The 1968 published book 'The Leo Frank Case', was an outgrowth of a PhD thesis paper by Leonard Dinnerstein (Born May 5, 1934), who completed his dissertation on the subject in 1966 at Columbia University, for the Political Science Department.

The book 'Leo Frank Case' has slightly evolved over the last 50 years with the release of revised editions. It was, however, published first with the Columbia University Press, 1968; a paperback edition was later released through University of Georgia Press, 1987, 1999. 

A high production value version of the book was produced as the Notable Trials Library edition, 1991, with information about the Alonzo Mann Affair (1913, 1982 to 1986). A recent revised edition was distributed in 2008, and it is possible further revised editions will be published.

An Intellectual Movement of Pseudo-History 

Under the guise of academic scholarship, multiplying across generations since about the 1950s, Jewish activists have written books and research articles about the murder case of Mary Phagan and trial of Leo Frank, which are stridently biased towards convincing the reader that Leo Frank was falsely prosecuted because of antisemitism. These professorial and journalistic treatments are often derivative, meaning they quote and provide citations largely from other related works which promote the agenda of convincing people that Leo Frank was innocent. In these examples, primary sources are cherry picked for this purpose.

Unfortunately, even after 50 years of studying and re-publishing new book editions and producing various articles on the Leo Frank case, Leonard Dinnerstein is giving the reader only a narrow, biased and short sighted version of the Leo Frank trial, appeals and aftermath. Leo Frank's 1913 conviction for the murder of Mary Phagan has always been a very divisive historical event, with camps typically divided and crystallized along diametrically opposed Jewish and Gentile camps.

The Jewish Community has gone to promethean lengths over the last century to rehabilitate the image of Leo Frank and attempted to exonerate him in the collective consciousness of popular culture, through every kind of medium.

The Gentile Position on Leo Frank 

Gentiles often take the position that Leo Frank made an admission at his trial on the forenoon of August 18, 1913, sustaining his conviction well beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore they believe the death sentence rendered against him was correct given the severity of the rape, strangulation and mutilation of the child victim.

The lynching of Leo Frank was conducted against the backdrop of a death sentence commutation to life in prison for the convict ordered by the outgoing Governor of Georgia, John Marshall Slaton, on June 21, 1915. At the time, the gross conflict of interest enraged the public to a fevered pitch. Multitudes of Georgians believed the execution of Leo Frank, two months later on August 17, 1915, was choreographed as a quasi state sanctioned and legitimate hanging. Because Governor Slaton was a senior member and equal-share owner of the law firm 'Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips' that represented Leo Frank at his trial and subsequent appeals, the public mindset that Slaton's order of clemency was unconstitutional, permeated the supermajority. 

The Jewish Position on the Leo Frank Case 

For the last century, the vast majority of Jews have taken the "politically correct position" on the Leo Frank affair, that Leo was an innocent martyr of religious bigotry and a stoic Jew framed in a vast anti-Semitic conspiracy, as a result of an innately prejudiced and racist culture of the South that was united against Jews. Furthermore, the Jewish contemporary version of the Leo Frank case took the position that ultimately Leo Frank's admitted accomplice-after-the-fact, a semi-literate janitor, named James "Jim" Conley, was really the culprit. Jewish activists believe Conley duped the judge, jury, court system, police and prosecutor, and thereby framed the well educated, clean cut and Ivy League educated "Yankee Jew". Though the term "Yankee Jew" was never recorded as being used by those who were duped, this projection continues to be made perennially.

Jewish Historians and authors for more than a century have created a Leo Frank intellectual movement with cultish zealousness that persists today, making the absurd assertion that the lynching of Leo Frank was mostly animated because "the blood of a guilty Negro" was not enough to atone for the murder of a child. And that an innocent Jew had to pay the price.

By Media agitation the Jewish position on the Leo Frank Case has become the predominant version of what allegedly happened between 1913 and 1915, beginning with the Mary Phagan murder investigation, Coroner's Inquest, Grand Jury Hearing, murder trial, appeals and aftermath.

The Leo Frank Case by Leonard Dinnerstein 

Indeed, this particular book by Leonard Dinnerstein on the Leo Frank saga can be said to be clearly written on behalf of Leo Frank and takes the position that he was framed because of "rampant" and "widespread" antisemitism in the American South at the time. Leonard Dinnerstein could easily be considered one of the godfathers of the Leo Frank Antisemitic Conspiracy Theory cult, because he capitalized on half a century of time to cultivate this assertion. The high prevalence of Jews academically pushing the Leo Frank victim theory, has resulted in this political position becoming mainstream by the sheer numerical force of their biased publications. 

Manufacturing concensus is how the 'Leo Frank Intellectual Movement' works in changing the opinions of the masses against every level of the United States legal system. This political narrative on Leo Frank affair by Leonard Dinnerstein has been the rallying position taken privately and publicly by the Jewish community since 1913, and is often reflected in countless treatments produced on the case by authors who reference Dinnerstein as a reliable source.

