How Jim Conley’s Attorney Became His Accuser, Joined the Burns Investigation, and Turned His Own Knowledge Against His Former Client

By Arthur Daniels

William Manning Smith’s conduct in the Leo Max Frank case is one of the most troubling reversals in the history of the Mary Phagan murder investigation.

Smith was not an outsider who studied the case years later and changed his opinion. He was Jim Conley’s lawyer. He accepted Conley’s trust. He controlled access to him. He defended him in public. He fought attempts to accuse him of Mary Phagan’s murder. He warned about outside investigators getting access to his client. He warned about trades. He warned about supposed Conley confession stories. He said he believed Conley was telling the truth. He represented him after Leo Frank had already been convicted. He fought William J. Burns when Burns wanted access to Conley.

Then Smith crossed over.

By Saturday, October 3, 1914, Smith was publicly accusing his former client of murdering Mary Phagan. He was working with investigators connected with William J. Burns, had already carried his new theory to Leo Frank’s lead trial lawyer Luther Z. Rosser, and was helping develop the same case against Conley which he had spent the previous year fighting.

I regard this as a betrayal.

I also regard Smith’s conduct as unscrupulous. I do not use this word because I can prove he accepted a secret cash bribe. I cannot. I do not use it because a disciplinary court found him guilty of violating attorney-client privilege. I have found no such ruling. I use it because of what Smith himself said, what he did, when he did it, who benefited, and the exchange of services he later admitted making with the William J. Burns organization.

The Burns investigation around the Frank case became tangled in false, repudiated, disputed, and allegedly purchased affidavits. Reverend C. B. Ragsdale admitted his supposed Jim Conley confession affidavit was false. Other witnesses said they had been offered money, employment, travel, favors, or pressure to change their stories. Several accusations were denied. Some witnesses contradicted themselves. Burns-connected men were eventually prosecuted and acquitted.

Those acquittals belong in the history.

But the Ragsdale affidavit was still false. The disputed affidavits were still disputed. Witnesses still made the accusations. Smith still knew what Burns’s organization was trying to accomplish.

At first Smith fought Burns.

Then Smith began helping the Frank side himself.

The chronology is what makes the story so damaging.

Thursday, May 29, 1913: Conley’s Main Story Exists Before Smith

Before examining Smith, one point should be established.

On Thursday, May 29, 1913, Jim Conley gave police a major statement concerning what he claimed occurred inside the National Pencil Company on Saturday, April 26, 1913.

His account placed him inside the factory, connected him with Leo Frank after Mary Phagan’s death, described helping move her body, and dealt with the murder notes.

William Manning Smith did not become Conley’s lawyer until the following day.

This is important because Smith was later accused of having invented or coached Conley’s story. Smith denied this accusation. Whatever one thinks of Conley’s changing affidavits, much of the central story later heard by the jury existed before Smith entered the case.

Conley’s basic story came first.

Smith entered the next day.

Friday, May 30, 1913: Smith Accepts Conley as His Client

Smith later dated the beginning of his professional relationship with Conley to Friday, May 30, 1913.

In his long statement published in the Atlanta Journal on Sunday, October 4, 1914, Smith said he went to the Fulton County jail with Lorena Conley and obtained Conley’s approval of his employment.

Smith said his first advice was silence.

He then notified Chief Newport Lanford and Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey he was representing Conley.

What followed is important because Smith later wanted the public to understand how completely he had protected his client.

Smith helped move Conley from the county jail back to police headquarters. He controlled access to him. He said only officials approved by Smith were permitted to see him. Pinkerton detectives connected with the National Pencil Company were kept away.

Smith later said his purpose was to give Conley:

“a fair fighting chance” (AJ, 01).

Smith was not simply filing legal papers.

He was building a protective wall around Jim Conley.

Tuesday, June 10, 1913: Smith Says Conley Is Telling the “Whole Truth”

One of Smith’s earliest public statements came on Tuesday, June 10, 1913.

The Atlanta Georgian, in “Eyewitness to Phagan Slaying Sought,” reported Smith believed Conley had varied in no essential part from his account.

More importantly, the newspaper reported Smith believed his client was telling the:

“whole truth” (AG, 02).

This is an important starting point.

Smith was not simply saying he would defend his client regardless of personal belief.

He was publicly vouching for Conley.

The phrase “whole truth” would become difficult to reconcile with Smith’s later claim he had long suspected Conley of lying about important parts of the case.

June 11–13, 1913: Smith Fights to Control Access to Conley

Smith’s protection of Conley soon became physical as well as legal.

On Wednesday, June 11, Smith and Conley signed an arrangement allowing Conley to remain at police headquarters instead of returning to the Fulton County Tower.

By Friday, June 13, the Atlanta Georgian, in “Judge Roan to Decide Conley’s Jail Fate,” reported Smith presenting Conley’s signed statement saying he preferred police headquarters and had not been forced to remain there by detectives.

Reports had circulated concerning outsiders reaching Conley at the jail, including claims of intimidation and a supposed go-between acting in Frank’s interest (AG, 03).

Whether every intimidation claim was true is a separate question.

Smith’s response is clear.

He wanted Conley in a place where access could be controlled.

He wanted outsiders kept away.

He was protecting his client from people he believed might influence, frighten, or manipulate him.

This becomes especially important when Smith later begins helping people from the opposing camp.

Saturday, July 19, 1913: Smith Fights an Attempt to Indict Conley

On Saturday, July 19, 1913, the Atlanta Journal published “Jury Is Determined to Consider a Bill Against Jim Conley.”

Members of the Fulton County grand jury were considering whether Conley himself should be indicted for Mary Phagan’s murder.

Smith opposed the idea.

He told the newspaper:

“Jim Conley has been dealing fairly with the state of Georgia.”

He also said:

“Conley is giving the state a square deal.”

Then Smith warned grand jurors against taking a step which, in his view, could help Frank:

“If the grand jurors do not want to please Frank and his friends, if they do not want to help clear Frank they had better leave this alone, for the present” (AJ, 04).

Smith was not publicly uncertain about his client.

He was fighting the theory Frank’s lawyers would soon present to the jury.

Sunday, July 20, 1913: “We Are Not Looking for Trades”

The following day produced one of the most revealing statements Smith ever made.

On Sunday, July 20, 1913, the Atlanta Georgian published “Attorney for Conley Makes a Statement.”

Smith discussed the possibility of a bargain.

He recognized silencing Conley could help Frank. He recognized cooperation from Conley’s side had value. He even discussed the possibility of a deal being made attractive to the lawyer representing Conley.

Then Smith rejected the idea:

“We are not looking for trades” (AG, 05).

Smith called instead for everyone to tell the truth and allow justice to run its course.

These words become almost painfully ironic when placed beside events one year later.

In July 1913, Smith understood three things.

His cooperation had value to Frank’s side.

A bargain could help Frank.

A bargain could create a personal conflict for Conley’s lawyer.

Smith rejected it.

“We are not looking for trades.”

A year later, Smith would openly acknowledge an exchange with William J. Burns. Burns would help with the missing Nelms sisters. Smith and Carlton C. Tedder would help Burns in the Frank case.

Smith understood the danger before he ever entered the bargain.

July 20, 1913: Smith Warns About Supposed Conley Confessions

Smith also warned about outsiders gaining access to Conley.

In contemporary reporting concerning the grand-jury fight, Smith argued Frank’s supporters wanted Conley made easier to reach.

He wrote:

“Conley must be made more accessible to interviews, at any cost.”

Smith believed greater access would allow Frank’s people to learn Conley’s story and prepare attacks against him.

He also warned about supposed witnesses appearing with stories of Conley confessing.

This becomes important in 1914.

Frank’s post-trial investigation eventually produced several supposed Conley confession stories.

One of the most important, Reverend C. B. Ragsdale’s affidavit, turned out to be false by Ragsdale’s own later admission.

Smith had warned about this kind of evidence before the Frank trial ever began.

Monday, August 4, 1913: Smith Walks Into Court With Conley

When Conley took the witness stand during Leo Frank’s trial on Monday, August 4, 1913, Smith was with him.

The Atlanta Journal, in “Jim Conley Tells an Amazing Story,” reported Conley arriving with police officials and his lawyer William Manning Smith.

Smith explained Conley had feared he himself was being placed on trial until Smith reassured him (AJ, 06).

Smith was not an outside observer.

He was Conley’s lawyer at the center of the most important testimony in the case.

August 5–6, 1913: Smith Says His Job Is Protecting Conley

On Tuesday, August 5, while Luther Z. Rosser was putting Conley through a long cross-examination, Smith went before Judge Leonard S. Roan.

The Atlanta Journal, in “Defense Moves to Strike Most Damaging Testimony,” quoted Smith:

“My efforts have been directed toward protecting the interests of this negro” (AJ, 07).

Smith personally accompanied Conley between his cell and the courtroom.

He worried about who could reach his client while cross-examination remained unfinished.

He even became involved in making sure Conley had enough food.

The following day, Wednesday, August 6, Smith again fought for access to Conley.

He wanted clean clothes and a bath for his client, but his larger concern was legal. He wanted time with Conley so he could locate people capable of supporting parts of his testimony.

Judge Roan allowed the conference (AJ, 08).

The picture is clear.

Smith guarded Conley.

Smith supported Conley.

Smith searched for evidence useful to Conley.

Smith was doing what a loyal lawyer normally does for a client.

Wednesday, November 12, 1913: Smith Says He Will Get Conley Out “Scot-Free”

Smith’s loyalty continued after Frank was convicted on Monday, August 25, 1913.

On Wednesday, November 12, the Atlanta Georgian, in “Conley Taken to Court for Trial,” reported Smith confidently discussing the criminal charges still pending against Conley.

Smith predicted:

“I will get him out scot-free without trouble” (AG, 09).

There was no public sign of a lawyer preparing to accuse his client of murdering Mary Phagan.

Smith was still fighting for him.

Tuesday, February 24, 1914: Smith Defends Conley in Court

On Tuesday, February 24, 1914, Conley was tried as an accessory after the fact.

An accessory after the fact is a person accused of knowingly helping another person after a crime has already occurred.

Smith defended him.

The Atlanta Georgian, in “Jim Conley Is Sentenced,” reported Smith’s closing argument.

Smith admitted Conley had lied but defended his reason:

“He did, but he lied to protect himself and not to protect Frank” (AG, 10).

Smith argued Dorsey had not proved Conley possessed the required knowledge for guilt as an accessory after the fact.

Smith finished at about 10:40 o’clock.

The jury returned its verdict after roughly twelve minutes.

Conley was convicted and sentenced to twelve months on the chain gang.

The verdict is not the point here.

The point is Smith’s position.

Almost ten months after Mary Phagan’s murder, Smith was still defending the basic structure of Conley’s account.

March 1914: William J. Burns Enters the Fight

By March 1914, William J. Burns had entered Frank’s post-trial campaign.

Burns was a nationally famous private detective.

He also became one of the most controversial figures in the Frank case.

Frank’s side was preparing an extraordinary motion for a new trial, meaning a special effort to reopen the case based largely on claimed newly discovered evidence.

Private investigators were collecting affidavits.

Old witnesses were being revisited.

New witnesses were being sought.

One major goal was plain: destroy Jim Conley’s credibility and, if possible, place Mary Phagan’s murder directly on him.

Smith knew this.

At first, Smith fought Burns.

Thursday, March 12, 1914: Smith Says He Knows Conley Is Telling the Truth

The Atlanta Constitution of Thursday, March 12, 1914, page 1, published “Smith to Protect Conley From Grill by William Burns.”

Burns wanted to question Conley.

Smith resisted unrestricted access.

Then Smith made one of the most damaging statements for his own later credibility.

He described Conley as a client:

“whom I know to be telling the truth” (AC, 11).

This was almost eleven months after Mary Phagan’s murder.

Smith knew Conley had changed his statements.

He knew Conley had lied about parts of his story.

He had watched the Frank trial.

He had represented Conley through another criminal case.

Still, Smith publicly said he knew Conley was telling the truth.

This statement has to be placed beside everything Smith later claimed he had already suspected about his client.

March 19–21, 1914: Smith Builds a Wall Against Burns

On Thursday, March 19, Smith issued written instructions controlling access to Conley.

He wanted to be present if outsiders questioned his client.

The Atlanta Constitution reported Smith spending more than an hour with Conley at the Tower.

Sheriff C. W. Mangum said access to Conley was tightly controlled (AC, 12).

Two days later, Saturday, March 21, Smith publicly attacked Burns.

The Atlanta Journal reported Smith mocking Burns as a:

“movie picture, stage lecturing, and tangoing sleuth” (AJ, 13).

Behind the insult was an important professional position.

Burns was a private investigator.

Smith insisted Conley had a lawyer and would be protected.

In March 1914, William Manning Smith was the wall standing between Jim Conley and William J. Burns.

Wednesday, March 25, 1914: Smith Says He Will “Stick It Out”

On Wednesday, March 25, the Atlanta Constitution published “Smith Is Giving His Service Free to James Conley.”

The article described how Smith’s original employment involved an Atlanta publishing interest.

Smith said this arrangement ended when those paying him wanted information from private conferences with Conley.

Smith refused.

He said he gave up expected compensation rather than compromise his client.

Conley then asked Smith to remain.

Smith explained:

“I could see nothing else to do but to stick it out” (AC, 14).

This is important because Smith clearly understood the duty of loyalty.

He understood private information belonged to the client.

He understood money from an outside interest could create a conflict.

He understood a lawyer might have to sacrifice compensation rather than compromise the person he represented.

His own earlier standard makes his later conduct harder to excuse.

The $40 Question

The payment history has sometimes been confused.

Smith said an Atlanta publishing interest originally helped bring him into the case.

He also said the arrangement ended quickly over demands involving information from private lawyer-client conferences.

Later, in October 1914, Smith said the money he actually received amounted to about $40 contributed by Black church members who wanted Conley fairly represented.

These appear to be separate parts of the story.

I would not write the Atlanta Georgian simply paid Smith $40.

The better reading of Smith’s own statements is this: a publishing concern first arranged his employment, the relationship quickly ended, and the roughly $40 Smith later described came from Black church members.

The Historical Ethics Standard Was Already Clear

Smith’s conduct can also be compared with professional standards already in existence during his own time.

The American Bar Association adopted its Canons of Professional Ethics in 1908, five years before the Phagan case.

Canon 5 recognized a lawyer’s duty to defend an accused person regardless of the lawyer’s personal belief about guilt.

Canon 6 spoke of “undivided loyalty” and warned against conflicting interests. It also addressed later employment adverse to interests previously entrusted to a lawyer.

I am not claiming a Georgia disciplinary tribunal convicted Smith of violating Canon 6.

I have found no such ruling.

The canons are important for another reason.

The idea of loyalty to a client was not a modern standard invented decades later.

Lawyers of Smith’s own period already recognized it.

March 27–31, 1914: Frank’s Affidavit Campaign Turns Toward Conley

Frank’s extraordinary motion became public in late March.

The motion relied heavily on new affidavits, recantations, new witnesses, and attacks on the prosecution case.

Some of the new evidence pointed directly at Conley.

Yet Smith was still representing him.

On Tuesday, March 31, the Atlanta Constitution published “Conley Is Anxious to Face Accusers.”

Smith personally carried new accusations to Conley.

Conley denied them and challenged his accusers to face him.

Smith’s office remained involved in Conley’s own legal efforts (AC, 15).

Then the chronology begins to change.

