hate in the American judicial system and turn it into their most egregious example of anti-Semitism. Now Leo Frank is even being promoted as a Jewish civil rights icon, even though pure white supremacy was his courtroom defense! Yes, the Leo Frank trial was and is problematic for Blacks.
Was there a cover-up in this case?
A whole lot is being covered up in this case. Most people who have heard of the case have been told that Frank was in effect dragged out of a synagogue and tried at a Klan rally. But that was not the case at all. Frank, after all, was a prominent white man and a respected community leader in Atlanta—and he was treated as such by the police, prosecutors, and press. Jews in the South were honored members of the white community. They helped create the court system that enforced the legal inferiority of all Blacks. They never, ever had to face the racism that Blacks suffered.
Most people are not being told that there was blood and hair evidence, that Frank changed his alibi several times and lied constantly to police, that he was a womanizer who sexually harassed his girl employees, and that he claimed he couldn’t remember simple things. He hired private detectives that went around planting evidence and bribing witnesses to change their testimony. At his own trial Frank refused to be sworn on the Bible. Yes, there is a LOT that Jewish writers have covered up about the case, including Frank playing the race card to play to the white jurors’ prejudices about Black men. Most damning of all are the racist extremes that Frank and his B’nai B’rith associates were willing to go to free Leo Frank.
How did the Nation of Islam Research Group become aware of the Leo Frank Case?
Since at least 1959, Jewish leaders have targeted the Nation of Islam for destruction. And since 1983, Jews in America have ill-advisedly attacked The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan, labeling him an “anti-Semite,” and they have unleashed a barrage of hatred and slander against The Minister and ALL Blacks who love and respect him. Minister Farrakhan’s response was to send his scholars into the libraries to examine the actual history of Jews and their historical behavior with respect to Black people, and it is an ugly picture indeed. Their extensive involvement in the trans-Atlantic slave trade and the marketing of the products of slavery was documented for the first time, as was their deep involvement in the Jim Crow South. When The Minister published this secret history in 1991 and again in 2010, it shocked most Blacks and Jews.
The reaction of Jewish leaders was to deny, deny, deny—but ironically most of the scholarship used by the NOI had come from Jewish historians, rabbis, and Jewish leaders themselves. We only quoted high-ranking and well-respected scholars like Korn, Wiznitzer, Marcus, Raphael, Brackman and others who had documented horrible truths about Jewish slave-trading, but had only shared that knowledge among themselves.
Even with that damning historical evidence, Jewish leaders insisted that the Nation of Islam was misleading the world. Blacks, they said, ought to look at the Leo Frank case as the BEST example of the plight of Jews in America. And it is they who demand that Blacks view Jewish history through the prism of Leo Frank.
And so we respected that Jewish request and performed the most extensive analysis of the case ever done. But the result is an even more devastating a blow to the propaganda that passes for Jewish history. In 536 pages, we show that most of what is believed about the case is a carefully crafted lie.
What makes the Leo Frank case relevant today? Why should anyone care about this case, this history?
The Leo Frank case marks the spot in Jewish history where they in effect weaponized the charge “anti-Semitism” to punish and destroy their enemies. It is the point when Jews moved to commandeer Black leadership to make Blacks serve Jews’ political purposes. The Messenger of Allah, The Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad, says that in effect the civil rights movement was foisted upon us and is really a “hypocritical trick,” used to deceive us and defer our movement toward a full and complete freedom. The Leo Frank case is one of those tricks.
For example, Leo Frank’s crime happened at a very significant time for American Jews. The Federal Reserve was being established, as was the ADL. Both the Ku Klux Klan and the civil rights movement developed with the great assistance of Jews. So the Leo Frank case offered a chance to generate a victim-of-“anti-Semitism” storyline as cover for these other moves they were making at the time.
Was anti-Semitism involved in the Leo Frank Case? If so, how so?
Incredibly, this case is seen as the most egregious case of anti-Semitism in the history of America. Yet the records prove that anti-Semitism was almost entirely absent from the trial and its aftermath. The first time religion was introduced into the trial was through the bigotry of Frank’s own mother. She made a nuisance of herself at the trial, even standing up and cussing out the prosecutor, calling him a “Christian dog.”
We document at least three cases where Leo Frank hired people to incite “anti-Semitism” in his trial so that he could “play the anti-Semitism card” in his effort to free himself. So flagrant is this deception that we must ask how and why it has been allowed to stand for so long. It only proves that Blacks must examine history for themselves, no matter how strongly held the prevailing opinion and dogma may be. How the case has long been spun proves that some of the greatest liars in world history are historians—promoters of the Western world’s fairy tales.
When we Googled Leo Frank we found that he is being constantly referenced in articles and commentaries on today’s issues. Why are today’s Jews so passionate about the Leo Frank Case?