The "Jewish position" however is in direct conflict with the "Gentile position" along with every level of the United States legal system, which ruled the Frank trial was fair and the provided testimony, along with the evidence against Leo Frank, was sufficient to convict him. No government tribunal ever called to review the Leo Frank case from 1913 to 1986 has disturbed the verdict of guilt rendered unanimously against Leo Frank by the presiding trial Judge Leonard Strickland Roan and a Jury of 12 men.

What Convicted Leo Frank is an Incriminating Admission 

Most open minded people who read and study the 1913 trial brief of evidence are able to connect the dots between State's Exhibit B, concerning when Leo Frank said Mary Phagan arrived in his office at roughly 12:07 p.m., the testimony of Monteen Stover about Leo Frank's office being empty between 12:05 p.m. to 12:10 p.m., and Leo Frank's August 18, 1913, trial statement directly responding to Monteen Stover's testimony about why his [Leo Frank's] office was empty between 12:05 p.m. and 12:10 p.m. Leo Frank responded with an "unconscious" bathroom visit to the metal room. Oddly enough, Leo Frank put himself alone at the scene of the crime, at the time the murder was committed, but even then, he continued to claim innocence. 

Alas, the major problem of the pro-Frank revisionist position taken by some authors is they are unable to maintain the "Jewish position on Leo Frank" and also provide a clear picture about the specific evidence presented at the trial, because many incidents documented during the Mary Phagan murder investigation were highly incriminating of Leo Frank. You seldom find this incriminating evidence discussed in pro-Frank books.

The Cult of Leo Frank

When reading books, magazine articles or news retellings that broadcast the pro-Frank partisan or revisionist narrative, they tend to leave out volumes of facts, evidence, circumstances, situations, incidents and testimony that were documented in the official legal records against Leo Frank, and replace them instead with rumors, misrepresentations, hoaxes, half-truths and fabrications. You never get the full story of what really happened when you read a book on the Leo Frank case that takes the position he was innocent.

In 1964, Pierre van Paassen published several dramatic hoaxes in his autobiography of tall tales and fantastic adventures, 'To Number Our Days' about supposedly discovering X-ray Photos of Mary Phagan with bite marks on her neck, and left shoulder, and corresponding X-ray photographs of Leo Frank's teeth that did not match the bite marks. 

Excerpt that discusses the case of Leo Frank and Van Paassen's alleged finding of photographic evidence at the court archives, pages 237 and 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."

(The hoaxer was unaware that Leo Frank was not lynched on his way to trial in 1913, nor was his trial in Milledgeville Georgia. Leo Frank was lynched in Marietta, 1915, and had already gone through the state and federal appellate courts.)

"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."

(Grand jury: Although only a majority of 12 votes were necessary to indict Leo Frank, without exception all 21 jurors who were present voted for his indictment. Several Atlanta Jews, some of them prominent members of the Jewish community, where among those who cast ballots at the conclusion of that legal proceeding officiated by Judge W. D. Ellis. One local newspaper report during the period, stated that about 4 out of 5 citizens of Georgia, believed Leo Frank was guilty, and it was not an unfair belief considering the testimony of the Coroner's inquest had been published in the three local press organs of the capital. Therefore it was not a monolithic opinion at the time that Leo Frank was innocent in opinions shared by members of the Jewish community.

Mary Phagan Bite Wound Hoax: Van Paassen's allegation of this incident in 1964, about an event occurring four decades prior in the early 1920s is incredulous and anti-science. The autopsy report or physician testimony at the Leo Frank trial never once described a single mention of bite wounds on the victim Mary Phagan. X-ray technology was in early development in 1913, and even 100 years later in the 21st century, it is ineffective to x-ray bite wounds or teeth to compare them. The correct procedure had the dubious claim been true, would have been to make a three dimensional teeth mold to get the indenture prints of Leo Frank's mouth. An X-ray would largely show a side view of the teeth, whereas a mold of his indentures would show the actual bite prints. No one other than Van Paassen ever mentions this false evidence in the historical record, before or after him, though Leo Frank hoaxers repeat this allegation as "proof" the homicidal pedophile was innocent.)

"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."

(Leo Frank hoaxer Pierre van Paassen believes Leo Frank never had a trial, he is oblivious to the fact that the convict did actually have a 1913 trial in Atlanta, and that the presiding judge Leonard Roan, refused a request for a new trial. The supreme court of Georgia, also rejected a request for a new trial and ruled the evidence at the Frank trial sustained a guilty verdict. The prominent Jewish lawyer, was named Henry, not Harry.)

"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...."

(Anti-Science: Pierre van Paassens story is a fantastic fiction that never occurred. A head-on collision with another vehicle would not allowed him to escape without a scratch. Everything about his story is a series of falsehoods and lies.) 