Thursday, April 16, 1914: Smith’s Evidence Man Goes Onto the Burns Payroll

Carlton C. Tedder had been associated with Smith as an investigator or “evidence man.”

On Thursday, April 16, 1914, Tedder entered paid employment with the Burns organization.

During later court proceedings, Tedder described receiving $250 in advance salary and another $250 for expenses.

Total: $500.

Tedder later said he had asked Smith for advice before accepting Burns employment.

According to Tedder, Smith consulted Dorsey and then told Tedder to proceed.

Two days later, Saturday, April 18, Smith and Tedder traveled together to Birmingham.

Smith later testified he was doing work for Dorsey while Tedder was working for Burns (AJ, 36).

This does not prove Smith was secretly working for Frank on April 18.

It does establish something important.

A man closely tied to Smith had moved directly into Burns’s organization.

Smith knew.

The door between the two camps had opened.

Sunday, April 19, 1914: Albert McKnight Says Employment Was Used to Change His Story

The affidavit campaign soon began producing accusations concerning how new statements were obtained.

Albert McKnight had testified for the State.

He later signed an affidavit favorable to Frank.

Then he repudiated the recantation.

The Atlanta Journal of Sunday, April 19, 1914, reported McKnight claiming C. W. Burke had discussed better employment with him in connection with the new statement (AJ, 16).

McKnight described a Pullman job paying much more than his existing work.

He later alleged words had been added after he signed.

Burke denied using employment as payment for changed testimony.

Frank’s side produced evidence saying McKnight had changed his story voluntarily.

McKnight himself changed positions.

This episode therefore cannot honestly be presented as a proved bribe.

It can honestly be presented as an early part of a long trail of accusations involving employment, money, favors, and pressure around the Frank affidavits.

Thursday, April 23, 1914: Smith Himself Supplies Evidence for Frank

This is one of the most important points in the chronology.

On Thursday, April 23, 1914, Frank’s extraordinary-motion hearing opened before Judge Benjamin Harvey Hill.

The Atlanta Georgian, in “New Battle On To Save Frank,” reported an affidavit from William Manning Smith himself.

Smith swore he had been present during a conversation involving Solicitor Dorsey, Dr. Henry F. Harris, and Dr. R. T. Dorsey concerning hair found on the second-floor lathe.

Smith said he remembered Dr. Harris expressing the belief the hair found at the factory was not Mary Phagan’s hair after microscopic comparison with hair taken from Mary’s head.

The affidavit was used by Frank’s side in the extraordinary motion (AG, 17).

This moves Smith’s documented assistance to Frank’s defense earlier than the summer Nelms bargain.

The importance is hard to overstate.

On March 25, Smith had publicly described his continuing professional duty to Conley.

Less than one month later, an affidavit from Smith was being used in Leo Frank’s effort to overturn the conviction.

The affidavit did not accuse Conley of murder.

It attacked a piece of physical evidence used against Frank.

Still, this is the earliest clear point in this chronology where Smith personally supplied evidence useful to Frank’s defense after months of publicly protecting Conley.

The crossover began before October.

It began before the Nelms bargain.

Thursday, April 30, 1914: The Ragsdale Conley Confession Collapses

The most explosive affidavit scandal involved Reverend C. B. Ragsdale and R. L. Barber.

Ragsdale claimed he overheard a Black man confess to killing a White girl at the pencil factory.

Barber supposedly identified the man as Jim Conley.

It was almost perfect evidence for Frank.

Then Ragsdale admitted his affidavit was false.

The Atlanta Constitution of Thursday, April 30, 1914, carried the headline:

“$200 Bribe Induced Him to Swear to Confession of Conley, Says Pastor.”

Ragsdale alleged money had been involved (AC, 18).

His later accounts changed in important ways.

His credibility was heavily attacked.

But one point did not disappear.

The affidavit claiming a Jim Conley confession was false by Ragsdale’s own admission.

Frank’s defense withdrew it.

This is especially striking because Smith had warned in July 1913 about outsiders producing supposed Conley confession stories.

Now one had appeared in the post-trial campaign.

It collapsed.

Friday, May 1, 1914: The Affidavit War Explodes

On Friday, May 1, Dorsey answered Frank’s new evidence with a large group of counter-affidavits and witness statements.

The accusations varied.

Not every allegation was proved.

Several were denied.

But the scale is important.

Carrie Smith

Carrie Smith said a man calling himself “Maddox” offered her $20 for a signed statement.

She refused.

She later said she encountered the same man in the building where Frank’s lawyers maintained offices.

The identity of the man remained disputed.

Marie Karst

Marie Karst said she had been paid $2 a day to work for Burke and approach women connected with the case.

She alleged she was asked to get close to Monteen Stover and try to influence her.

Frank’s side disputed improper pressure.

Nellie Pettis

Nellie Pettis said a supposed newspaper reporter tried to obtain a retraction from her.

She refused.

Nellie Wood

Nellie Wood presents a complicated history.

She had earlier made an affidavit accusing State investigators of pressure.

Later she reaffirmed damaging allegations against Frank and said a man accompanying Burke had offered her money.

Wood’s changing history is one reason every affidavit on both sides needs close scrutiny.

Robert P. Barrett

Robert Barrett accused Jimmie Wrenn of tying a New Orleans employment opportunity to changed testimony.

Wrenn denied it.

Mrs. J. B. Simmons

Mrs. J. B. Simmons said a defense affidavit contained timing and wording she had challenged.

She claimed she was promised corrections and later found the statement published without the changes she expected.

Jimmie Mayfield, Marjorie McCoy, and Cora Falta

These women disputed how strongly defense affidavits described their opinions concerning hair evidence.

Defense witnesses said the statements had been read before signing.

Again, accusation and rebuttal.

Ruth Robinson

Ruth Robinson denied signing an affidavit attributed to her.

Frank’s side produced a notary who supported the defense version of its execution.

Mary Rich and Ivy Jones

Mary Rich said a statement attributed to her was false and unauthorized.

Ivy Jones called his supposed recantation a forgery.

I have not found proof identifying the individual who physically created every disputed document.

The correct statement is already strong enough.

Statements presented from Frank’s side were repudiated by some of the people whose names appeared on them.

Maggie Nash: Another Attempt to Change a Witness

Maggie Nash, formerly Maggie Griffin, also appears in the May 1 Atlanta Georgian.

Nash said W. W. “Boots” Rogers and a man represented as a Burns detective came to see her.

She said they tried to persuade her to change her earlier position.

She refused (AG, 19).

Not every alleged effort involved cash.

Some involved repeated persuasion.

Saturday, May 2, 1914: Burns Admits He Went to Smith About Tedder

On Saturday, May 2, William J. Burns testified during the extraordinary-motion proceedings.

Burns admitted Tedder had been employed through Dan S. Lehon to work on the Conley side of the investigation.

Dorsey then asked why Burns had gone to William Manning Smith concerning Tedder.

Burns answered:

“I wished to know if Tedder was trustworthy” (AJ, 20).

This is direct evidence of personal contact between Burns and Smith months before Smith’s October public reversal.

The importance should not be exaggerated.

It does not prove Smith had already fully joined Frank’s side.

But combined with the April 23 affidavit, it shows Smith’s relationship with Frank’s post-trial operation was developing much earlier than the public October break.

Burns Had Already Decided Conley Was Guilty

Burns had not interviewed Conley.

He had not personally interviewed several important State witnesses.

Yet he had already reached a firm conclusion against Conley.

Burns’s organization was working on evidence designed to break Conley and help Frank.

William Manning Smith knew this.

This is why Smith’s earlier resistance to Burns is so important.

He understood whose interests Burns was serving.

Sunday, May 3, 1914: Was Tedder Reporting on Smith?

The Atlanta Constitution raised another question on Sunday, May 3.

Tedder had been Smith’s associate.

Now he was a Burns employee.

The newspaper reported a version under which Tedder initially kept his Burns relationship secret from Smith, and Dorsey wanted to know whether Tedder had been watching Smith and reporting information back to Burns (AC, 21).

Later testimony from Tedder claimed Smith knew before Tedder formally took the Burns job.

These versions do not fit perfectly.

I would not pretend otherwise.

What is firm is enough.

Tedder moved from Smith’s circle into Burns’s organization.

Burns checked Tedder’s reliability with Smith.

Tedder became involved in work aimed at Conley.

George Epps: False Names, Fear, and Pressure

On Tuesday, May 5, the Atlanta Journal published “Many Sensations Sprung by Dorsey at Frank Hearing.”

George Epps alleged a disturbing series of events.

He said a man using the name “Terry” took him toward Birmingham.

Another man appeared as “Detective Kelly.”

Epps said he was made to believe he was under arrest, was frightened, kept awake, and pressed to sign a statement changing parts of his earlier testimony.

He later identified the men as Jimmie Wrenn and C. W. Burke (AJ, 22).

Frank’s defense denied important parts of Epps’s story and produced rebuttal affidavits.

The allegation remained contested.

But it was another serious fight over how a witness had moved from one account to another.

Aaron Allen: A Wanted Conley Confession and Money on the Table

Aaron Allen’s accusation went directly to an alleged attempt to create another Conley confession.

Allen said people connected with the Burns effort wanted him to say he knew Conley and had heard him confess.

Allen insisted he did not know Conley.

He described being left alone in a Burns office with money spread across a table.

He said he did not touch it.

Burns denied using money to buy false evidence.

No payment to Allen was proved.

The accusation remains important because the desired evidence, according to Allen, was another Jim Conley confession.

Charles Isom: Allen Did Not Know Conley

Charles A. Isom made the Allen episode more serious.

Isom said Allen did not know Conley and could not truthfully provide the confession account investigators wanted.

If Isom was right, somebody working within the effort understood the desired story could not honestly come from Allen.

Again, this was disputed evidence.

It was still part of the investigative world Smith eventually chose to enter.

Frank Reese and Fred Perkerson: Another Alleged Confession Plan

Frank Reese and Fred Perkerson accused Dr. George Wrenn of proposing another way to produce a Conley confession.

They claimed prisoners could be placed close to Conley and later say Conley confessed.

Money was allegedly discussed (NYT, 23).

Wrenn denied the accusation.

This was never proved as a criminal fact.

Its claimed purpose is still striking.

Once again, the target was Jim Conley.

Helen Ferguson: Money, a False Identity, Courtship, and Marriage

Helen Ferguson described one of the strangest alleged approaches in the post-trial campaign.

She said she was first offered $100 plus board and expenses if she left Atlanta.

She then accused Jimmie Wrenn of approaching her under another name, courting her, spending money on her, proposing marriage, and bringing her into contact with Burke while efforts continued to secure a favorable statement (AC, 24).

Burke and Wrenn denied wrongdoing.

The accusation was not simply about a misunderstood sentence in an affidavit.

It described personal manipulation of a witness.

C. B. Dalton and James E. Duffy

C. B. Dalton accused Burke of connecting money or transportation with a changed statement.

Burke denied buying Dalton’s evidence.

James E. Duffy became part of a similar dispute involving employment assistance and money.

Again, the point is not to declare every accusation proved.

The point is the repeated appearance of jobs, transportation, money, favors, and pressure around the post-trial evidence campaign.

Mrs. George W. Jefferson

Mrs. George W. Jefferson said investigators tried to get her to change testimony concerning factory evidence.

She also accused Dan S. Lehon of trying to obtain her signature on a paper she was not allowed to read.

She refused.

Lehon and Frank’s side disputed accusations of improper conduct.

Annie Maud Carter: Another Supposed Conley Confession

Annie Maud Carter became a major new defense witness because she claimed Conley confessed to her.

Burns admitted advising Frank’s lawyers to remove Carter from Atlanta because he believed defense witnesses were being interfered with.

Judge Hill later ordered her returned if her evidence was to remain part of Frank’s motion.

Carter also made an extraordinary allegation involving an unidentified man supposedly offering poison to place in Conley’s food.

I have found no reliable proof such a poison plan existed.

I would not present it as fact.

The important point here is Carter’s role as another supposed Conley-confession witness produced during the post-trial campaign.

The Defense Fights Back

Frank’s investigators denied many of these accusations.

Burke denied buying affidavits.

Wrenn denied trying to manufacture a Conley confession.

Notaries and witnesses defended the way some statements were signed.

Defense evidence challenged Epps and McKnight.

This belongs in the article.

Otherwise the essay becomes an indictment disguised as history.

Recognizing the denials does not erase the pattern.

Too many affidavits were disputed.

Too many witnesses recanted or counter-recanted.

Too many complaints involved money, employment, travel, false names, disputed signatures, pressure, or supposed Conley confessions.

This was the investigative environment Smith eventually joined.

Wednesday, May 6, 1914: Judge Hill Denies Frank’s Extraordinary Motion

On Wednesday, May 6, 1914, Judge Benjamin Harvey Hill denied Frank’s extraordinary motion for a new trial (AJ, 25).

The affidavit campaign did not produce the result Frank’s lawyers wanted.

The legal fight continued.

So did the controversy surrounding the private investigation.

May 23 and June 1914: Burns Operators and Defense Investigators Face Legal Trouble

The Ragsdale affair led to legal proceedings involving Dan S. Lehon, Carlton C. Tedder, and attorney Arthur Thurman.

The accusation was subornation of perjury, meaning inducing another person to give knowingly false sworn evidence (AC, 26).

Then, in June, C. W. Burke and Jimmie Wrenn were indicted in connection with the Helen Ferguson episode.

An indictment is not a conviction.

I have not found a dependable final disposition of the Burke and Wrenn indictments in the sources used here.

But the indictments show complaints about investigative methods were serious enough for grand-jury action.

Saturday, June 20, 1914: Burns Is Condemned by Police Chiefs

On Saturday, June 20, the Atlanta Constitution published “Burns Is Dropped by Police Chiefs.”

The article reported William J. Burns had been removed from the honorary rolls of the International Association of Chiefs of Police after criticism of his Frank-case activities.

Atlanta Police Chief James L. Beavers strongly attacked Burns’s conduct (AC, 29).

This event helps explain why Smith’s later alliance is so striking.

In March, Smith had publicly mocked Burns.

In April and May, Burns’s organization was in the middle of the disputed-affidavit fight.

In June, police officials were condemning Burns over his Frank-case work.

Then Smith asked Burns for help.

Summer 1914: The Nelms Sisters Give Smith a Personal Reason to Need Burns

Eloise Nelms Dennis and Beatrice Nelms disappeared during the summer of 1914.

Their disappearance became a major interstate mystery.

Smith had a personal connection with the Nelms family.

He later said his wife had known Eloise since childhood.

Smith wanted Burns’s help finding the missing sisters.

Burns had a national detective organization.

He had manpower.

He had contacts.

He had investigators.

He had reach far beyond Atlanta.

Burns possessed something Smith wanted.

Smith possessed something Burns wanted too.

Smith knew Jim Conley.

He knew Conley’s story.

He knew his weaknesses.

He knew his lies.

He knew his speech.

He knew his reading ability.

He knew how police and Dorsey had handled him.

He knew what occurred behind the scenes during the Frank trial.

He had spent more than a year protecting him.

The Nelms Bargain: The Trade Smith Once Said He Was Not Looking For

Smith later admitted what occurred.

In the Atlanta Journal of Sunday, October 4, 1914, he said he and Tedder were at the Isle of Palms when they wired Burns asking him to assist in the search for the Nelms sisters.

They offered Frank-case assistance in return.

Smith also said Dan S. Lehon later helped with Smith’s Frank investigation (AJ, 31).

This is where Smith’s July 1913 words return with force.

“We are not looking for trades.”