The Leo Frank case allowed Jews to reinvent and redefine themselves in America. Before the Frank case Jews were firmly a part of the slave-trading class of racial oppressors in a society that scapegoated Blacks and accepted the Jewish people as fellow Caucasians. Leo Frank gave them a chance to wipe that slate clean and start over in a biblical role as an American victim—the “despised and rejected” (Isaiah 53:3) for 400 years in a land not their own (Genesis 15:13).
You can’t be a slave-trading white supremacist people and maintain your image as God’s “Chosen.” So Leo Frank as a victim of a brutal lynching allows Jews to claim that the Jewish people as a whole were victims, rather than the victimizers that history proves they actually were. That is why most popular histories ignore the Jewish role in America between Columbus’s voyage in 1492 and the Civil War and Reconstruction of the mid- and late 1800s. They have hidden that history and demanded that we begin noticing the Jewish presence in America in the 1910s. In very much the same way that Jesus started time over again, Leo Frank the martyred hero allows Jews to claim that their American birth certificate reads August 17, 1915—the day Frank was lynched.
The case has been made into a play titled Parade, which seems to be performed all over the world.
A society’s founding fables must be constantly reinforced if its citizens are going to react according to the wishes of its rulers. The Parade script provides that reinforcement for Jews. It is written by Alfred Uhry, the same Jewish man who wrote that unwatchable slavery nostalgia movie Driving Miss Daisy. Even in the three-word title, Uhry gives you the Black man’s job and function—a driver—without a reference to his humanity or even to his name. He is a servant to the more important Jewish woman, “Miss Daisy,” who has both a name and a respectful title. This is how Hollywood has misrepresented us, and, again, reinforced racial relationships. Uhry won a Tony for Parade because it tells Jews that they are the primary victims of America, and that Blacks are among their oppressors. He falsely represents James Conley as the murderer of Mary Phagan and he portrays Blacks as having aligned with whites specifically to persecute “the Jew.” Absurd.
Plays have to be examined, just like the Confederate statues. The ADL started out looking at plays, movies, books to ferret out and eliminate the defamation of Jews—it is in their founding charter. So those old movies have to go. Hamilton has to be reassessed. Over time, Black actors—much like the NFL’s Black athletes—will refuse these demeaning negro roles and “take a knee,” as it were. This would force Jews to play those demeaning roles in burnt-cork blackface—just like they used to. Parade defames Black people and cannot be allowed to stand.
What do you think Alfred Uhry’s motive was?
Parade is a Jewish fairy tale—no more truthful than the story of Santa Claus or Washington’s cherry tree. In a sense Alfred Uhry does us a service, because Blacks must know how the theater and movies have been manipulated by Jews to effectively scapegoat our people. Parade demonstrates just how far they will go to make Blacks the villains. Leo Frank pointed his crooked finger at two Black men, which almost led to their lynching. He also accused a white Gentile man of the crime, and Frank’s team of thugs tried to hire a Black woman to poison the main Black witness. The lengths they went to free Leo Frank were beyond belief. None of Frank’s criminal acts make it into the Parade fairy tale.
In fact, Parade uses precisely the same formula as the 1915 film The Birth of a Nation, which told the world that Blacks were a lethal threat to American civilization. It should come as no surprise that Jews were the financiers, promoters, and distributors of that movie, which is so racist that it is still used by the Ku Klux Klan as a recruitment film.
How many other books written about this case? Any movies? The NOI’s book would make a fantastic movie!
There are about a dozen books and hundreds of articles on the Leo Frank case—nearly all of them following the racist Jewish storyline of an innocent Leo Frank who paid the ultimate price for a rape and murder committed by a Black man. A TV movie with Jack Lemon and Charles Dutton was produced in 1988, and a PBS “docudrama,” The People v. Leo Frank, was made in 2009. A movie that corrects the history and that tells the story of those who purposely twisted the case would make a very powerful feature film.
We’ve always understood that the Jewish people were the “best friends” of Blacks throughout our history. How did we get it so wrong?
If we examine the origin of Black people’s belief that Jews were our friends and allies in our freedom struggles, we find they use the Myth of Leo Frank as their “proof.” Until the Nation of Islam’s books on the Black–Jewish relationship, Black scholars have not dared to look carefully into that claim. Unfortunately, they have allowed Jewish scholars to simply invent a false history and bum rush it into all our history books.
For instance, in many books on lynching Leo Frank is the only person named as a victim, even though more than 4,000 Blacks were brutally lynched in America! And just like that, Leo Frank—a white man—is made the symbol of American racial terrorism. In some books the KKK is made into an anti-Jewish phenomenon and racism is merely an afterthought to the Klan—even though no other Jews were ever lynched. Through the Leo Frank case, Jews have simply stolen our history—like Jacob stole the birthright of his brother Esau in the Bible. They’ve swapped their photo for ours and used our I.D.s, to the point that we, Blacks, have been duped into believing a false history. As Malcolm X once famously said, “we’ve been took, hoodwinked, bamboozled.”