The 1964 Pierre van Paassen hoax is one example of the many frauds perpetuated by the Leo Frank Intellectual Movement of Pro Leo Frank authors including Harry Golden, Leonard Dinnerstein, Steve Oney, Elaine Marie Alphin, Donald E. Wilkes, Jeffrey Paul Melnick and others (see: To Number Our Days by Pierre van Paassen, 1964, p. 237 & 238).

The problem resulting from trying to maintain the integrity of the pro-frank revisionist position on the Leo Frank trial and appeals, is that in doing so, one is unable to explore the curious and interesting depths of the official record. The facts, evidence and testimony in the case appear to be intentionally omitted by people perpetuating the "Jewish persecution position", because these censored elements tend to sustain the conviction of Leo Frank.

Direct References: 

Leo Frank and the American Jewish Community (1968) by Leonard Dinnerstein: https://archive.org/details/american-jewish-archive-journal-volume-20-number-2-leo-m-frank-and-the-american-

The Leo Frank Case (1966) PhD Dissertation: http://www.archive.org/details/TheLeoFrankCase1966Dissertation 

The Leo Frank Case Book (published 1968 and thereafter): http://www.archive.org/details/TheLeoFrankCaseByLeonardDinnerstein 

To Number Our Days by Pierre van Paassen (see pages 237, 238 about the Leo Frank case): http://archive.org/details/ToNumberOurDaysByPierreVanPaassen Leo Frank Case Georgia Supreme Court Case File (1,800 pages). http://archive.org/details/leo-frank-georgia-supreme-court-case-records-1913-1914

Other Related Sources: 

Learn about the Leo Frank trial and appeals by Professor Allen Koenigsberg of Brooklyn College: http://www.LeoFrankCase.com 

Please fact check Leonard Dinnerstein's writings about the Leo Frank case using the primary and secondary sources below. What facts about the case did he leave out? What important facts were falsified? What claims are erroneous? Please write about and publish your research findings. Use the primary and secondary sources below in your research.

The most reliable primary and secondary sources about Mary Phagan's murder, Leo Frank's trial, appeals and aftermath. 

1. The Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean (b. June 5, 1954) was written by the namesake and grandniece of Mary Phagan (1899 - 1913) the little girl who was murdered on Georgia Confederate Memorial Day, April 26, 1913. Phagan-Kean produces a rare neutral account of the Mary Phagan murder investigation, coroner's inquest, grandjury indictment, and trial of Leo Frank, including the appeals (1913-1915) and aftermath of the case (1982-1986), that is engaging and well worth reading. Phagan-Kean's book is a very refreshing change from the endless number of contemporary books written by Leo Frank activists over the generations who quote and plagiarize other Leo Frank activists' academic dishonesty and falsified research, to create an artificial consensus of history that Leo Frank was innocent. For more than one hundred years Leo Frank activists have relied upon using fallacious evidence and fabrication about the Leo Frank case to racistly transform the 1913 affair into an anti-Gentile ethno-religious conspiracy.

 2. American State Trials, volume X (1918) by John Davison Lawson LLD (Available here on www.Archive.org) the review tends to favor Leo Frank and his legal defense team, because the document provides an abridged version of the trial testimony, redacting and leaving out some very important details damaging to Leo Frank. Be sure to read the abridged closing arguments of Hugh Dorsey, Frank Arthur Hooper, Luther Rosser and Reuben Rose Arnold. A chronology of Leo Frank's appeals is also included. The last segment provides a detailed account of Leo Frank's lynching. 

For a much clearer picture of the trial testimony, read the elusive Leo Frank Trial Brief of Evidence (BOE, 1913) for the official version of the trial testimony. Compare the American State Trials Volume X 1918 version of the BOE with the official record of the Leo Frank trial brief of evidence (1913) to see what was left out (the juiciest stuff) from the American State Trials Volume X, 1918.

 3. Argument of Hugh M. Dorsey in the Trial of Leo Frank (Available here on www.Archive.org). Some but not all of the 9 hours of arguments given to the jury at the end of the Leo Frank trial on August 22nd, 23rd, and 25th of 1913 (the 24th was Sunday). Very few libraries in the United States have original copies of this books. There has been an effort over the last 100 years to steal and destroy the remaining copies so as to suppress Hugh Dorsey's closing arguments and peroration. This excellent book is required reading to see how the prosecutor Hugh Dorsey in sales vernacular: "closed", a Jury panel of 13 men, made up of a judge with a reputation for conscientiousness, along with a jury of 12 men. 