Yet here was a trade.

I am not claiming Burns handed Smith a secret envelope of money.

I have found no proof of it.

I am saying Smith acknowledged an exchange of valuable services.

Burns would use his detective organization in a case personally important to Smith.

Smith would help Burns in the Frank case.

Detective work had value.

National contacts had value.

Time had value.

Information had value.

Smith’s inside knowledge of Conley had value.

In my judgment, this is the clearest personal conflict in the Smith chronology.

Saturday, October 3, 1914: Smith Publicly Accuses His Former Client of Murder

On Saturday, October 3, 1914, the Atlanta Journal published:

“Conley, Not Frank, Killed Phagan Girl, Says W. M. Smith.”

Smith publicly declared his belief Jim Conley murdered Mary Phagan.

The newspaper reported he was working:

“in harmony with the Burns detectives” (AJ, 30).

Smith had already communicated his new position to Luther Z. Rosser.

Think about the reversal.

During Frank’s trial, Rosser spent days trying to prove Conley was the murderer.

Smith protected Conley from him.

Now Smith had gone to Rosser with his own anti-Conley theory.

The lawyer who once stood between Conley and Frank’s defense was now supplying Frank’s side with a case against him.

Conley Had Not Confessed to Smith

This distinction is important.

Smith did not say Conley suddenly confessed to him.

Conley continued to stand behind his trial testimony.

Smith’s accusation grew from Smith’s own later study, his reinterpretation of the evidence, and his new investigation.

Smith’s authority came in large part from his former position as Conley’s lawyer.

The public was being asked to pay special attention precisely because Smith had once known Conley so closely.

The professional access which gave Smith credibility was the same access gained while Conley trusted him.

Conley Says Smith Had Just Been Talking About Parole

Conley said Smith’s attack surprised him.

According to the October 3 reporting, Smith had visited him only days earlier and discussed trying to obtain parole.

Conley said Smith had always told him he believed his story.

If Conley’s account was accurate, Smith had been talking about helping him obtain release shortly before publicly accusing him of murder.

When did Smith decide Conley was guilty?

When did he decide their professional relationship had ended?

When did he tell Conley?

Did Conley know Smith was working with Burns?

Did Conley know Smith had taken his new theory to Rosser?

The newspaper record does not give clean answers.

This uncertainty is part of the problem.

Sunday, October 4, 1914: Smith Reminds the Public How Loyal He Had Once Been

The next day Smith published his long explanation.

He did something remarkable.

Before accusing Conley, he reminded readers how completely he had once protected him.

Smith wrote:

“I have stood by him and safeguarded and protected his every interest.”

He also said:

“No man, lawyer or layman can point out a stone I left unturned in his defense” (AJ, 31).

Smith even described sacrificing expected compensation rather than risk hurting Conley’s interests.

He wanted credit for having been a loyal lawyer.

Then he used the credibility earned through this loyalty to accuse the same client of murder.

This contradiction sits at the center of the story.

Smith Declares Himself Available as a Witness Against Conley

Smith also announced he believed his professional duty to Conley had ended.

He called himself:

“a competent and compellable witness”

for or against Conley concerning information outside protected confidential communications.

I have not found proof Smith publicly revealed a privileged lawyer-client conversation.

I would not accuse him of doing so without evidence.

But privilege is narrower than loyalty.

A lawyer can avoid quoting a privileged conversation and still treat a former client in a way many people would regard as betrayal.

Smith had once been Conley’s shield.

Now he was advertising his usefulness as a witness against him.

Smith’s Complete Case Against His Former Client

Smith’s October 4 statement became a detailed case against Conley.

Some points exposed genuine weaknesses in Conley’s story.

Some were Smith’s own speculation.

What makes this section especially important is how many of Smith’s supposed doubts were not new.

The Shirt Conley Was Washing

Smith began with Conley’s arrest on Thursday, May 1, 1913.

Conley had been washing a shirt.

Smith said stains had been suspected of being blood and he had believed a scientific examination had been made.

He later learned the shirt had not received the bacteriological examination he expected.

Smith then suggested Conley could have been washing Mary Phagan’s blood from the shirt.

No scientific test established this.

It was Smith’s speculation.

But the accusation shows how completely his position had changed.

The lawyer who once vouched for Conley was now suggesting his former client may have been washing the victim’s blood from his clothing.

Conley’s Changing Statements

Smith stressed Conley had given several changing written statements during the first month after his arrest.

At the same time, Smith emphasized most of Conley’s later trial story already existed before Smith became his lawyer.

This allowed Smith to defend himself against accusations of coaching while using Conley’s changes as evidence against Conley.

The Secret Woman and the Eavesdropping Attempt

Smith made an extraordinary admission.

While still representing Conley, Conley wanted to communicate privately with a woman but would not tell Smith what he wanted to say.

Smith became suspicious.

He went to Chief Lanford.

A plan was arranged to overhear the conversation.

Detective Vickery was placed above Conley’s cell.

The lights were lowered.

Conley became suspicious, struck matches, discovered Vickery, and the effort failed.

Smith later said he wondered whether Conley wanted the woman to hide some trace of the crime.

This was not simply a later opinion about evidence.

This was conduct toward his own client.

Smith admitted helping police attempt to eavesdrop on a man he represented.

Smith said he was searching for truth.

The ethical question remains obvious.

Did Conley know his own lawyer was helping arrange secret surveillance of his conversation?

Smith’s account does not say he did.

Conley’s Refusal to Be Photographed

Smith said Conley resisted having his photograph published.

Smith later suspected Conley feared recognition by somebody who may have seen him entering or leaving the factory.

Again, this was inference, not proof.

But Smith treated it as another sign against his former client.

Conley’s Time Story

Smith strongly attacked Conley’s changing account of his time at the factory.

He said Conley continued lying about his timing and never got the “time element” straight.

This is stronger than saying Conley simply made mistakes.

Smith was accusing his former client of continued deception concerning one of the central questions in the case.

The Missing Cotton Sack

Conley said a cotton sack had been used in connection with moving Mary Phagan’s body.

Smith pointed out no such sack was found.

He said he had never believed this part of Conley’s story.

This creates another difficult question for Smith.

If he never believed it, why was he publicly saying in March 1914 he knew Conley was telling the truth?

The Broken Basement Door

Smith focused on the broken rear basement door near Mary’s body.

He noted Conley admitted using this route at times.

Smith contrasted this with evidence placing Frank leaving the factory through the front.

Smith treated the rear door as circumstantial evidence pointing toward Conley.

It did not prove Conley left through the door after the murder.

It was part of Smith’s later theory.

The Hair on the Lathe

Smith also attacked evidence used against Frank.

He said he had long doubted hair found on the second-floor lathe belonged to Mary Phagan.

This becomes especially important because Smith had already supplied Frank’s lawyers with his April 23 affidavit concerning Dr. Henry Harris and the hair evidence.

By October Smith was not revealing a completely new thought.

He had already helped Frank’s extraordinary motion on this very issue months earlier.

Daisy Hopkins

Smith directly attacked Conley’s testimony concerning alleged sexual conduct involving Frank and Daisy Hopkins.

Smith said he knew Hopkins, had represented her, had studied Frank, and believed Conley’s account was false.

This was no longer a small disagreement over a clock.

Smith was accusing his former client of false testimony concerning alleged sexual conduct by Leo Frank.

Conley’s Newspaper Reading

Conley had presented himself as having limited ability to follow newspaper coverage.

Smith said this was false.

Smith knew because Smith himself supplied the newspapers, sometimes several in one day.

Smith said Conley could read enough to follow the case.

This is a strange part of Smith’s reversal.

The lawyer who supplied his client with newspapers later used the client’s ability to read them as evidence against him.

This does not prove Smith coached Conley.

Smith denied coaching him.

It does show how closely Smith had managed Conley’s access to information.

Smith’s Factory Sound Test

Smith returned to the factory and stood near the place where Conley claimed he waited.

Smith concluded Conley could not have heard the screams or movements described in his account from the claimed position.

This was Smith’s own physical test.

Whether conditions exactly matched April 26, 1913 is another question.

Smith used the result as an attack on Conley’s trial account.

The Dirt on Mary Phagan’s Face

Smith also focused on dirt covering Mary’s face.

He reasoned a struggle while Mary was alive on the dirt basement floor could better explain dirt reaching recessed areas around the face than a body lying on the hard wooden floor upstairs.

Smith used this as part of his theory in favor of the basement being the place of attack rather than only the place where Mary’s body was left.

Again, this was Smith’s later interpretation.

Smith Rejects Conley’s Sexual Story Against Frank

Smith said he never believed Frank was sexually abnormal in the way Conley described.

He also said Conley had not told him this part of the story before testifying.

Smith later stood where Conley claimed to have observed Frank and concluded Conley could not physically have seen what he described.

If Smith was correct, he was accusing Conley of giving false testimony on one of the most sensational parts of the Frank trial.

The “Hole” in the Murder Notes

Smith examined the factory for an opening fitting language in the murder notes.

He concluded the opening best matching the wording was near the place where Conley claimed to have been sitting and along Mary’s route.

Smith used the physical layout against his former client.

Mary’s Missing Purse, Hat, Ribbon, and Flowers

Smith specifically named Mary Phagan’s missing purse, hat, ribbon, and flowers.

He treated them as possible spoils taken by Conley.

This was an accusation.

No recovery of the items from Conley proved Smith’s theory.

Still, the language shows how far Smith had moved.

The lawyer who once called Conley truthful was now suggesting Conley had taken property from a murdered child.

The Murder Notes

Smith’s largest later project involved the murder notes.

He compared their wording with Conley’s speech, testimony, grammar, and other writings.

Smith became convinced the language belonged to Conley and Frank had no role in preparing the notes.

He later expanded this argument into a long study called My Views as to the Death Notes.

This may be the clearest example of Smith turning knowledge acquired through his long relationship with Conley against him.

He knew how Conley spoke.

He knew how Conley wrote.

He knew his verbal habits.

He knew his weaknesses.

Now he used this knowledge to build a case for Conley’s guilt.

The Biggest Contradiction in Smith’s Story

Smith’s complete October case creates a problem he never fully escapes.

Many of his supposed warning signs were not new.

He already knew Conley had lied.

He already knew the time story changed.

He already doubted the cotton sack.

He already knew Conley could read newspapers because Smith supplied them.

He already knew about the secret woman.

He was already suspicious enough to help police try to overhear his own client.

He said he never believed some of Conley’s sexual allegations.

Yet on Thursday, March 12, 1914, Smith publicly described Conley as a client:

“whom I know to be telling the truth.”

Which William Manning Smith should we believe?

The March lawyer who said he knew his client was truthful?

Or the October accuser who said he had harbored serious doubts for months?

Smith said deeper study changed his mind.

This is possible.

But his own words create the contradiction.

Monday, October 5, 1914: Conley Accuses His Former Lawyer of Trying to Get a Confession

The next day produced one of the most troubling episodes in the story.

On Monday, October 5, the Atlanta Journal, page 16, column 1, published “Smith Declines to Discuss Charge Made by His Former Client.”

Conley told Detectives Starnes and Campbell Smith had been trying to get him to confess.

According to the newspaper, Conley said Smith told him it was time to tell the truth and had said authorities could no longer do anything to him if he admitted killing Mary Phagan.

Smith did not give a detailed answer.

Instead, he attacked Conley’s credibility:

“I have had too much experience with Conley to enter into any controversy with such a versatile liar” (AJ, 32).

The same article reported disagreement among lawyers over whether Conley could still be prosecuted for murder and noted possible perjury consequences if he changed his sworn account.

If Conley’s accusation was true, his former lawyer was encouraging him to confess while giving him legal reassurance which other lawyers did not consider settled.

This is not a small issue.

The article does not prove every word Conley attributed to Smith.

It does prove the accusation was made immediately after Smith turned against him and Smith answered by calling his former client a liar.

October 5: Smith’s Work Is Intended for Frank’s Clemency Campaign

The same October 5 article reported Smith was preparing an analysis of the murder notes and Conley’s statements.

Smith was sending material to educators and language experts to ask whether the mind behind the notes looked more like Frank or Conley.

Frank attorney Leonard Haas said useful new evidence developed through Smith’s investigation could be used before the governor and pardoning authorities if the courts ruled against Frank (AJ, 32).

Smith was no longer privately reconsidering an old case.

His work had an intended destination.

It could help save Leo Frank.

October 6–10, 1914: Smith Becomes an Active Frank Advocate

On Tuesday, October 6, the Atlanta Journal reported Smith preparing another public statement explaining his new theory (AJ, 33).

On Saturday, October 10, the Atlanta Constitution published “No Attack on Dorsey, Says William M. Smith.”

Smith said he had no secrets of the prosecution to expose and did not intend to attack Dorsey.

Then he said something revealing:

“If I accused Frank’s prosecution, I would accuse myself” (AC, 34).

This was an extraordinary admission.

Smith understood how deeply identified he had once been with the prosecution side through his representation of Conley.

He could not condemn the prosecution without condemning his own earlier role.

The same article discussed a rumor involving possible handprint evidence on the broken basement door.

Smith did not confirm the alleged match.

I would not write a handprint match as established fact.

The important point is simpler.

The newspaper reported Smith had placed evidence of this general character into the hands of Frank’s lawyers.

By October 10, Smith was actively supplying material to Frank’s counsel.

Wednesday, October 14, 1914: The Judicial Door Narrows

On Wednesday, October 14, 1914, the Georgia Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the denial of Frank’s extraordinary motion for a new trial.

Smith’s new evidence could not simply be inserted into an already completed extraordinary-motion record.

His work increasingly had another purpose.

It could be used in the public campaign.

It could be used if another judicial opening appeared.

Or it could be used before the governor in a clemency effort.

The former lawyer for Jim Conley was now producing material for the campaign to save Leo Frank.

The Burns Organization Smith Chose to Work With

This brings us back to William J. Burns.

The theme should be stated strongly, but accurately.

I regard the Burns operation around the Frank case as nefarious because the investigation became surrounded by a false Conley-confession affidavit, repudiated statements, allegations of inducements, disputed signatures, witness-pressure accusations, and repeated attempts to produce new evidence accusing Jim Conley.

But I would not write:

“Every Burns affidavit was fraudulent.”

The record does not support such a claim.

I would not write:

“Burns was convicted of buying witnesses.”

He was not.

I would write what the evidence supports.

A false Conley-confession affidavit entered Frank’s post-trial campaign.

Ragsdale admitted it was false.

Numerous witnesses complained about money, employment, pressure, travel, or altered statements.

Burns-associated investigators were drawn into grand-jury and criminal proceedings.

This was the organization William Manning Smith, Jim Conley’s former protector, eventually agreed to help.

January 1915: The Ragsdale Affair Goes to Trial

In January 1915, Dan S. Lehon, Carlton C. Tedder, and Arthur Thurman went on trial for subornation of perjury in connection with the Ragsdale-Barber affidavits.

Ragsdale testified his affidavit claiming a Conley confession was false.

He accused the defendants of involvement in obtaining it and described money.

He said he had received $200 and alleged a larger conditional promise.

His testimony had serious problems.

The Atlanta Journal reported nervousness and contradictions under cross-examination (AJ, 35).

The defense attacked him hard.

An admitted perjurer deserves heavy scrutiny.

Why Tedder Was Valuable to Burns

The January trial also produced an important explanation of Tedder’s value.

Dr. B. Wildauer testified he recommended Tedder because Tedder had worked with William Manning Smith and was believed to possess useful information.

This is significant.

