An Unspeakable Crime(Age 14-18) [School & Library Binding]

In this latest book on the Leo Frank Case (152 pages), author Elaine Alphin takes for her title a post-lynching judgment by the Mayor of Atlanta (James Woodward): "a just penalty for an unspeakable crime." But she has recast that harsh approval of Leo's Midnight Ride, and added, "The Prosecution and Persecution of Leo Frank." This is clearly not a volume of subtleties and the reader is thus quickly informed of the writer's sympathies. It is mostly about the trials and tribulations of the accused and there is little (correct) about Mary Phagan herself.

The book is aimed at young people, and Ms. Alphin notes that in all the literature on the case -- despite the abundance of teenagers at so many stages of the events -- there has not up to now been a retelling aimed for that audience. It is clearly written, with fine production values, with a large variety of vintage photographs, and rarely have they been reproduced so well. She is obviously entranced with this "miscarriage of justice" and has traveled widely and visited several of the major Archives - all are cited in the back along with the previous major books, and is so current that the recent PBS-TV Special ('The People v. Leo Frank') is mentioned.

Some of the original material was of a salacious nature, but all is handled here tastefully. The major problem is that even high-schoolers are entitled to an accurate accounting of this iconic case, and that is where this latest publication falls short. The basic narrative of the crime, and its ultimate resolution at the end of the lynchers' rope, strikes our sensibilities to this day, and there are still many who would prefer that an innocent Leo Frank be the prime example of American justice gone wrong. But the Jury, in Georgia's longest trial, heard all of the evidence, and the author seems unaware that the Atlanta newspapers were an excellent source for the day-to-day testimony. As she notes, the stenographic Court Transcript has been lost for some fifty years.

For reasons unknown, Ms. Alphin has Mary Anne Phagan born in Marietta, Georgia and her biological father also dying there. But Mary was born in Florence, Alabama, on June 1, 1899 and her father had died several months before she was born - she was a posthumous child. Fannie Phagan (Alphin wrongly calls her `Frannie' throughout) raised her youngest daughter and siblings as a single parent and did not (re-)marry John Coleman until 1912 - she was essentially raised without a father. When Mary did not return home by 7pm, her step-father would indeed look for her on the evening of April 26, 1913, but the family never "called the police" as is claimed here. They would learn of their daughter's death only after a night of waiting, 5:30 the next morning, from one of Mary's chums.

We would not expect all material to be footnoted in a book like this, but the author (and her readers) would have benefitted from more explanatory Notes at the back. For example, on p. 11, it is claimed that Mary's body showed bitemarks on her shoulder when found. This is rather a unique statement and was not reported at the time - actually, it derives from one book ('To Number Our Days' by Pierre van Paassen) published years later, in 1964, describing a visit by that author to Atlanta in 1922. Van Paassen said these marks had been "x-rayed" and were still preserved in a court folder. But who could (then or now) x-ray such indentations in human flesh? And surely van Paassen's parallel claim (through lawyer Henry Alexander) that Leo Frank did not have a trial to overturn would make his report highly suspect. But Ms. Alphin does not question her sources, simply quoting what seems beneficial on each occasion - Oney's book does the same with this incident (p. 617). Van Paassen would argue that Leo's dental records (which he also says he saw in 1922) did not match the bites in Mary's neck and hence he was innocent of the crime. But this is one man's word at best and does not stand up to even minimal scrutiny.

Although this is (or should be) a case where the devil is in the details, they come thick and fast but are often unverified or wrong. Ms. Alphin states that Leo's father had retired by 1907 due to a railway accident, and that the family had their basic estate of $20,000 as a result of a financial settlement. However, there is no evidence for this claim, and the 1910 Census shows Rudolph Frank still working (as a salesman). Ms. Alphin does not give a source for this "accident" but it was only mentioned once, in a publication in 1947 by Burton Rascoe, who also gave no supporting details. When Rachel Frank (Leo's mother) testified at the trial, she explained her husband's absence by saying that he was too "nervous" to come to Atlanta and was broken down from his work.

Several times, Ms. Alphin refers to Leo and his family as "relatively poor" (but he earned $150 per month as Superintendent of the National Pencil Co.); however, the record shows he had traveled to Europe twice (in 1905 and 1908). Leo's wealthy uncle, Moses Frank, is cited as having fought for the Confederacy, and this factoid is often mentioned in other books on the case, but it is not true and was only introduced (again without details) by one of Leo's lawyers (Reuben Arnold) in October of 1913. Leo would later deny it.

It is claimed that the Seligs were a "high society family" but Lucille's father was at the time a traveling salesman for the West Disinfecting Co., having earlier dealt in various liquor products. On p. 25, Lucille "announced her pregnancy" in the Spring of 1913, but no evidence from that period is offered. This remark apparently derives from Steve Oney's book (p. 85), where the event is instead dated months later to the early Winter of 1913, but leading to a miscarriage (cited Interviews of 1986 and 1998). Oddly, in all the voluminous correspondence between Leo and Lucille (and many other family members), there is not a single reference (oblique or otherwise) to this lost 'offspring' (a tragic result if true). Only 73 years later is this supposed 'miscarriage' mentioned.

When one is truly immersed in a murder case, even decades after the fact, one can look at original documents with a new eye. For example, Ms. Alphin seems to have used some of the unpublished Pinkerton Reports generated by the NPCo.'s hiring of that detective agency. But Oney did so as well, and both report that two men in the factory, Ely Burdett and James Gresham, knew more than they were telling. These two indeed worked at the factory, but never testified; however, their names were actually Earl Burdett and James Graham. In a remarkable coincidence, their fathers were in the Forsyth Street building just minutes before Mary was killed.