What is most striking about the case is how every aspect of the Jewish community rallied around Leo Frank—from the rank and file with their letter-writing campaigns to the upper echelon of Jewish leadership. Their persistence is to be admired, even though the hard evidence clearly shows Leo Frank to be as guilty as sin.
Yes. For them it was not about his guilt or innocence but in pushing a “cover” narrative that Jews can use to advance their own political and economic agenda. It is a narrative that helps them stick together as a people and—even more important—it runs interference as they pursue their political and economic agendas. It is now clear that most Jewish leaders and supporters may have known that Frank was the murderer of Mary Phagan. But their mangling of BLACK history is unacceptable. For Frank to be innocent a Black man must be guilty—and that is unacceptable.
It is also fascinating how Jews and white Gentiles seem to have split over this case.
Yes. This case marks the point where Jews turned most viciously against white Gentiles. The Jewish people had been so well accepted in the South by the Gentiles that some Jews actually believed that Dixie was the Jewish Promised Land. It was in the South where Jews had made an incredible fortune in cotton and slavery. So white Gentiles were completely blind-sided by this Jewish scorched-earth effort to free Leo Frank at all costs. Jews even slandered the whole state of Georgia with the charge of “anti-Semitism,” which, we found, was non-existent; indeed, our research shows just the opposite: Southern whites have always been philo-Semitic.
For instance, nearly all the previous writings on the case claim that a white mob stormed the trial chanting, “Hang the Jew or we’ll hang you!” In many books and articles these are the only words quoted in the whole case. Yet, there was no mob! There was no chanting! Frank partisans simply made it all up. We have a section in the book that lists all the authors that published some version of that lie, including the ADL, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the lawyer Alan Dershowitz, and newspapers like the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and many, many others.
That ONE SINGLE LIE is what Jews have pointed to for over a century to prove that they faced violent oppression in America. Yet it has no basis in fact at all. Quite remarkable.
Your use of primary documents makes this book groundbreaking—was it difficult in your research to access the original sources?
The original documents of the Leo Frank case are really an unexplored treasure trove that unlock the most confidential operations of the Jews’ highest leadership circles. As the Jewish leaders fought to free Leo Frank, a considerable amount of data about their private activities poured into the public record—information that is so extensive and so revealing that its very existence is unique in the annals of Jewish history. In much the same way as the slave-sale advertisements in our book Jews Selling Blacks unmask Jewish slave-dealing in the harshest way, so too does the Leo Frank case offer a unique window into the thinking and strategizing of the leaders of the Jewish people.
We examined the newspaper accounts, court records and filings, interviews, private investigators’ reports, and Jewish leaders’ private correspondence. Plus, we accessed a significant amount of information held in private archives and libraries, material that previous authors and researchers missed or purposely ignored. All of that is uncovered in the book.
The Nation of Islam goes against the scholarly grain in its revelations about the case—any backlash?
We expect that there will be much Jewish objection, but there is not much that can be disputed, given that the book’s thesis is supported so strongly by official documents and legal records. It is unlikely Jewish leaders will like seeing this history exposed. The Jewish newspaper Forward published an article this summer in which it interviewed Boston University professor Dr. Jeffrey Melnick. He is author of a book about the Leo Frank case, Black–Jewish Relations on Trial. He begins his interview with a surprising admission: “I’m clearly in a strange position of agreeing with a lot of what the Nation of Islam has to say…” In fact, Dr. Melnick was asked directly whether he felt Frank was really guilty. He answered, “I studied all I could and I can’t figure it out still.” Dr. Melnick still has his job, and yet we are still “anti-Semites”! Ironically, Jews falsely throwing around the “anti-Semitism” charge all started with the Leo Frank case.
Our book is so detailed and our range of source material is so extensive that Jews have “chosen” to sit this one out, and they cannot find a negro to push out front to repudiate it. Just as with the two previous volumes of The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews series, Jewish historians have shown that they are not equipped to deal with scholarship at this level. The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan demands intelligence and accuracy and, above all, TRUTH. While Jewish leaders were viciously slandering him, The Minister sent his scholars into the libraries—not into the gutter. Had we responded from the gutter, it would have been how traditional academia trained us. Min. Farrakhan gave us the intellectual weaponry to prevail in our research.
For those who are already students of the case, what does the Nation of Islam say in the book that is new?
We really bring an entirely new approach to the case. For instance:
- We show how Frank’s lawyers maneuvered to force “anti-Semitism” into the courtroom where none existed.