Tedder’s value was not random.

His connection to Conley’s lawyer made him useful.

Smith’s circle contained information Burns wanted.

Smith Testifies About Tedder

Smith himself was brought into court during the January trial.

He confirmed traveling with Tedder to Birmingham on April 18, 1914.

Smith said he was working for Dorsey.

Tedder was working for Burns.

Smith said he knew of Tedder’s Burns employment (AJ, 36).

Tedder, speaking as a defendant, said he consulted Smith before taking the job and described his $250 advance salary plus $250 expense money.

Again, this does not prove Smith participated in obtaining a false affidavit.

It proves the professional connections existed.

Monday, February 1, 1915: Lehon, Tedder, and Thurman Are Acquitted

The prosecution failed.

The Atlanta Constitution of Monday, February 1, 1915 reported Lehon, Tedder, and Thurman were acquitted (AC, 39).

The verdict was not guilty.

This cannot be hidden.

It also does not erase everything which came before it.

Ragsdale’s affidavit was still false.

Ragsdale still admitted it.

Tedder’s Burns employment was still real.

Burns’s consultation with Smith was still real.

Smith’s April 23 affidavit for Frank was still real.

The Nelms exchange was still real.

Smith’s cooperation with Lehon was still real.

Smith’s public accusation against Conley was still real.

An acquittal of Lehon, Tedder, and Thurman on the Ragsdale charge does not turn those documented facts into fiction.

Was William Manning Smith Unethical?

I think the historical record gives strong grounds for calling Smith’s conduct unethical and unscrupulous in the ordinary sense.

But the wording requires precision.

I am not claiming a Georgia disciplinary tribunal struck Smith from the bar.

I have found no such ruling.

I am judging his conduct against his role as a lawyer, his own earlier statements, and professional standards recognized in his own time.

Smith understood loyalty.

He proved it when he refused outside demands for information from his conferences with Conley.

He proved it when he gave up expected compensation rather than compromise his client.

He proved it when he controlled access to Conley.

He proved it when he said:

“We are not looking for trades.”

Smith knew what a conflict looked like.

He knew his cooperation had value.

He knew Frank’s side wanted access to Conley.

He knew Burns’s purpose was to destroy Conley’s testimony and help Frank.

Then he entered an exchange with Burns anyway.

The Conflict of Interest

A conflict of interest exists when a lawyer’s duty to a client or former client collides with another loyalty, personal interest, or benefit.

Smith’s later position involved three competing interests.

There was Jim Conley, the man who had trusted Smith as his lawyer.

There was the Frank-Burns investigation, which wanted evidence against Conley.

And there was Smith’s personal interest in obtaining Burns’s help for the Nelms family.

Smith’s acknowledged arrangement joined the second and third interests.

Burns would help Smith with the Nelms search.

Smith would help Burns in the Frank case.

This bargain did not require a suitcase of cash to have value.

Detective work had value.

National contacts had value.

Time had value.

Access had value.

Information had value.

Smith himself had once warned about a “trade.”

Then he made one.

The Attempted Eavesdropping

Smith’s own admission concerning Detective Vickery raises a separate ethical problem.

While representing Conley, Smith helped arrange an effort to secretly listen to a conversation his client wanted to have with a woman.

Smith said his purpose was discovering the truth.

But a lawyer’s duty is not identical to a police detective’s duty.

The unanswered question is what Conley knew.

Did Conley know his own lawyer was helping police hide a detective above his cell?

Smith’s account does not say he did.

I find this troubling even before Smith’s later reversal.

The April 23 Affidavit Changes the Chronology

The April 23 affidavit makes the ethical problem sharper.

An earlier version of the story could make the summer Nelms bargain look like the beginning of Smith’s help to Frank.

It was not.

On April 23, less than one month after publicly explaining why he intended to remain loyal to Conley, Smith supplied an affidavit used in Frank’s extraordinary motion concerning Dr. Henry Harris and the hair evidence (AG, 17).

So the chronology looks like this:

March 12: Smith says he knows Conley is telling the truth.

March 21: Smith attacks Burns.

March 25: Smith explains why he is staying with Conley despite little money.

April 16: Smith’s investigator Tedder joins Burns.

April 18: Smith and Tedder travel together while working for opposite sides.

April 23: Smith supplies an affidavit useful to Frank’s effort for a new trial.

May 2: Burns admits going directly to Smith to check Tedder.

Summer: Smith seeks Burns’s help for the Nelms sisters and offers Frank-case help in return.

October: Smith publicly accuses Conley of murder and works with Burns investigators.

This progression is much stronger than a story of a sudden October change of heart.

Could Smith Have Sincerely Changed His Mind?

Yes.

His later conduct suggests he did come to believe Frank was innocent.

His support for Frank continued.

His murder-note study was extensive.

His later papers show lasting commitment to his new position.

I do not think the strongest criticism requires saying Smith’s belief was fake.

A man can sincerely believe he has discovered the truth and still behave badly toward another person in getting there.

Sincerity is not the same as loyalty.

Sincerity does not erase a conflict of interest.

Sincerity does not erase a bargain.

Sincerity does not explain why a lawyer who said he knew his client was truthful was later trying to obtain a confession from the same client, according to Conley’s immediate accusation.

Sincerity does not answer why Smith supplied Frank an affidavit while his public history was still so closely tied to Conley.

What Can Be Proved

The documentary record proves Smith publicly defended Jim Conley before Frank’s trial.

It proves Smith said he believed Conley was telling the “whole truth.”

It proves Smith controlled access to Conley and fought over where he would be held.

It proves Smith opposed efforts to indict Conley for Mary Phagan’s murder.

It proves Smith warned about trades and said:

“We are not looking for trades.”

It proves Smith warned about supposed Conley-confession stories.

It proves Smith protected Conley during the Frank trial.

It proves Smith predicted he would get Conley out “scot-free.”

It proves Smith defended Conley again in February 1914.

It proves Smith said on March 12, 1914 he knew Conley was telling the truth.

It proves Smith restricted Burns’s access to Conley and publicly attacked Burns.

It proves Smith said he would continue representing Conley despite little pay.

It proves Tedder moved from Smith’s circle onto the Burns payroll.

It proves Smith supplied an affidavit used by Frank’s defense on April 23 concerning Dr. Harris and the hair evidence.

It proves Burns personally went to Smith concerning Tedder.

It proves Smith and Tedder later asked Burns for help with the Nelms sisters and offered Frank-case help in return.

It proves Dan Lehon then assisted Smith.

It proves Smith took his new theory to Luther Rosser.

It proves Smith publicly accused Conley of murder.

It proves Conley had not confessed to Smith before Smith’s public accusation.

It proves Conley said Smith had recently been talking to him about parole.

It proves Smith announced himself available as a witness against his former client concerning nonprivileged information.

It proves Smith publicly laid out a long case against Conley using evidence, habits, statements, and observations gathered during the long period in which Smith had known and represented him.

It proves Conley immediately accused Smith of trying to obtain a confession and of assuring him he could no longer be punished, while contemporary lawyers disputed Conley’s legal exposure.

It proves Smith called his former client a:

“versatile liar.”

It proves Smith was producing evidence and analysis intended for Frank’s lawyers and possible clemency efforts.

It proves Smith admitted:

“If I accused Frank’s prosecution, I would accuse myself.”

It proves Smith continued working in Frank’s interest.

None of this requires a secret cash-bribe theory.

What I Would Not Claim

I would not claim William Manning Smith was proved to have taken a cash bribe from Leo Frank, William Burns, or Frank’s lawyers.

I would not claim Smith was convicted of violating attorney-client privilege.

I would not claim every affidavit gathered by Frank’s investigators was false.

I would not claim every witness who accused Burke, Wrenn, Lehon, Tedder, or Burns was telling the truth.

I would not call the Ragsdale episode a proved Burns bribery conspiracy because Lehon, Tedder, and Thurman were acquitted.

I would not call the Burke or Wrenn indictments convictions.

I would not claim stains on Conley’s shirt were scientifically shown to be Mary Phagan’s blood.

They were not.

I would not claim Smith proved Conley used the broken basement door after the crime, stole Mary’s missing possessions, or killed her in the basement.

Those were parts of Smith’s theory.

I would not claim the rumored handprint evidence on the basement door was proved to match Conley.

Smith did not confirm such a match.

These limits do not weaken the argument against Smith.

They make it stronger.

An argument built on documented conduct does not need invented evidence.

Why I Call Smith a Turncoat

A turncoat is someone who abandons one side and joins the opposing side.

This description fits Smith in the ordinary meaning of the word.

He began as Jim Conley’s protector.

He defended him against Frank’s supporters.

He warned about bargains.

He warned about supposed confession witnesses.

He fought William Burns.

He said he knew Conley was truthful.

Then Smith’s own investigator went into Burns’s organization.

Smith himself supplied an affidavit to Frank’s defense.

Burns consulted Smith.

Smith later needed Burns’s help.

Smith offered Frank-case assistance in return.

Burns lieutenant Dan Lehon began helping Smith.

Smith went to Luther Rosser.

Smith accused Conley of murder.

Smith began providing evidence to Frank’s lawyers.

Smith used his deep familiarity with Conley to build a case against him.

This is a change of sides.

Why I Call It Betrayal

The word betrayal requires more than changing an opinion.

Smith’s history supplies more.

He had accepted a position of trust.

He had publicly demonstrated loyalty through his actions.

He had protected private conferences from outsiders.

He had controlled access to his client.

He had told the public he believed Conley was telling the whole truth.

He later said he knew Conley was telling the truth.

He had said he would “stick it out.”

Then his conduct moved toward the people he had once kept away.

He helped police attempt to eavesdrop on his own client.

He supplied evidence to Frank’s defense.

He entered an exchange of services with Burns.

He became a public accuser of his former client.

According to Conley, Smith then urged him to confess while telling him he was safe from further punishment.

Smith responded by calling Conley a liar.

Whether every accusation made by Conley was true cannot now be proved from the newspaper record alone.

But the overall reversal is documented.

From Jim Conley’s position, it is difficult to imagine a clearer betrayal.

The Two Dates I Cannot Get Past

For me, the story can still be reduced to two dates.

Thursday, March 12, 1914:

William Manning Smith publicly described Jim Conley as a client:

“whom I know to be telling the truth.”

Saturday, October 3, 1914:

William Manning Smith publicly accused Jim Conley of murdering Mary Phagan.

But the fuller chronology makes the distance between those two dates even more damaging.

Before March, Smith had already said Conley was telling the “whole truth.”

He had fought attempts to indict him.

He had warned against deals.

He had said:

“We are not looking for trades.”

He had warned about supposed confession stories.

He had walked beside Conley through the Frank trial.

He had defended him after Frank’s conviction.

Then Tedder went onto the Burns payroll.

Smith supplied Frank’s lawyers an affidavit concerning the hair evidence.

Burns personally consulted Smith.

Frank’s affidavit campaign became surrounded by accusations involving money, jobs, altered statements, false names, pressure, and supposed Conley confessions.

Ragsdale’s confession affidavit collapsed as false.

Burns-connected men were investigated.

Burke and Wrenn were indicted.

Burns himself was publicly attacked by police officials.

Then the Nelms sisters disappeared.

Smith wanted Burns.

Smith offered Frank-case help in return.

By October, Smith was no longer protecting Conley from the Burns organization.

He was helping it.

Then Smith took nearly every weakness he knew about Conley and turned it against him: the shirt, the changing statements, the secret woman, the photograph, the time story, the cotton sack, the basement door, Daisy Hopkins, the newspapers, the factory acoustics, the dirt on Mary’s face, the sexual allegations against Frank, the opening in the murder notes, the missing purse, hat, ribbon and flowers, and finally the murder notes themselves.

Then Conley accused Smith of trying to get him to confess.

Then Smith called his former client a “versatile liar.”

Then Smith continued producing evidence for the effort to save Frank.

Some readers may see Smith as a man who eventually corrected an honest mistake.

I see something darker.

I see a lawyer who understood loyalty, publicly preached against trades, fought to keep hostile investigators away from his client, and then crossed over to those same interests when his own needs and beliefs changed.

William Manning Smith may have convinced himself he was serving truth.

Jim Conley had every reason to see a knife in his back.

References

AJ, 01. Atlanta Journal. Sunday, October 4, 1914. “W. M. Smith Tells Why He Believes Conley Is Guilty.” Page 1, column 1. Smith’s retrospective account of his representation of Conley, his later case against Conley, and the Burns-Nelms exchange.

Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project:
www.maryphagan.com/1914-10-04-w-m-smith-tells-why-he-believes-conley-is-guilty-the-atlanta-journal/

AG, 02. Atlanta Georgian. Tuesday, June 10, 1913. “Eyewitness to Phagan Slaying Sought.” Includes Smith’s reported statement he believed Conley was telling the “whole truth.”

Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project:
www.maryphagan.com/1913-06-10-eyewitness-to-phagan-slaying-sought-the-atlanta-georgian/

AG, 03. Atlanta Georgian. Friday, June 13, 1913. “Judge Roan to Decide Conley’s Jail Fate.” Smith’s effort to control Conley’s detention and access to him.

Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project:
www.maryphagan.com/1913-06-13-judge-roan-to-decide-conleys-jail-fate-the-atlanta-georgian/

AJ, 04. Atlanta Journal. Saturday, July 19, 1913. “Jury Is Determined to Consider a Bill Against Jim Conley.”

Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project:
www.maryphagan.com/1913-07-19-jury-is-determined-to-consider-a-bill-against-jim-conley-the-atlanta-journal/

AG, 05. Atlanta Georgian. Sunday, July 20, 1913. “Attorney for Conley Makes a Statement.” Includes Smith’s declaration, “We are not looking for trades.”

Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project:
www.maryphagan.com/1913-07-20-attorney-for-conley-makes-a-statement-the-atlanta-georgian/

AJ, 06. Atlanta Journal. Monday, August 4, 1913. “Jim Conley Tells an Amazing Story.”

Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project:
www.maryphagan.com/1913-08-04-jim-conley-tells-an-amazing-story-the-atlanta-journal/

AJ, 07. Atlanta Journal. Tuesday, August 5, 1913. “Defense Moves to Strike Most Damaging Testimony.”

Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project:
www.maryphagan.com/1913-08-05-defense-moves-to-strike-most-damaging-testimony-the-atlanta-journal/

AJ, 08. Atlanta Journal. Wednesday, August 6, 1913. “Judge Roan Rules Out Most Damaging Testimony Given by Conley Against Leo Frank.”

Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project:
www.maryphagan.com/1913-08-06-judge-roan-rules-out-most-damaging-testimony-given-by-conley-against-leo-frank-the-atlanta-journal/

AG, 09. Atlanta Georgian. Wednesday, November 12, 1913. “Conley Taken to Court for Trial.” Includes Smith’s prediction he would get Conley out “scot-free.”

Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project:
www.maryphagan.com/1913-11-12-conley-taken-to-court-for-trial-the-atlanta-georgian/

AG, 10. Atlanta Georgian. Tuesday, February 24, 1914. “Jim Conley Is Sentenced.” Seventh Edition. Includes Smith’s closing argument at Conley’s accessory-after-the-fact trial.

Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project:
www.maryphagan.com/1914-02-24-jim-conley-is-sentenced-the-atlanta-georgian/

AC, 11. Atlanta Constitution. Thursday, March 12, 1914. “Smith to Protect Conley From Grill by William Burns.” Page 1, column 1.

Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project:
www.maryphagan.com/1914-03-12-smith-to-protect-conley-from-grill-by-william-burns-the-atlanta-constitution/

Archival newspaper copy:
www.leofrank.org/library/atlanta-journal-constitution/smith-to-protect-conley-from-grill-by-william-burns-mar-12-1914.pdf

AC, 12. Atlanta Constitution. Thursday, March 19, 1914. “Smith to Thwart Secret Attempt to Grill Conley.”

Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project:
www.maryphagan.com/1914-03-19-smith-to-thwart-secret-attempt-to-grill-conley-the-atlanta-constitution/

AJ, 13. Atlanta Journal. Saturday, March 21, 1914. “Burns Will Leave for Other Cities to Probe Frank Case.”

Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project:
www.maryphagan.com/1914-03-21-burns-will-leave-for-other-cities-to-probe-frank-case-the-atlanta-journal/

AC, 14. Atlanta Constitution. Wednesday, March 25, 1914. “Smith Is Giving His Service Free to James Conley.”

Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project:
www.maryphagan.com/1914-03-25-smith-is-giving-his-service-free-to-james-conley-the-atlanta-constitution/

AC, 15. Atlanta Constitution. Tuesday, March 31, 1914. “Conley Is Anxious to Face Accusers.”

Archival newspaper scan:
www.leofrank.org/enright-archive/atlanta-constitution-1914-03-31-conley-is-anxious-to-face-accusers.pdf

AJ, 16. Atlanta Journal. Sunday, April 19, 1914. “Albert McKnight Now Repudiates His Recent Story.”

Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project:
www.maryphagan.com/1914-04-19-albert-m-knight-now-repudiates-his-recent-story-the-atlanta-journal/

Related source and discussion:
www.maryphagan.com/captain-burke-train-conductor-the-derailment-and-train-wreck-of-the-leo-frank-defense-april-19-1914/

AG, 17. Atlanta Georgian. Thursday, April 23, 1914. Third Edition. “New Battle On To Save Frank.” Includes “Smith Gives Affidavit,” describing Smith’s affidavit concerning Dr. Henry F. Harris and the hair evidence.

Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project:
www.maryphagan.com/1914-04-23-new-battle-on-to-save-frank-the-atlanta-georgian/

AC, 18. Atlanta Constitution. Thursday, April 30, 1914. “$200 Bribe Induced Him to Swear to Confession of Conley, Says Pastor.”

Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project:
www.maryphagan.com/1914-04-30-200-bribe-induced-him-to-swear-to-confession-of-conley-says-pastor-the-atlanta-constitution/

AG, 19. Atlanta Georgian. Friday, May 1, 1914. Third Edition. “Evidence Is Recorded Against Conley.” Includes Maggie Nash, Annie Maud Carter, and other affidavit disputes.

Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project:
www.maryphagan.com/1914-05-01-evidence-is-recorded-against-conley-the-atlanta-georgian/

AJ, 20. Atlanta Journal. Saturday, May 2, 1914. “Detective Burns Grilled by Dorsey for Over an Hour.” Includes Burns’s admission he consulted Smith concerning Tedder’s trustworthiness.

Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project:
www.maryphagan.com/1914-05-02-detective-burns-grilled-by-dorsey-for-over-an-hour-the-atlanta-journal/

AC, 21. Atlanta Constitution. Sunday, May 3, 1914. “Dorsey Calls C. W. Burke and Other Investigators for Leo Frank to Court.”

Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project:
www.maryphagan.com/1914-05-03-dorsey-calls-c-w-burke-and-other-investigators-for-leo-frank-to-court-the-atlanta-constitution/

AJ, 22. Atlanta Journal. Tuesday, May 5, 1914. “Many Sensations Sprung by Dorsey at Frank Hearing.”

Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project:
www.maryphagan.com/1914-05-05-many-sensations-sprung-by-dorsey-at-frank-hearing-the-atlanta-journal/

NYT, 23. New York Times. Tuesday, May 5, 1914. “Frank Affidavits False, Says Dorsey.” Page 4.

Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project:
www.maryphagan.com/the-new-york-times-1914-may-5-frank-affidavits-false-says-dorsey-the-new-york-times-p-4/

AC, 24. Atlanta Constitution. Tuesday, May 5, 1914. “Return of Negress Ordered by Judge Monday Morning.” Includes Helen Ferguson and Annie Maud Carter material.

Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project:
www.maryphagan.com/1914-05-05-return-of-negress-ordered-by-judge-monday-morning-the-atlanta-constitution/

AJ, 25. Atlanta Journal. Wednesday, May 6, 1914. “Judge Hill Denies Motion as Defense Closes Arguments.”

Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project:
www.maryphagan.com/1914-05-06-judge-hill-denies-motion-as-defense-closes-arguments-the-atlanta-journal/

AC, 26. Atlanta Constitution. Saturday, May 23, 1914. “State Cases Are Planned Against Burns Operators by the Police Commission.”

Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project:
www.maryphagan.com/1914-05-23-state-cases-are-planned-against-burns-operators-by-the-police-commission-the-atlanta-constitution/

AJ, 27. Atlanta Journal. Thursday, June 18, 1914. “C. W. Burke Indicted for Suborning Perjury.”

Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project research and reproduced newspaper material:
www.maryphagan.com/nellie-wood-1911-1914-leo-franks-indecent-proposal-and-the-questionable-defense-affidavit-surfacing-in-1914/

AJ, 28. Atlanta Journal. Friday, June 19, 1914. “Indictment Is Returned Against Jimmy Wrenn.”

Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project research and reproduced newspaper material:
www.maryphagan.com/nellie-wood-1911-1914-leo-franks-indecent-proposal-and-the-questionable-defense-affidavit-surfacing-in-1914/

AC, 29. Atlanta Constitution. Saturday, June 20, 1914. “Burns Is Dropped by Police Chiefs.”

Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project:
www.maryphagan.com/1914-06-20-burns-is-dropped-by-police-chiefs-the-atlanta-constitution/

AJ, 30. Atlanta Journal. Saturday, October 3, 1914. “Conley, Not Frank, Killed Phagan Girl, Says W. M. Smith.”

Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project:
www.maryphagan.com/1914-10-03-conley-not-frank-killed-phagan-girl-says-w-m-smith-the-atlanta-journal/

AJ, 31. Atlanta Journal. Sunday, October 4, 1914. “W. M. Smith Tells Why He Believes Conley Is Guilty.”

Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project:
www.maryphagan.com/1914-10-04-w-m-smith-tells-why-he-believes-conley-is-guilty-the-atlanta-journal/

AJ, 32. Atlanta Journal. Monday, October 5, 1914. “Smith Declines to Discuss Charge Made by His Former Client.” Page 16, column 1.

Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project:
www.maryphagan.com/1914-10-05-smith-declines-to-discuss-charge-made-by-his-former-client-the-atlanta-journal/

AJ, 33. Atlanta Journal. Tuesday, October 6, 1914. “Smith Prepares Second Card in the Frank Case.”

Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project:
www.maryphagan.com/1914-10-06-smith-prepares-second-card-in-the-frank-case-the-atlanta-journal/

AC, 34. Atlanta Constitution. Saturday, October 10, 1914. “No Attack on Dorsey, Says William M. Smith.” Includes Smith’s statement, “If I accused Frank’s prosecution, I would accuse myself.”

Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project:
www.maryphagan.com/1914-10-10-no-attack-on-dorsey-says-william-m-smith-the-atlanta-constitution/

AJ, 35. Atlanta Journal. Thursday, January 28, 1915. “Ragsdale Accuses Thurman, Tedder and Dan S. Lehon.”

Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project:
www.maryphagan.com/1915-01-28-ragsdale-accuses-thurman-tedder-and-dan-s-lehon-the-atlanta-journal/

Alternative newspaper transcription:
www.leofrank.com/atlanta-journal/1915-01-28-ragsdale-accuses-thurman-tedder-and-dan-s-lehon/

AJ, 36. Atlanta Journal. Saturday, January 30, 1915. “Solicitor Clashes With Star Witness of Burns Defense.” Includes Smith’s testimony and Tedder’s statement concerning Burns employment and the Birmingham trip.

Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project:
www.maryphagan.com/1915-01-30-solicitor-clashes-with-star-witness-of-burns-defense-the-atlanta-journal/

AC, 37. Atlanta Constitution. Saturday, January 30, 1915. “Large Sums Paid to Burns Agency, Haas Tells Court.”

Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project:
www.maryphagan.com/1915-01-30-large-sums-paid-to-burns-agency-haas-tells-court-the-atlanta-constitution/

AJ, 38. Atlanta Journal. Sunday, January 31, 1915. “Perjury Cases Go to Jury After Dramatic Speeches.”

Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project:
www.maryphagan.com/1915-01-31-perjury-cases-go-to-jury-after-dramatic-speeches-the-atlanta-journal/

AC, 39. Atlanta Constitution. Monday, February 1, 1915. “Dan Lehon, Arthur Thurman and C. C. Tedder Are Given Their Freedom After Long Trial.”

Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project:
www.maryphagan.com/1915-02-01-dan-lehon-arthur-thurman-and-c-c-tedder-are-given-their-freedom-after-long-trial-the-atlanta-constitution/

PDF newspaper scan:
www.maryphagan.com/pdf-files/archive-atlanta-constitution/atlanta-constitution-1915-02-01-dan-lehon-arthur-thurman-and-c-c-tedder-are-given-their-freedom-after-long-trial-.pdf

ABA, 40. American Bar Association. 1908. Canons of Professional Ethics. Especially Canons 5 and 6 concerning representation of accused persons, conflicting interests, and undivided loyalty.

Historical PDF copy:
www.mnsurveyor.com/resource/resmgr/2018Annual-Meeting/2_ABA_Canons_1908.pdf

DLG, 41. Digital Library of Georgia. William M. Smith Family Papers. William Breman Jewish Heritage Museum. Includes “My moves for Conley” and material concerning Smith’s later support for Leo Frank.

DLG archival record:
www.dlg.usg.edu/record/breman_lmfc_05-025vf-s

Oney, 42. Oney, Steve. And the Dead Shall Rise: The Murder of Mary Phagan and the Lynching of Leo Frank. New York: Pantheon Books, 2003. Used for identification and discussion of Smith’s extended study My Views as to the Death Notes and its archival setting.

Jewish Exodus Hoax of the Leo Frank Case

Updated Chronology of Unsupported Quantitative Jewish Exodus Claims About the Aftermath of the 1915 Leo Frank Lynching

By Arthur Daniels

September 9th, 2026

I am not claiming that The Tennessean is a fake-news newspaper as a whole. I have not studied its entire history or examined the accuracy of every major assertion it has published. I can only speak to this specific article and this specific claim. What I am saying is that the unsupported numerical story of a mass Jewish exodus from Georgia can presently be traced back to a fake news Tennessean article published on March 7, 1982. From there, the claim spread, was repeated by other newspapers and organizations, entered books and court filings, appeared on Wikipedia and educational websites, and eventually took on a life of its own.

So when I call this fake news, I am talking about this particular unsupported assertion, not making a blanket judgment about everything The Tennessean has ever published. As far as my research has established so far, this numerical version of the Jewish Exodus story was born in the fake news of that March 7, 1982 Tennessean article. Before getting into the chronology of how the claim spread and changed, I want to explain two words in simple terms: qualitative and quantitative.

What Is a Qualitative Claim?

A qualitative claim tells us what supposedly happened using words that can be fuzzy or open to interpretation, but it does not give us an exact or approximate number. For example, somebody might say that “many Jews left Georgia,” that there was a “Jewish exodus,” or that a “large number” of Jews left the state. Those statements describe something, but they do not tell us how many people actually left. One reader might think “many” means 100 people. Another might picture 500, 1,000, or more. The word creates an impression without giving us a number to test.

What Is a Quantitative Claim?

A quantitative claim gives us numbers we can actually check. For example, somebody says Georgia had about 3,000 Jews and half of them left. Now we can do the math. Half of 3,000 is 1,500. So the claim means approximately 1,500 Jews left Georgia and 1,500 remained. Somebody else might express the same idea by saying 1,500 of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews fled the state. The wording has changed, but the numerical claim has not. We now have specific figures that can be traced and checked, assuming the original information is true.

What Is the Difference Between Qualitative and Quantitative?

The difference is pretty simple. Saying “many Jews left Georgia” leaves a lot open to the imagination. Saying “half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews left” gives us something much more exact. But what does “many” actually mean? Ten people? One hundred? Five hundred? Fifteen hundred? Does it mean 10 percent? 40 percent? 65 percent?

Different readers can walk away with very different pictures in their heads. Their background, identity politics, beliefs, and understanding of the history may influence what words such as “many,” “large number,” “flight,” or “exodus” suggest to them. Once somebody gives us a hard number, however, we can start asking harder questions.

Who came up with the figure? What records did they use? When was the number first published? Where did the information supposedly come from? How was it calculated? Why was that particular figure accepted and repeated?

Then I want to go further.

Who actually counted these people? Was anybody counting them at all? Was the writer using a contemporary source from 1915, or repeating something published 50, 60, or 70 years later? Was the figure based on population research, migration records, synagogue membership, city directories, Jewish community records, newspapers, family records, or something else? Or did one writer simply copy another writer? What did the original source actually say? What was its date? Who wrote it? Did the author show the evidence behind the figure? Could the source have had a reason to exaggerate, minimize, dramatize, or simplify what happened?

Those are questions I think we should ask of every source, whether it is a newspaper, historian, advocacy organization, court filing, book, encyclopedia, website, or academic publication. And if an organization has a particular mission, interest, or point of view tied to the subject it is writing about, I think it is fair to examine that too.

It does not automatically make the source wrong. It means I want to see the evidence underneath the claim instead of accepting the number because of the name printed above it.

Then We Get to the Records Themselves

Was there a population study? Was there a migration survey? Do city directories show large numbers of Jewish families suddenly disappearing? Do synagogue membership records show a major collapse? Did Jewish organizations report losing large portions of their membership? Did Jewish-owned businesses suddenly disappear from Atlanta and other Georgia cities? Did newspaper advertising by Jewish merchants sharply decline? Do property records show an unusual wave of home sales connected with families leaving the state? What do contemporary Jewish newspapers and organizations say was happening at the time?

Federal census records can help us understand Georgia’s overall population and migration patterns, although the United States census did not directly ask people their religion. So if somebody claims that 1,500 Jews left Georgia, we still need records capable of identifying that Jewish population and showing where those people went. That is the kind of evidence I am looking for.

What This Chronology Includes

The following chronology tracks only the quantitative, or numerical, versions of the unsupported claim that a large part of Georgia’s Jewish population left the state during or after the Mary Phagan case ended with the lynching of Leo Frank near Marietta, Georgia, on August 17, 1915. I have included only statements that give us something we can measure, such as a fraction, percentage, population figure, proportion, or head count.

What Does and Does Not Belong in This Chronology

“Many Jews left Georgia” does not belong in this chronology. Why? Because what does “many” mean? Different readers can interpret it differently. “Half of Georgia’s Jews left” does belong. Why? Because half is a measurable proportion: 50 percent. “There was a Jewish exodus” does not belong here. What does “exodus” mean numerically? A lot? Many? A majority? A supermajority? Every single Jew? The word itself does not tell us. “About 1,500 of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews fled” does belong. Why? Because it gives us precise numbers that can be traced and tested.