On appeals Leo Frank's defense team submitted a petition to judge Roan on 107 grounds for why Leo Frank should get a new trial -- every single ground was rejected with an explanation on October 31, 1913. Judge Roans rejection of each and every one of the 107 grounds put before him, causes most 20th and 21st century neutral observers to realize the judge's appeasing oral remarks to his former law-partner Luther Rosser about questions of Leo Frank's "innocence or guilt" were nothing more of a business courtesy, than an expression of doubt. At a later time after state appeals to the Georgia Supreme Court failed, Superior Court Judge Benjamin Hill on March 7th, 1914, scheduled Leo Frank to hang on his 30th birthday April 17, 1914, revealing the ultimate truth and strength of his verdict.

 4. Leo M. Frank, Plaintiff in Error, vs. State of Georgia, Defendant in Error. In Error from Fulton Superior Court at the July Term 1913, Brief of Evidence. Extremely rare, only 3 original copies exist, and they are held at the Georgia State Archive (The unabridged version is available on www.archive.org the version in American State Trials Volume X, 1918 is abridged).

Three Major Atlanta Dailies: The Atlanta Constitution, The Atlanta Journal, The Atlanta Georgian (Hearst's Tabloid Yellow Journalism), The most relevant issues center around April 28th to August 27th 1913. 

5. Atlanta Constitution Newspaper: The Murder of Mary Phagan, Coroner's Inquest, Grand Jury, Investigation, Trail, Appeals, shanking and Lynching of Leo Frank Case in the Atlanta Constitution Newspaper from 1913 to 1915.

Link: http://archive.org/details/LeoFrankCaseInTheAtlantaConstitutionNewspaper1913To1915 

6. The Atlanta Georgian newspaper: This selection is covering the Leo Frank Case from April though August, 1913.

Link: http://archive.org/details/AtlantaGeorgianNewspaperAprilToAugust1913 

7. The Atlanta Journal Newspaper, April, 28, 1913, through till the end of August, 1913, pertaining to the Leo Frank Case:

Link: http://archive.org/details/AtlantaJournalApril281913toAugust311913

Leo Frank confirms in a jailhouse interview that he might have been in the men's toilet in the metal room (shockingly the prosecution's theory where the murder occurred) at the time Monteen Stover said his office was empty between 12:05 p.m. and 12:10 p.m.

Link: Atlanta Constitution, Monday, March 9, 1914, Leo Frank Jailhouse Interview 

8. Tom Watson's Jeffersonian and Watson's Magazine: Watson's Magazine, January 1915, Watson's Magazine, March 1915; Watson's Magazine, August 1915, Watson's Magazine, September 1915, and Watson's Magazine, October of 1915. (Available here on Archive.org). 

Tom Watson's best work on the Leo M. Frank case was published in August and September of 1915. Watson's five works written collectively on the Leo M. Frank topic, provide logical arguments confirming the guilt of Leo M. Frank with superb reasoning. Originals of these magazines are extremely rare and very difficult to find. 

8.1. The Leo Frank Case By Tom Watson (January 1915) Watson's Magazine Volume 20 No. 3. See page 139 for the Leo Frank Case. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga.

Link: http://www.archive.org/details/TheLeoFrankCase 

8.2. The Full Review of the Leo Frank Case By Tom Watson (March 1915) Volume 20. No. 5. See page 235 for 'A Full Review of the Leo Frank Case'. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga.

Link: http://www.archive.org/details/TheFullReviewOfTheLeoFrankCaseMarch1915 

8.3. The Celebrated Case of The State of Georgia vs. Leo Frank By Tom Watson (August 1915) Volume 21, No 4. See page 182 for 'The Celebrated Case of the State of Georgia vs. Leo Frank". Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga.

Link: http://www.archive.org/details/TheCelebratedCaseOfLeoFrank 

8.4. The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, Jew Pervert By Tom Watson (September 1915) Volume 21. No. 5. See page 251 for 'The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, Jew Pervert'. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga.

Link: http://www.archive.org/details/TheOfficialRecordInTheCaseOfLeoFrankJewPervertSeptember1915

8.5. The Rich Jews Indict a State! The Whole South Traduced in the Matter of Leo Frank By Tom Watson (October 1915) Volume 21. No. 6. See page 301. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga.

Link: http://www.archive.org/details/RichJewsIndictTheStateOfGeorgia

Tom Watson's Jeffersonian Newspaper 

9. The Tom E. Watson Digital Papers Archive, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: Link: http://www.lib.unc.edu/dc/watson

Tom W. Brown 

10. Notes on the Case of Leo M. Frank, By Tom W. Brown, Emery University, Atlanta, Georgia, 1982. (despite its errors - like mentioning Mary Phagan had bite marks on her - it is otherwise a great analysis). Link: http://archive.org/details/NotesOnTheCaseOfLeoMaxFrankAndItsAftermath

Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court Records (1913, 1914): 

11. Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court Records (1,800 pages). Link: http://archive.org/details/leo-frank-georgia-supreme-court-case-records-1913-1914