- There were two mysterious notes left next to the body that were written by the murderer. We hired a handwriting expert to analyze the notes and we found many clues that lead right to Leo Frank.
- We chronicle how the national Jewish leaders took over the case, concocted a public relations campaign filled with racist lies and slander—with the Jewish-owned New York Times at the helm—and foisted it onto the public.
- We analyzed Frank’s trial defense, which was explicitly racist and openly anti-Black.
- We look deeply into the shady motives behind Governor John Slaton’s commutation of Frank’s death sentence.
- We examined in detail not only the dubious pardon that the state of Georgia gave Leo Frank in 1986 but also the dubious claims of Alonzo Mann, who came forward after 70 years of silence to say he saw Conley with the body of Mary Phagan. It turns out that his new statements hurt Leo Frank far more than they help him.
- We look at the illegal actions of Frank’s hired private eyes, who intimidated witnesses, planted evidence, and even hatched a murder plot against James Conley.
- We look into the Jewish leaders who came to Frank’s defense and their real motives for taking on this case and a man they knew was guilty.
- We looked into the group who is claimed to have lynched Leo Frank—The Knights of Mary Phagan—and uncovered some very strange and suspicious details that raise questions about who actually lynched the man.
- We found that Frank’s stay in prison was almost luxurious—not the “anti-Semitic” nightmare that has been claimed.
Our goal was to introduce the case to a new generation who are more and more interested in this so-called Black–Jewish relationship and how it has affected Black progress. And to do that effectively we had to get to the bottom of who killed Mary Phagan. Was the murderer a Black man or a Jew?
It is only a matter of time before the falsehoods and lies that we have uncovered change the history of the Leo Frank case—and thus the Black–Jewish relationship—forever.
You seem to be saying that Leo Frank may not have been lynched by white gentiles at all…?
We believe that it is still a mystery who actually lynched Leo Frank. Nearly every account of Frank’s lynching says that a vigilante group called the Knights of Mary Phagan committed the act. But beyond a single mention of this group in the New York Times two months before the lynching, no record exists of this group anywhere. The Times was owned by a Jewish southerner named Adolph Ochs, who had actually joined the Leo Frank propaganda campaign. So the so-called Knights of Mary Phagan may have been planted to make a Gentile group take the fall for a lynching that was very likely committed by Jews themselves.
That may seem outrageous, but by the time of his lynching many people—including his Jewish supporters—came to believe Leo Frank was better dead than alive. Frank had such an offensive personality that his main Jewish supporter said that when he first met Frank, he impressed him as “a sexual pervert.” Think about that: Leo Frank was that repellant to his friends and advocates at his very first meeting with them! The man was Albert Lasker and he paid millions (in today’s money) for Frank’s defense, but he privately admitted that he was not even convinced that Frank was innocent. Frank’s repulsive personality just did not jibe with the angelic international image Frank’s public relations team had created for him—that of a humble, innocent, and suffering Jesus figure. That whitewashed image of the man conflicted with the actual character of the man and so, by the time of his lynching in August of 1915, the man himself had outlived his usefulness.
A measure of how expendable Leo Frank was to the Jewish community might be gleaned from his gravesite in New York. It is a remarkably tiny and non-descript headstone for someone who is considered a beloved Jewish martyr. Aside from that, Frank was a president of the B’nai B’rith. One would think that someone who had reached his level of significance would be honored by a grave as magisterial as those surrounding his. We think that it is a sign of Jewish contempt for the man himself. But Frank’s image—as manufactured as it is—lives on.
Are there any surviving members of the Frank family? How do they feel about the NOI’s recent book on the case?
Aside from his wife, Lucille Frank, and mother, there were no other immediate family members involved in the trial. Frank was buried in Brooklyn, where he grew up, and nothing more was heard from his family since.
His victim, Mary Phagan, has relatives who have taken up her cause. They have always believed that Frank was guilty. Interestingly, Mary’s grand niece was named after her—Mary Phagan Kean. As a young girl herself, she learned of the tragedy and began her own quest for the truth. Ms. Kean wrote a book published in 1987 titled The Murder of Little Mary Phagan and she, like us, examined the official records of the case. She concluded that Leo Frank was her great aunt’s murderer. We would venture that the Phagan family might appreciate the detail we have brought to our case analysis. At least we hope they would.
More NOIRG articles on the Leo Frank Myth:
LEO FRANK: HAVE YOU EVER SMELLED A NEGRO?
JEWISH PLAY PARADE HAS BLACK ACTORS TELLING WHITE LIES
LEO FRANK AND PARADE: A JEWISH FAIRY TALE GONE BAD
JEWISH FORWARD TAKES ON LEO FRANK MYTHOLOGY
Note: The Secret Relationship Between Blacks & Jews Series can be purchased here: https://noirg.org/store/