Following the Number

I arranged the entries by date because I am trying to follow the number itself. Where did it first appear? Who published it? What happened to it next? Who picked it up? Who changed the wording? Who cited an earlier source, and who simply repeated the figure without telling us where it came from? Later newspaper stories, books, court filings, organizational publications, encyclopedia entries, Wikipedia, and other versions remain in the chronology because they show how the number traveled over time. But seeing the same figure printed in many different places does not mean each publication independently proved it. Some readers might easily come away with that impression. If ten writers repeat a number that ultimately came from one earlier article, we do not have ten independent sources proving the claim.

We have one number repeated ten times. Repetition is NOT settled history.

Repetition does not make something true, approximately true, or even directionally true.

And if an eleventh writer cites one of those ten, the chain gets longer, branch by branch, but the evidence underneath it has not necessarily grown any stronger.

This is what this chronology is trying to find out:

Who actually counted the people? What did they count? When did they count them? Where are the records? How did they arrive at the number? Why should we believe it? And who was simply repeating an oft-repeated figure that was already in circulation?

Comprehensive Chronology of Quantitative Jewish Exodus Claims

The following is my comprehensive working chronology of every quantitative version I have verified so far of the claim that a substantial portion of Georgia’s Jewish population left the state during or after the Leo Frank case.

By quantitative, I mean the source gives us something measurable: half, about half, nearly half, 1,500 people, 3,000 people, thousands, or some other numerical proportion or head count. I am keeping reprints, repeat court filings, educational copies, digital reproductions, and geographical mutations because they show how the story spread and changed. They are publication or documentary appearances. They are not seventy independent demographic studies.

The Earliest 1982 Versions

Example 01: Sunday, March 7, 1982 Source: Sandra Roberts, The Tennessean, Special News Section, Justice Betrayed: A Sin of Silence, article 13 Words Shook History, p. 2. Quote: “In the months following the Frank lynching, half the 3,000 Jews in Georgia left the state.” This is still the earliest exact half-of-3,000 version I have verified. No demographic source accompanies the figure. Version: 3,000 total. Half leave. Approximately 1,500 departures.

Example 02: Monday, March 8, 1982 Source: Wendell Rawls Jr., The New York Times, After 69 Years of Silence, Lynching Victim Is Cleared. Quote: “In the aftermath of terror, about half the 3,000 Jews in Georgia left the state.” Rawls published almost the same formula one day after Roberts. This article later became especially important because ADL and allied federal court briefs explicitly cite it. Version: 3,000 total. About half leave.

Example 03: Tuesday, March 9, 1982 Source: Jewish Telegraphic Agency, 70 Years Later, Jewish Lynching Victim Is Absolved of Murder. Quote: “Jewish businesses were boycotted and about half the state’s 3,000 Jews reportedly moved away.” The word reportedly is worth keeping. JTA was passing along a reported claim. Version: 3,000 total. About half reportedly moved away.

Example 04: Thursday, March 25, 1982 Source: Rhode Island Jewish Voice & Herald. This newspaper reprinted the JTA report. Quote: “Jewish businesses were boycotted and about half the state’s 3,000 Jews reportedly moved away.” This shows the JTA formula entering a local Jewish newspaper only sixteen days after the original JTA report. Version: 3,000 total. About half reportedly moved away.

Example 05: Friday, April 9, 1982 Source: Father John B. Sheerin, CSP, The Voice, Miami, The Hanging of Leo Frank, p. 13. Quote: “Because of the unreasoning wave of hatred against Jews, half the 3,000 Jews in Georgia left the state.” The formula had now spread beyond the Roberts, Rawls, and JTA news cycle within about one month. Version: 3,000 total. Half leave.

1983 Through 1998

Example 06: Tuesday, December 27, 1983 Source: Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Jewish Organizations Shocked over Refusal of Georgia Pardons and Parole Board to Exonerate Leo Frank. Quote: “About 1,500 of the 3,000 Jews in Georgia fled.” Now the implied arithmetic has become a specific head count. Version: 3,000 total. About 1,500 flee.

Example 07: March 1984, exact day not stated Source: AJR Information, Vol. XXXIX, No. 3, p. 4, Still No Pardon for US Lynch Victim. Quote: “about half the 3,000 Jews of Georgia fled the state.” This is an important early British Jewish press appearance. The publication acknowledges the news service of the Jewish Chronicle. Version: 3,000 total. About half flee.

Example 08: Wednesday, March 12, 1986 Source: Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Leo Frank Is Posthumously Pardoned by Georgia Board. Quote: “About 1,500 of Georgia’s Jewish population of 3,000 fled.” Version: 3,000 total. About 1,500 flee.

Example 09: 1988, exact publication day not established Source: Athan G. Theoharis and John Stuart Cox, The Boss: J. Edgar Hoover and the Great American Inquisition, Temple University Press, p. 54 in the edition checked. Quote: “about half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews fled from the state.” The checked passage does not identify the demographic source for the figure. Version: 3,000 total. About half flee.

Example 10: Tuesday, February 1, 1994 Source: Helen Schneider Silver, Atlanta, in Alan M. Tigay, ed., The Jewish Traveler: Hadassah Magazine’s Guide to the World’s Jewish Communities and Sights. Quote: “Those traumatic events, during which half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews fled the state…” Version: 3,000 total. Half flee.

Example 11: Tuesday, December 1, 1998 Source: Jay Robert Nash, Terrorism in the 20th Century: A Narrative Encyclopedia from the Anarchists, Through the Weathermen, to the Unabomber. Quote: “Jews by the thousands departed Atlanta by carriage, car and train.” This is a different quantitative version. Instead of half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews, we now have Jews by the thousands supposedly leaving Atlanta. Version: Thousands leave Atlanta.

2004 Through 2014

Example 12: Thursday, March 18, 2004 Source: Kay Powell, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, obituary of James Edward Phagan. Quote: “Amid a wave of anti-Semitism, half of Atlanta’s Jews moved away.” The geography has changed from Georgia to Atlanta. Version: Half of Atlanta’s Jewish population moved away.

Example 13: Circa 2008, exact Wikipedia revision date not established Source: Archived Wikipedia article, Leo Frank. Quote: “After Frank’s lynching, approximately half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews left the state.” This proves the formula was circulating on Wikipedia well before many later internet repetitions. Version: 3,000 total. Approximately half leave.

Example 14: Friday, November 13, 2009 Source: HISTORY, Murder in Atlanta Pencil Factory Leads to Lynching of Leo Frank. Quote: “Thousands of Jewish residents in Atlanta were forced to flee the city.” This is a separate HISTORY formulation from the later HISTORY article quoting Rawls. Version: Thousands flee Atlanta.

Example 15: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 Source: Lawrence Bush, Jewish Currents, April 27: Leo Frank. Quote: “the exodus from the state of about half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews.” Version: 3,000 total. About half leave.

Example 16: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 Source: Poe Forward, Deathday: Leo Frank 1884-1915 Innocent Lynching Victim. Quote: “After Frank’s lynching, approximately half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews left the state.” The wording closely resembles the archived Wikipedia version. Version: 3,000 total. Approximately half leave.

Example 17: Monday, September 12, 2011 Source: Todd Hudson, Marietta Patch, The Battle for Leo Frank. Quote: “nearly half of Georgia’s Jewish population is said to have left the state.” The 3,000 figure disappears. The proportion changes to nearly half. Version: Nearly half of Georgia’s Jewish population leave.

Example 18: Monday, May 27, 2013 Source: Matt Lebovic, The Times of Israel. Quote: “Half of the state’s Jews fled Georgia following the lynching.” Version: Half of Georgia’s Jewish population flee.

Example 19: Friday, August 23, 2013 Source: The Jewish Standard, Georgia, It Is Time to Set Things Right. Quote: “About half the 3,000 Jews living in Georgia soon moved out of state.” Version: 3,000 total. About half move out.

Example 20: 2013, exact publication day not established Source: The Jewish Community of North Alabama: A Brief History, Huntsville History Collection. Quote: “In the aftermath, half of Georgia’s 3000 Jews left the state.” Version: 3,000 total. Half leave.

Example 21: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 Source: Sally Ollove, Arden Theatre Company, Post-Parade: What Happens to Georgia? Quote: “following the Frank lynching, about half of Georgia’s Jewish population fled the state.” Version: About half of Georgia’s Jewish population flee.

Example 22: May 2014, exact dissertation deposit day not established Source: Jacqueline S. May, Americans All! The Role of Advertising in Re-Imaging Ethnicity in America: The Case of the War Advertising Council, 1939-1945, doctoral dissertation, Florida Atlantic University. Quote: “Approximately half of the state’s Jewish population left the area.” May cites Theoharis, giving us a traceable branch: Theoharis and Cox, 1988 → Jacqueline May, 2014. Version: Approximately half of Georgia’s Jewish population leave.

2015 and 2016

Example 23: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 Source: Greg Bluestein, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Roy Barnes: It’s Time to Pardon Leo Frank. Quote: “As many as a half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews fled after the hanging.” Version: As many as half of 3,000 flee.

Example 24: Friday, August 21, 2015 Source: Seth Brysk, Central Pacific Regional Director of the Anti-Defamation League, J. The Jewish News of Northern California. Quote: “half of Atlanta’s Jewish community, the largest in the American South, fled the state.” This is an Atlanta-based version. Version: Half of Atlanta’s Jewish community leave Georgia.

Example 25: Monday, September 21, 2015 Source: Nancy K. Baron-Baer, Anti-Defamation League, Philadelphia, Campaign Aims to Improve Response to Hate Crimes. Quote: “half of Atlanta’s Jewish community, the largest in the South, fled the state.” Version: Half of Atlanta’s Jewish community leave Georgia.

Example 26: Friday, September 25, 2015 Source: Nancy K. Baron-Baer article reprinted in the Vindicator archives as Taking on Hate Crimes. Quote: “half of Atlanta’s Jewish community, the largest in the South, fled the state.” This is another publication appearance of the same Baron-Baer wording. Version: Half of Atlanta’s Jewish community leave Georgia.

Example 27: Circa 2016, exact catalog publication date not established Source: Lorne Bair Rare Books, Catalog Twenty-Five, description of C. P. Connolly’s The Truth About the Frank Case, p. 17. Quote: “as many as half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews left the state in the months following the Frank lynching.” This is modern catalog copy, not language from Connolly’s original publication. Version: As many as half of 3,000 leave.

2017 Federal Court and Publication Series

Example 28: Monday, February 6, 2017 Source: Anti-Defamation League amicus brief, State of Washington v. Trump, No. 17-35105, Ninth Circuit. Quote: “about half of Georgia’s Jewish population to flee.” This is the earliest ADL court filing I have confirmed containing the quantitative exodus proposition. Version: About half of Georgia’s Jewish population flee.

Example 29: Wednesday, February 8, 2017 Source: Anti-Defamation League amicus brief, Aziz v. Trump, Eastern District of Virginia. Quote: “about half of Georgia’s Jewish population to flee.” This filing expressly cites Wendell Rawls Jr.’s March 8, 1982 New York Times article. Version: About half of Georgia’s Jewish population flee.

Example 30: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 Source: Anti-Defamation League amicus brief, Darweesh v. Trump, Eastern District of New York. Quote: “about half of Georgia’s Jewish population to flee.” The citation again points to Rawls.

Example 31: Friday, March 3, 2017 Source: Anti-Defamation League and Jewish Council for Public Affairs, International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, District of Maryland. Quote: “about half of Georgia’s Jewish population to flee.” The brief again relies on Rawls.

Example 32: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 Source: Anti-Defamation League et al., Hawaii v. Trump, District of Hawaii. Quote: “about half of Georgia’s Jewish population to flee.”

Example 33: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 Source: Anti-Defamation League et al., International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, Fourth Circuit. Quote: “about half of Georgia’s Jewish population to flee.” The supporting footnote cites Rawls.

Example 34: Friday, April 21, 2017 Source: Anti-Defamation League et al., Hawaii v. Trump, Ninth Circuit. Quote: “about half of Georgia’s Jewish population to flee.”

Example 35: Saturday, September 2, 2017 Source: Neil Silberblatt, review of Zvi A. Sesling’s The Lynching of Leo Frank, Boston Area Small Press and Poetry Scene. Quote: “It also resulted in the exodus of around half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews.” Version: Around half of 3,000 leave.

Example 36: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 Source: Neil Silberblatt, same review, printed in The Somerville Times, p. 23. Quote: “It also resulted in the exodus of around half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews.” This is the print appearance of the same review. Version: Around half of 3,000 leave.

Example 37: Thursday, September 14, 2017 Source: Anti-Defamation League et al., Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project / Trump v. Hawaii, Nos. 16-1436 and 16-1540, Supreme Court of the United States. Quote: “about half of Georgia’s Jewish population to flee.” The same Rawls-derived proposition had now reached a Supreme Court filing.

2018 and 2019

Example 38: Thursday, March 1, 2018 Source: Joshua Benjamin Leavitt, Public Books, Walking the Beat in Segregated Atlanta. Quote: “nearly half of the city’s Jewish population left Atlanta after Leo Frank’s lynching.” Version: Nearly half of Atlanta’s Jewish population leave Atlanta.

Example 39: Friday, March 30, 2018 Source: Anti-Defamation League et al., Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17-965, Supreme Court of the United States. Quote: “about half of Georgia’s Jewish population to flee.” The supporting footnote cites Rawls.

Example 40: Thursday, August 23, 2018 Source: Logan C. Ritchie, Atlanta Jewish Times, Historical Marker of Leo Frank Returns. Quote: “Thousands of Jewish residents escape the city because police refuse to stop the lynch mob.” Version: Thousands escape Atlanta.

Example 41: Sunday, October 28, 2018 Source: David B. Green, Haaretz, From Lynchings to Mass Shootings: The History of Deadly Attacks on Jews in America. Quote: “More than half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews left the state after Frank’s killing.” Now half has become more than half. Version: More than half of 3,000 leave.

Example 42: Friday, February 1, 2019 Source: Emily Langer, The Washington Post, obituary of Leonard Dinnerstein. Quote: “Half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews fled the state, the New York Times reported years later.” This one is especially useful because The Washington Post openly identifies The New York Times as the source of the figure. Version: Half of 3,000 flee.

Example 43: Sunday, March 3, 2019 Source: Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes and ADL Regional Director Seth Brysk, Deseret News, Utah’s Hate Crimes Law Would Protect Everyone. Here Are the Facts. Quote: “half of Atlanta’s Jewish community, the largest in the American South, fled the state.” This repeats the Atlanta-community wording Brysk used in 2015. Version: Half of Atlanta’s Jewish community leave Georgia.

2020 and 2021

Example 44: 2020, exact thesis deposit day not established Source: Taylor Marks, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, M.A. thesis, The Jewish Problem: Anti-Semitic Admissions Quotas in Southern U.S. Medical Schools, 1920s-1960s. Quote: “As a result of Frank’s lynching and Atlanta’s anti-Semitic fervor, an estimated 3000 Jews fled Georgia.” This is one of the biggest numerical mutations in the whole chronology. The original 1982 formula implies about 1,500 departures. Marks says approximately 3,000 departed. Version: Approximately 3,000 Jews flee Georgia.

Example 45: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 Source: Jonathan Weisman, The Cairo Review of Global Affairs, Resisting the Tide of Bigotry. Quote: “Half of Atlanta’s Jewish population simply left.” Version: Half of Atlanta’s Jewish population leave.

Example 46: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 Source: Let’s Go To Court!, Episode 149, Wrongful Convictions. Quote: “After his murder, roughly half of the Jewish population there fled…” The immediate context refers to Atlanta. Version: Roughly half of Atlanta’s Jewish population flee.

