Leo Frank - guilty or not? — Page 2

Yeah, I thought it was pretty clear that they didn't like him because he was Jewish.

For those of you who are saying they framed him only because he was Jewish, that's untrue. That was one aspect, however not the sole reason. If you talk to a member of the Jewish faith, that is what they will tell you. For example, I went to visit Leo at Mount Carmel Cemetery last week and the type on the monument at the entrance to the cemetery blamed Anti-Semitism. Of course there was Anti-Semitism in the South. However, in addition to that, he was not only educated, but intelligent and upper-class, and he owned a factory whose labor consisted largely of young girls. In short, he was everything the South hated. Aside from the fact that from every report, he did not come off as a friendly person. Many who knew him confessed that they didn't take to him at first, and rather did not like him at all.

Leo Frank was innocent. Most of what you'll hear will say that - however after researching and writing about this case extensively, I maintain that he was a toy for the politicians and for the press and was a scapegoat for a desperate South in shambles. He did not kill Mary Phagan; he was in too wrong of a place at too wrong of a time for the sort of person that he was, and that's what got him in his position. It was no one's sole fault - and even if you're someone who only knows of this case from Parade, you'll know that everyone around him took some blame. (Of course, the show displays this on a much smaller scale)

Conley had blood on his hands and the police were too inept at their jobs to notice that. There was his advantage, and what got him out of jail and living until 1962 while the man convicted for his crime died - excuse me, - was murdered - and some people forget this - at 31 years of age.

If you do read And The Dead Shall Rise by the impeccable Steve Oney, he goes into detail about the history of the Atlanta police force and what they did too incredibly wrong in their investigation - including destroying foot and fingerprints and misplacing vital evidence - like the murder notes themselves.

One thing I resent is those who tell me that because I believe in Leo Frank's innocence, I can't possibly mourn Mary Phagan. It's a terrible, sick, disgusting, inexcusable thing what happened to her, but in the words of a friend - I just don't believe it was Leo who did it. Both the murdered and the accused had horiffic deaths. Don't forget Leo suffocated in the noose - that he bled down his shirt front until he lost his heartbeat and was cut down to be kicked and mutilated with the heels of the lynch party's boots - but not before he was photographed and sent in the form of a postcard to relatives all over the South - pieces of the rope which hung him from a tree branch pulled off as souvenirs.

It's criminal not to mourn the both of them. Both were used and struck down. Do you think poor Mary wasn't used as an example?

Leo Frank: Not Guilty.

-Miss L.

I've researched this before, the town didn't like the child labor that Leo's factory enforced, they were glad to be rid of him.

JRB is currently revamping the show for London, the aim of which is to become less of a mess. Adding previously cut numbers, giving the book a slight face lift, and doing away with Prince's directorial decisions. Perhaps a more coherent and emotionally resonating show will come out of this reworking (although I have few complaints as it is in my "top five"). I can understand how the show could be confusing in some ways, but I don't think Leo's innocence could be made clearer. The only way I see this happening is by a lousy director either not conveying his/her vision, or completely misreading the book. If you were doubting his real life innocence, a little research never hurt. I wrote an essay on the case for school once, and it was fascinating/disturbing to learn the details-- which, of course, the show does not try to achieve, nor should it. I mean CourtTv just doesn't translate to theater. Anyway, when curious, research. Though this topic has been interesting, I must say.

Of course he was guilty. Guilty of boring the **** out of me for 2 and a half hours.

---

He was an educated Northern JEW who did not fit in to the more assimilated Jewish culture of the South.

Weeell, according to their cook's affidavit, Leo and Lucille fought, during which a certain girl's name was brought up. One of the claims against Frank that is held even today is that he bought his wife a gift for no apparent reason (other than to appease her jealousy, perhaps?)

Right, Frank was just the supervisor. Sigmund Montag, his uncle, owned the factory.

Eh, according to Oney, no Jewish person really fit in at Atlanta.

I'm telling you though, the case went deeper than Frank merely representing what the South hated. Not everyone who convicted him hated northerners and/or Jews.

---

I absolutely loved the musical until I read the complete libretto. I still love it because the score is fantastic, but it was then that I saw how flawed it was. Of course, my copy didn't arrive until I'd started fully researching the case, so it was rather unfortunate timing: all of the historical inaccuracies stuck out to me like a very sore thumb.

IMO, the musical could benefit from more subtlety. If they really want to make it an issue of Southern pride and innocence versus northern industrialization and the American answer to the Dreyfus Affair, for heaven's sake, don't make every darn scene include some thinly veiled comment about how Jewish Leo is and how Southern everyone else is. Also, I understand the concept of an anti-hero, but I think that it would be a good idea to make Leo a little more likeable and less of jerk, not to mention less of a stereotype (they made him act like Kyle's cousin in South Park. Leo Frank was born in Texas, for heaven's sake.) I don't think that you have to make Leo a jerk to avoid cliches; I think that the very idea of the case itself defies cliches--normally you would be happy at the very first case in Georgia in which a white man was convicted on a black man's testimony.

I'm also not convinced that they did a good job establishing Conley's guilt. Frank's innocence, yes. Conley's guilt, not so much. And, I don't like how they portrayed Leo and Lucille's relationship, personally, but I understand why they had to do that. I do wish that they would show more of the actual questions disputed in the trial, instead of just focusing on the "was he a pervert?" But I guess time wouldn't allow that.

For that matter, I'd also give poor William Smith a role in it. The man did SO much to try to prove Frank's innocence, it seems really unfair to exclude him.

---