I could go on.... It is claimed that the ADL was founded as a result of Leo's lynching in 1915, but the newspaper backing up this assertion (illustrating the caption) is dated two years before, October 1913. Even then, the ADL did not state that it was established because of the crime, the trial, OR the lynching. Standard dates, such as the original Murder Indictment of May 24th (1913) and the lynching of Aug 17 (1915), are mangled and mis-cited.

The Jury had to confront many other details, some of which are omitted here. For example, Newt Lee had been told the day before (by Leo himself) to report early for his watchman's duties on Saturday, 4pm instead of the usual 5. But when Newt dutifully appeared, on time and after confronting a locked door, Leo sent him away, telling him not to remain in the factory, and only come back at 6pm (an hour later than usual).

Having said all of this, can we surmise more accurately than those who came before us, what really happened on Confederate Memorial Day in 1913? Solicitor Dorsey would argue that it was a crime of passion, that Mary stood up for her Southern honor, and that Leo violently reacted to her refusal. Was that scenario indeed the truth? And was Dorsey (and others) driven mainly by anti-Semitism? Even Steven Hertzberg, author of a well-regarded history of the Jews of Atlanta, exculpates him from this charge. Tom Watson's diatribes are mentioned and rightly excoriated, but Watson did not publish anything at all on the case until a year after the crime. And Jim Conley? Alphin makes him out to be a Machiavellian character, intelligent and articulate when he wanted, and folksy and charming at other times. Anyone who has studied the case for a while will surely acknowledge that Conley lied about several of his actions that day, but what was really being concealed? Did Jim bear a greater responsibility than he admitted, or was he instead the sole killer, lurking so close to his boss' office? Why did Leo not permit cross-examination after his own long-courtroom Statement - under Georgia Law, since 1868 (Title VI), it WAS allowed (unsworn), IF the defendant agreed.

It is likely that the case will continue to be debated for a long time, even by anonymous reviewers. But those who argue it and present their best efforts on either side are encouraged to get the details right. First the facts, then the interpretations, not the other way around.

The Leo Frank / Mary Phagan case is perhaps one of the most complex true-crime cases ever to present itself for review. Like many books, articles, plays & other treatments of this case since the time of the crime, the emphasis here is placed on the supposed (and certainly some actual) injustices suffered by Leo Frank. However, too little time is given to the victim, Mary Phagan, and just as importantly to the reasons Leo Frank was suspected, arrested and convicted in the first place.

To be sure, no human being should ever be lynched by a vigilante mob, even if such actions are performed in the name of justice. Our system of justice must be the final authority on crime and punishment even though it is sometimes flawed. Nevertheless, there were reasons for the arrest and conviction of Leo Frank that had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he was Jewish; and it is simply inaccurate to present this case as purely an example of anti-semitism.

Leo Frank's supporters like to focus on Jim Conley and the role he played in the Leo Frank / Mary Phagan drama. He certainly did play a huge role ... possibly a more complex one than is generally acknowledged. However, Leo Frank was indicted by a grand jury composed of twenty-three men ... five of them Jewish ... while Jim Conley was still only a minor blip on the radar of this case. Obviously Jim Conley was not solely responsible for Leo Frank's conviction; but to Frank's supporters, the other evidence is glossed over as if it never existed in the first place.

Whether Leo Frank was actually guilty or innocent is something we will most likely never know for sure. Certainly the Georgia Board of Pardons never saw any convincing evidence to grant a pardon based on the evidence ... old or new. They did eventually grant a posthumous pardon based on the failure of the penal system to protect the rights of the accused while in custody and to "mend old wounds". Without any hidden meaning or agenda, I must say that this action always seemed like simply a way to shut everyone up to me. Since there was no really convincing evidence that would justify a pardon based on innocence, one was found to pardon him just to appease his supporters. After all a person can only be pardoned once.

I would really like to see a book come along written in modern times that lays out this entire case; but this one isn't it. Unfortunately one has to return to accounts written of the case in 1913 and the years immediately after to get a clear understanding of the totality of this crime. Steve Oney came close to writing the perfect modern-day account of this case. As Steve Oney came to believe in Leo Frank's innocence, it's OK for any person to come to the conclusion that Leo Frank may not have been guilty. However, it's not OK to overlook all the evidence against the accused just because he happens to be a member of a minority group.

I have spent years studying the official Leo Frank court case documents numbering more than 2,500 pages (Leo M. Frank Trial, July Term 1913, Appeals 1913 to 1915), the entire collection of surviving newspapers from Atlanta Georgia circa 1913 to 1915 (AC, AJ and AG), and read every magazine article and book published about the Leo Frank case from 1913 to 2010.

I find this particular book on the Leo Frank case by Elaine Marie Alphin well produced in terms of its glossy photos and paper quality, but in terms of historical accuracy, the book absolutely fails miserably. With a cursory look at this book, I discovered so many fabrications and omissions, I almost had to put the book down and stop reading it for good. This book is mislabeled as non-fiction, and provides reason why every single non-fiction book ever written should go through a rigorous fact checking process before being published.

The misquotes, incorrect dates, fabrications, half-truths, defamation, omissions and accusations were somewhere between very annoying and obnoxious. The fact this books is filled with so many errors from beginning to end did not really effect me emotionally, until I discovered this book was specifically written for high school and college students. I found it heartbreaking that students are being proselytized with books like this one that literally and shamelessly re-write history.

If you want a more accurate and neutral overview of the Leo M. Frank case, consider reading, 'The Murder of Little Mary Phagan', by Mary Phagan-Kean. Available here on Amazon.com.

› Go to Amazon.com to see all 6 reviews  3.5 out of 5 stars