Example 47: Wednesday, January 6, 2021, updated Friday, January 29, 2021 Source: Emily Burack, Hey Alma, Who Was Leo Frank, the Jewish Man Lynched in Georgia? Quote: “around half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews left the state.” Version: Around half of 3,000 leave.

Example 48: Friday, January 8, 2021 Source: Eric Kingsley, Jewish Journal, Jewish Georgia, a Century in the Making. Quote: “About 3,000 Jews, roughly half the state’s Jewish population at the time, fled the state after the event.” This changes the arithmetic: Older formula: 3,000 total, approximately 1,500 leave. Kingsley formula: approximately 6,000 total, approximately 3,000 leave. Version: Approximately 3,000 departures, supposedly half the population.

Example 49: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 Source: Gwendolyn Midlo Hall, Haunted by Slavery: A Memoir of a Southern White Woman in the Freedom Struggle, earliest listed ebook edition. Quote: “About half the Jews living in Georgia moved out.” Version: About half of Georgia’s Jews move out.

Example 50: Wednesday, April 28, 2021 Source: Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives, The Lynching of Leo Frank. Quote: “half of Georgia’s 3,000-large Jewish community fled the state.” Version: Half of 3,000 flee.

2022

Example 51: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 Source: Trudy Gold, Lockdown University, The Beilis and Frank Trials in 1913: Two Blood Libel Trials in America and Russia, Different Endings. Quote: “the lynching led to half of Georgia’s Jews leaving.” Version: Half of Georgia’s Jews leave.

Example 52: Tuesday, October 4, 2022 Source: Adam Hochschild, American Midnight: The Great War, a Violent Peace, and Democracy’s Forgotten Crisis. Quote: “Half the 3,000 Jews living in Georgia left the state.” Version: Half of 3,000 leave.

Example 53: Thursday, October 6, 2022 Source: Anti-Defamation League, Los Angeles Regional Office, reprint of Eric Kingsley’s Jewish Georgia, a Century in the Making. Quote: “About 3,000 Jews, roughly half the state’s Jewish population at the time, fled the state after the event.” This republishes Kingsley’s altered 3,000-departure formula. Version: Approximately 3,000 flee, supposedly half the population.

Example 54: Wednesday, October 26, 2022 Source: Anti-Defamation League et al., Moore v. Harper, No. 21-1271, Supreme Court of the United States. Quote: “about half of Georgia’s Jewish population to flee.” The Rawls-derived court paragraph appears again.

2023

Example 55: Thursday, January 12, 2023 Source: No Agenda, Episode 1520 show notes. Quote: “After Frank’s lynching, around half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews left the state.” The wording appears to reproduce Wikipedia-style material. Version: Around half of 3,000 leave.

Example 56: Winter 2023, exact publication day not given Source: Adam Hochschild, These Are No Ordinary Times, American Heritage, Vol. 68, No. 1. Quote: “Half the 3,000 Jews living in Georgia left the state.” This is adapted from Hochschild’s 2022 American Midnight. Version: Half of 3,000 leave.

Example 57: Thursday, April 6, 2023, updated Wednesday, May 28, 2025 Source: HISTORY, Lynching of Leo Frank: Trial, Murder & Legacy. Quote: “In the aftermath of terror, about half the 3,000 Jews in Georgia left the state.” HISTORY directly attributes this wording to The New York Times. Version: About half of 3,000 leave.

Example 58: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 Source: Thane Rosenbaum, Jewish Journal, Leo Frank and the Parade of Horribles. Quote: “Soon after the Leo Frank verdict, half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews left the state altogether.” Version: Half of 3,000 leave.

Example 59: Thursday, October 26, 2023 Source: Davelandblog, Trip to Atlanta, Pt. 3. Quote: “After Frank’s lynching, around half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews left the state.” The wording closely follows Wikipedia. Version: Around half of 3,000 leave.

2025 and 2026

Example 60: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 Source: The Georgia Sun, Leo Frank: Pentagon Official Reignites Firestorm Around Century-Old Georgia Murder Case. Quote: “Fearing for their lives, half of Georgia’s Jewry fled the state.” Version: Half of Georgia Jewry flee.

Example 61: Friday, September 12, 2025 Source: Chai Channel, The Antisemitism of the KKK. Quote: “In the aftermath of terror, about half the 3,000 Jews in Georgia left the state.” This directly repeats the Rawls wording. Version: About half of 3,000 leave.

Example 62: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 Source: Georgia Public Broadcasting, Georgia Stories, Justice or Prejudice? The Leo Frank Trial Explained. Quote: “about half of Georgia’s Jewish population left the state out of fear and concern for their safety.” This places the numerical claim into modern Georgia educational material. Version: About half of Georgia’s Jewish population leave.

Current or Undated Versions

These are placed at the end because I have not yet established trustworthy original publication dates.

Example 63: Retrieved Wednesday, September 9, 2026 Source: Wikipedia, Leo Frank. Quote: “After Frank’s lynching, around half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews left the state.” Version: Around half of 3,000 leave.

Example 64: Retrieved Wednesday, September 9, 2026 Source: Wikipedia, Lynching in the United States. Quote: “After the lynching of Leo Frank, around half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews left the state.” Version: Around half of 3,000 leave.

Example 65: Retrieved Wednesday, September 9, 2026 Source: MurderIndex, Leo Frank. Quote: “After Frank’s lynching, approximately half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews left the state.” The wording closely resembles older Wikipedia versions. Version: Approximately half of 3,000 leave.

Example 66: Retrieved Wednesday, September 9, 2026 Source: Langdon Manor Books, modern catalog description of Reuben R. Arnold’s 1915 The Trial of Leo Frank. Quote: “Around half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews left the state.” This is modern bookseller copy. It is not wording from Arnold’s original 1915 book. Version: Around half of 3,000 leave.

Example 67: Retrieved Wednesday, September 9, 2026 Source: HistoryCentral, Anti-Semitism in America. Quote: “Following the lynching, nearly half of Georgia’s Jewish population of 3,000 left the state.” Version: Nearly half of 3,000 leave.

Example 68: Retrieved Wednesday, September 9, 2026 Source: Stride educational material hosted by UJA-Federation of New York. Quote: “After Frank’s murder, about half of the Jews in Georgia left the state.” Version: About half of Georgia’s Jews leave.

Example 69: Retrieved Wednesday, September 9, 2026 Source: Today in Civil Liberties History, Leo Frank Lynched: Anti-Semitism Rises. Quote: “Reportedly, half of the Jews living in Georgia left after the lynching.” Version: Half of Georgia’s Jews reportedly leave.

Example 70: Exact publication date not established Source: Temple Judah educational handout, surviving through a Doczz mirror. Quote: “After Frank’s lynching, around half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews left the state.” The surrounding material closely tracks Wikipedia wording. Version: Around half of 3,000 leave.

Additional Technical Wikipedia Mirrors

I am recording these because they help document how long the exact wording persisted online, but I am not counting every technical mirror as another independent publication.

August 2020 Wikipedia snapshot IPFS Wikipedia copy

November 2023 Kiwix Wikipedia snapshot

January 2024 Wikipedia mirror **January 2024 mirror of **

Lynching in the United States

August 2025 Kiwix copy

February 2026 Kiwix copy

Quantitative Leads Still Awaiting Primary Verification

I am keeping these four leads visible because I do not want them disappearing from the research trail. But I am also not putting them into my confirmed quantitative count until I can recover the original page, document, book passage, or video and verify the wording myself. There is a difference between finding somebody who says a source made a claim and actually opening the source and reading it with your own eyes. Until I can do the second, these stay in the research pile.

Hal Erickson, Any Resemblance to Actual Persons

Hal Erickson, Any Resemblance to Actual Persons

Hal Erickson’s book is Any Resemblance to Actual Persons: The Real People Behind 400+ Fictional Movie Characters, published by McFarland.

A secondary locator attributes the following statement to Erickson:

“Those not directly connected with the [Frank] case did their part by fomenting so much anti-Semitic vitriol that nearly half of the 3000 Jews in Atlanta moved out of the city.”

If this quotation checks out against the actual book, it would be another important geographical mutation.

The older claim says half of Georgia’s supposed 3,000 Jews left the State of Georgia.

The Erickson version reportedly puts the 3,000 Jews in Atlanta and says nearly half of them moved out of the city.

I have verified the existence and publication information for Erickson’s book, but I have not yet independently opened the page containing this alleged passage.

Book information: Google Play Books, VitalSource, and Barnes & Noble all carry records for Erickson’s book.

Status: The quotation is attributed to Erickson by a secondary locator, but the original book page has not yet been independently verified.

I am using the secondary source only as a locator for the alleged quotation, not as independent historical authority.

Writers Theatre, The Trial That Divided America

Another secondary locator attributes the following statement to educational material produced in connection with Writers Theatre: “After the trial, 3,000 Jews fled Georgia out of fear.” If the original educational document confirms this wording, it would be another major numerical mutation. The original March 1982 formula says Georgia supposedly had 3,000 Jews total and approximately half left.

This version reportedly says 3,000 Jews themselves fled Georgia.

Those are very different numbers.

The Writers Theatre production history confirms that the company staged Parade from May 24 through July 15, 2017. I still need the original Writers Theatre document titled The Trial That Divided America, or an archived copy of it, before I put the quotation into the confirmed chronology.

Randy Blazak, Portland State University

Randy Blazak, Portland State University

Status: Secondary attribution only. Primary video not yet recovered.

A secondary locator attributes the following statement to sociologist Randy Blazak, formerly of Portland State University:

“half of 3,000 Jews who lived in Georgia fled the state.”

If this quotation can be verified against the original recording, it would be another straightforward half-of-3,000 version of the quantitative Jewish exodus claim.

I have located Portland State University’s MediaSpace system, where university videos are hosted, but I have not yet recovered the specific Blazak recording or a reliable timestamp for the statement.

What is confirmed: A secondary source attributes the quotation to Blazak.

What is not yet confirmed: The original video, the exact wording in the recording, and the timestamp.

Until the original recording is recovered, I would describe the statement only as attributed to Randy Blazak by a secondary source. I would not state as a fact that Blazak said these exact words.

Murderpedia

Status: MurderIndex confirmed.

A secondary locator attributes the following wording to Murderpedia:

“After Frank’s lynching, approximately half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews left the state.”

A Murderpedia page on Leo Frank is still online, but I have not been able to verify this half-of-3,000 sentence in the version that is presently available.

There is another complication.

MurderIndex currently carries almost exactly the same wording:

“After Frank’s lynching, approximately half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews left the state.”

So the wording itself is definitely present in a modern crime-reference database.

What is confirmed: MurderIndex currently carries the approximately-half-of-3,000 statement.

What is not yet confirmed: Whether Murderpedia itself carried the same wording in an earlier or archived version of its Leo Frank page.

The Early Quantitative Chain

This early sequence needs to stay front and center because this is where the numerical story first becomes visible.

Sunday, March 7, 1982: Sandra Roberts, The Tennessean

Sandra Roberts wrote in 13 Words Shook History: “In the months following the Frank lynching, half the 3,000 Jews in Georgia left the state.” This remains the earliest exact half-of-3,000 statement I have verified.

The arithmetic is simple and straightforward: 3,000 Jews supposedly lived in Georgia. Half supposedly left. Approximately 1,500 supposedly departed. Approximately 1,500 supposedly remained. No statewide migration study is identified with the statement.

No evidence or source whatsoever.

Monday, March 8, 1982: Wendell Rawls Jr., The New York Times

One day later, Wendell Rawls Jr. wrote: “In the aftermath of terror, about half the 3,000 Jews in Georgia left the state.” Roberts says half. Rawls says about half. The underlying number remains 3,000.

Tuesday, March 9, 1982: Jewish Telegraphic Agency: “Reportedly”

The next day, JTA reported: “Jewish businesses were boycotted and about half the state’s 3,000 Jews reportedly moved away.” Now we have another small change. Roberts says left the state. Rawls says left the state.

JTA says reportedly moved away. The word reportedly is important. JTA is passing along a report.

Thursday, March 25, 1982: Rhode Island Jewish Voice & Herald

Only sixteen days after the JTA wire story, the same JTA wording appears in the Rhode Island Jewish Voice & Herald: “about half the state’s 3,000 Jews reportedly moved away.” This is not another demographic study. It is evidence of the JTA version spreading into the local Jewish press.

Friday, April 9, 1982: The Voice, Miami

Father John B. Sheerin wrote in The Voice, the newspaper of the Catholic Archdiocese of Miami: “Because of the unreasoning wave of hatred against Jews, half the 3,000 Jews in Georgia left the state.” By April 9, the formula had moved outside The Tennessean, The New York Times, JTA, and the Jewish community press.

Tuesday, December 27, 1983: Jewish Telegraphic Agency

JTA later changed the formulation from a proportion into an actual head count: “About 1,500 of the 3,000 Jews in Georgia fled.” This is worth stopping on. In March 1982 we were told about half reportedly moved away. By December 1983 we are told about 1,500 fled. The implied arithmetic has hardened into a specific number of people.

March 1984: AJR Information

The same basic formula then appears in the British Jewish press: “about half the 3,000 Jews of Georgia fled the state.” This is especially interesting because AJR Information acknowledges material supplied through the Jewish Chronicle news service. So by March 1984, less than two years after the Roberts article, the formula had crossed the Atlantic.

Wednesday, March 12, 1986: Jewish Telegraphic Agency

JTA later repeated the specific head-count version:

“About 1,500 of Georgia’s Jewish population of 3,000 fled.”

So the earliest quantitative chain presently looks like this:

Sunday, March 7, 1982: The Tennessean
Sandra Roberts

Monday, March 8, 1982: The New York Times
Wendell Rawls Jr.

Tuesday, March 9, 1982: Jewish Telegraphic Agency

Thursday, March 25, 1982: Rhode Island Jewish Voice & Herald
Reprint of the JTA version.

Friday, April 9, 1982: The Voice, Miami
Father John B. Sheerin, CSP.

Tuesday, December 27, 1983: Jewish Telegraphic Agency

March 1984: AJR Information
British Jewish press.

Wednesday, March 12, 1986: Jewish Telegraphic Agency

Within forty-eight hours in March 1982, the half-of-3,000 formula appeared in The Tennessean, The New York Times, and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, all in connection with the Alonzo Mann news cycle.

Sixteen days after the JTA report, the same version was being reprinted in the Rhode Island Jewish Voice & Herald. By April 9, 1982, the half-of-3,000 formula had also appeared in The Voice, a Catholic newspaper in Miami.

By December 27, 1983, the wording had changed from about half of 3,000 into the more specific statement that approximately 1,500 of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews fled.

By March 1984, the same basic quantitative claim had reached the British Jewish press through AJR Information. JTA repeated the specific 1,500-of-3,000 version again on March 12, 1986.

How the Number Changed

The numerical story did not remain stable.

It starts with:

Half of 3,000
Sandra Roberts, March 7, 1982.

Then:

About half of 3,000
Wendell Rawls Jr., March 8, 1982.

Then:

About half of 3,000 reportedly moved away
Jewish Telegraphic Agency, March 9, 1982.

Then:

1,500 of 3,000 fled
Jewish Telegraphic Agency, December 27, 1983.

Later we find:

Approximately half of 3,000
Archived Wikipedia.

Around half of 3,000
Current Wikipedia.

Nearly half of Georgia’s Jewish population
Todd Hudson, Marietta Patch, September 12, 2011.

As many as half of 3,000
Greg Bluestein, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, August 18, 2015.

More than half of 3,000
David B. Green, Haaretz, October 28, 2018.

Then the geography begins to move.

Half of Atlanta’s Jews moved away
Kay Powell, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, March 18, 2004.

By March 1984, the same basic quantitative claim had reached the British Jewish press through AJR Information. JTA repeated the specific 1,500-of-3,000 version again on March 12, 1986.

How the Number Changed

The numerical story did not remain stable, it slightly mutated, changed, and re-arranged. It was like someone was trying to say the same thing over and over again but using different words.

The Original Formula

Half of 3,000
Sandra Roberts, The Tennessean, March 7, 1982.

About half of 3,000
Wendell Rawls Jr., The New York Times, March 8, 1982.

About half of 3,000 reportedly moved away
Jewish Telegraphic Agency, March 9, 1982.

1,500 of 3,000 fled
Jewish Telegraphic Agency, December 27, 1983.

Later Variations of the Same Formula

Approximately half of 3,000
Archived Wikipedia.

Around half of 3,000
Current Wikipedia.

Nearly half of Georgia’s Jewish population
Todd Hudson, Marietta Patch, September 12, 2011.

As many as half of 3,000
Greg Bluestein, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, August 18, 2015.

More than half of 3,000
David B. Green, Haaretz, October 28, 2018.

Then the Geography Starts Moving

The claim does not always remain about Georgia’s Jewish population leaving the State of Georgia.

It becomes:

Half of Atlanta’s Jews moved away
Kay Powell, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, March 18, 2004.

Half of Atlanta’s Jewish community fled the state
Seth Brysk, August 21, 2015.

Nearly half of Atlanta’s Jewish population left Atlanta
Joshua Benjamin Leavitt, Public Books, March 1, 2018.

Half of Atlanta’s Jewish population simply left
Jonathan Weisman, September 1, 2020.

Then the Number Gets Larger, Sometimes They Double

Another version says:

Jews by the thousands departed Atlanta
Jay Robert Nash.

HISTORY later says:

Thousands of Jewish residents in Atlanta were forced to flee the city

Then we reach the biggest numerical change I have found:

An estimated 3,000 Jews fled Georgia
Taylor Marks, 2020 M.A. thesis.

And in January 2021:

About 3,000 Jews, supposedly roughly half of Georgia’s Jewish population, fled the state
Eric Kingsley, Jewish Journal.

This changes the arithmetic completely.

The Arithmetic

The original March 1982 formula gives us:

3,000 total

approximately 1,500 leave

approximately 1,500 remain

The later 3,000-departure version gives us something closer to:

approximately 6,000 total

approximately 3,000 leave

The alleged number of people leaving has doubled from approximately 1,500 to 3,000.

We are no longer looking at little differences in wording. The number itself has changed.

Current Working Count

My chronology currently contains:

70 confirmed quantitative publication or documentary appearances

In addition, I am tracking technical Wikipedia mirrors and four additional leads still waiting for primary verification:

Hal Erickson

Writers Theatre

Randy Blazak

Murderpedia

I do not count those four yet because I have not independently verified the original passage, document, or recording.

Seventy appearances do not mean seventy historians independently examined Georgia population records and reached the same conclusion.

Some are reprints.

Some cite earlier newspapers.

Some copy Wikipedia.

Some reproduce the same ADL wording in multiple court filings.

Some move the geography from Georgia to Atlanta.

Some change half into nearly half or more than half.

Some turn approximately 1,500 departures into approximately 3,000 departures.

That is exactly why I am tracing the genealogy of the number instead of simply counting how many times somebody repeated it.

70 Quantitative Source Examples With Full Source Details

A note on the citations below: when I give a printed page, I have a page number for the original newspaper, book, thesis, or document. When I give a PDF page, I mean the numbered page shown in the electronic file. Ordinary web pages are unpaginated. Where an original printed page or direct publisher copy hasn’t been recovered, I say so.

These are publication and documentary appearances, not 70 independent demographic studies.

---

Source Example 01

Date: Sunday, March 7, 1982
Publication: The Tennessean, Nashville, Tennessee
Author: Sandra Roberts
Article: “13 Words Shook History”
Larger section: Justice Betrayed: A Sin of Silence, special news section on the Leo Frank case
Page: p. 2

Quantitative wording: “In the months following the Frank lynching, half the 3,000 Jews in Georgia left the state.”

This is the earliest exact half-of-3,000 formulation I have located so far. The arithmetic gives us 3,000 Jewish residents, approximately 1,500 leaving Georgia, and approximately 1,500 remaining. The article appeared during The Tennessean’s March 1982 coverage of Alonzo Mann. I have not found a statewide migration table, synagogue survey, directory comparison, census calculation, or other demographic study identified with this number.

The Digital Library of Georgia preserves The Tennessean special section in the Leo M. Frank Collections at the William Breman Jewish Heritage Museum.

Full archival URL:
https://dlg.usg.edu/record/breman_lmfc_07-052vf-l

Verification: Original archival collection identified. Article title, date, page, and wording verified in the research chronology.

---

Source Example 02

Date: Monday, March 8, 1982
Publication: The New York Times
Author: Wendell Rawls Jr.
Article: “After 69 Years of Silence, Lynching Victim Is Cleared”
Printed location: p. A12, column 1
Electronic copy: three-page reproduction, numerical passage on PDF page 3

Quantitative wording: “In the aftermath of terror, about half the 3,000 Jews in Georgia left the state.”

This appeared one day after Sandra Roberts. Roberts wrote “half.” Rawls changed it slightly to “about half,” but the 3,000 population stayed the same. This article becomes extremely important later because ADL federal court briefs explicitly cite Rawls when they repeat the proposition that about half of Georgia’s Jewish population fled. The surviving PDF places the passage on its third and final page.

Original New York Times URL:
https://www.nytimes.com/1982/03/08/us/after-69-years-of-silence-lynching-victim-is-cleared.html

Readable archival copy:
https://littlemaryphagan.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/new-york-times-march-08-1982-after-69-years-of-silence-lynching-victim-is-cleared.pdf

Verification: Exact wording and three-page electronic reproduction verified.

---

Source Example 03

Date: Tuesday, March 9, 1982
Publication: Jewish Telegraphic Agency
Article: “70 Years Later, Jewish Lynching Victim Is Absolved of Murder”
Format: JTA Daily Bulletin/archive story
Page: Web archive is unpaginated

Quantitative wording: “about half the state’s 3,000 Jews reportedly moved away.”

The word “reportedly” belongs in the record because JTA itself qualified the assertion. This appeared two days after Roberts and only one day after Rawls. The numerical skeleton remains unchanged: approximately 3,000 total and approximately one-half leaving. The verb has changed from “left the state” to “reportedly moved away.”

Full URL:
https://www.jta.org/archive/70-years-later-jewish-lynching-victim-is-absolved-of-murder

Verification: Direct JTA archive verified.

---

Source Example 04

Date: Thursday, March 25, 1982
Publication: Rhode Island Jewish Voice & Herald
Source type: Local newspaper reprint of the JTA report
Article heading in surviving issue: “70 Years Pass, Jewish Lynching Victim Is Now Absolved Of Murder”
Printed page: Exact printed page still needs to be recorded from the issue image

Quantitative wording: the JTA formulation that “about half the state’s 3,000 Jews reportedly moved away.”

This is not a second demographic investigation. It is useful because it demonstrates transmission. The March 9 JTA wording had reached another Jewish newspaper by March 25, only sixteen days later. The surviving newspaper PDF confirms the JTA story appeared in the issue.

Full issue PDF:
https://rijha.org/wp-content/uploads/voiceandherald/1982/1982-03-25.pdf

1982 archive:
https://rijha.org/jewish-voice-and-herald-1982/

Verification: Newspaper issue and JTA reprint verified. Exact printed page remains to be logged.

---

Source Example 05

Date: Friday, April 9, 1982
Publication: The Voice, newspaper of the Archdiocese of Miami
Author: Father John B. Sheerin, CSP
Article: “The Hanging of Leo Frank”
Page: p. 13

Quantitative wording: “half the 3,000 Jews in Georgia left the state.”

Within barely a month, the half-of-3,000 formula had moved from The Tennessean, The New York Times, and JTA into a Catholic newspaper in Miami. Sheerin eliminates Rawls’s “about” and JTA’s “reportedly,” leaving the cleaner statement that half of 3,000 left.

Full issue PDF:
https://repository.stu.edu/ulma/va/3005/1982/04-09-1982.pdf

Verification: Publication, author, date, article title, p. 13 location, and quoted numerical formulation identified.

---

Source Example 06

Date: Tuesday, December 27, 1983
Publication: Jewish Telegraphic Agency
Article: “Jewish Organizations Shocked over Refusal of Georgia Pardons and Parole Board to Exonerate Leo Frank”
Page: JTA web archive is unpaginated

Quantitative wording: “About 1,500 of the 3,000 Jews in Georgia fled.”

Here something changes. The earlier arithmetic is now stated as an actual head count. Half of 3,000 has become approximately 1,500 people, and JTA’s earlier “reportedly moved away” has become the stronger word “fled.”

Full URL:
https://www.jta.org/archive/jewish-organizations-shocked-over-refusal-of-georgia-pardons-and-parole-board-to-exonerate-leo-frank

Verification: Direct JTA archive verified.

---

Source Example 07

Date: March 1984, exact day not stated in the monthly issue
Publication: AJR Information
Issue: Vol. XXXIX, No. 3
Article: “Still No Pardon for US Lynch Victim”
Printed page: p. 4

Quantitative wording: “about half the 3,000 Jews of Georgia fled the state.”

This is an important early British Jewish press appearance. By March 1984, less than two years after the Roberts article, the same numerical structure had crossed the Atlantic. The article appears on p. 4 of the March issue.

Full PDF:
https://ajr.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/1984_march.pdf

Verification: Original issue, volume, month, page, article title, and wording verified.

---

Source Example 08

Date: Wednesday, March 12, 1986
Publication: Jewish Telegraphic Agency
Article: “Leo Frank Is Posthumously Pardoned by Georgia Board”
Page: Web archive, unpaginated

Quantitative wording: “About 1,500 of Georgia’s Jewish population of 3,000 fled.”

JTA again gives the specific 1,500-of-3,000 arithmetic rather than merely saying “half.” This appeared immediately after the March 11, 1986 pardon and therefore carried the numerical formulation into another major national news cycle surrounding Frank.

Full URL:
https://www.jta.org/archive/leo-frank-is-posthumously-pardoned-by-georgia-board

Verification: Direct JTA article identified. Web archive is unpaginated.

---

Source Example 09

Date: 1988
Publication: Temple University Press
Authors: Athan G. Theoharis and John Stuart Cox
Book: The Boss: J. Edgar Hoover and the Great American Inquisition
Page: p. 54 in the edition checked

Quantitative wording: “about half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews fled from the state.”

This marks the numerical formula’s movement into book-length historical writing. That changes how later researchers can encounter the number. Instead of finding it in the March 1982 newspaper cycle, they can discover it in a historical book and cite the book. Jacqueline May later provides an identifiable academic branch involving Theoharis.

Google Books record:
https://books.google.com/books?id=sHTWAAAAMAAJ

Verification: Book and publication details verified. Page 54 is the page recorded for the edition checked.

---

Source Example 10

Date: 1994
Publication date commonly cataloged: February 1, 1994
Author: Helen Schneider Silver
Article/chapter: “Atlanta”
Book: Alan M. Tigay, ed., The Jewish Traveler: Hadassah Magazine’s Guide to the World’s Jewish Communities and Sights
Printed page containing wording: Not yet independently recovered

Quantitative wording: “half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews fled the state.”

The Helen Schneider Silver papers are preserved by the College of Charleston and include research and writing connected with The Jewish Traveler. I have not yet recovered a scan of the actual printed page containing this sentence, so I would not attach a page number until the book itself is opened.

Archival record:
https://findingaids.library.cofc.edu/repositories/2/resources/400

Verification: Book and author/source relationship verified. Exact printed page still needs primary-book verification.

---

Source Example 11

Date: 1998, edition commonly dated December 1, 1998
Author: Jay Robert Nash
Book: Terrorism in the 20th Century: A Narrative Encyclopedia from the Anarchists, Through the Weathermen, to the Unabomber
Publisher: M. Evans and Company
Printed page: Not yet verified

Quantitative wording: “Jews by the thousands departed Atlanta by carriage, car and train.”

This is a much larger mutation than “about half.” The original 1982 formula implied approximately 1,500 people leaving the State of Georgia. Nash describes “thousands” leaving Atlanta, and then gives a dramatic narrative of Jewish families at the railroad station. The full text is searchable online, but I have not assigned a printed page without checking the physical pagination.

Searchable text:
https://www.thetedkarchive.com/library/jay-robert-nash-terrorism-in-the-20th-century

Google Books record:
https://books.google.com/books/about/Terrorism_in_the_20th_Century.html?id=LYnaAAAAMAAJ

Verification: Exact passage verified in searchable full text. Printed page still needs recording.

---

Source Example 12

Date: Thursday, March 18, 2004
Publication: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Author: Kay Powell
Item: Obituary/report on James Edward Phagan
Printed page: Not yet independently verified

Quantitative wording: “half of Atlanta’s Jews moved away.”

Here the geography changes. The original formula concerned half of Georgia’s Jews leaving Georgia. This version says half of Atlanta’s Jews moved away. Atlanta’s Jewish population and Georgia’s statewide Jewish population are not the same denominator.

An accessible reproduction of the AJC obituary is preserved through Legacy.

Full URL:
https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/atlanta/name/james-phagan-obituary?id=51189355

Verification: Publication, date, author attribution, and wording recorded. Original AJC page number still needs recovery.

---

Source Example 13

Date: Circa 2008
Source: Wikipedia
Article: “Leo Frank”
Version: Archived older revisions
Page: Web page, unpaginated

Quantitative wording: “approximately half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews left the state.”

This is important as an internet transmission point. Wikipedia did not conduct a migration survey. It assembled secondary sources, and the formula then became easily reusable by blogs, educational pages, crime databases, podcasts, and other sites. Older revision history should be used to pin down the first exact Wikipedia appearance before assigning a single exact 2008 date.

Current article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Frank

Archived revisions:
https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Frank

Verification: Wording is established in archived Wikipedia-era versions. Exact first revision date still deserves a revision-history audit.

---

Source Example 14

Original publication date: Friday, November 13, 2009
Source: HISTORY
Article: “Murder in Atlanta Pencil Factory Leads to Lynching of Leo Frank”
Later update: May 27, 2025
Page: Web page, unpaginated

Quantitative wording: “Thousands of Jewish residents in Atlanta were forced to flee the city.”

This version changes both scale and geography. The earliest formula implies about 1,500 departures from Georgia. HISTORY says plural thousands of Jewish residents were forced to leave Atlanta.

Full URL:
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/april-26/girl-murdered-in-pencil-factory

Verification: Direct HISTORY page and publication history verified.

---

Source Example 15

Date: Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Publication: Jewish Currents
Author: Lawrence Bush
Article: “April 27: Leo Frank”
Page: Web article, unpaginated

Quantitative wording: “the exodus from the state of about half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews.”

This is a nearly complete survival of the original formula twenty-eight years later. It supplies the 3,000 denominator, about one-half as the proportion, and departure from the state.

Full URL:
https://jewishcurrents.org/april-27-leo-frank

Verification: Direct article verified.

---

Source Example 16

Date: Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Source: Poe Forward’s Edgar Allan Poe Blog
Article: “Deathday: Leo Frank 1884-1915 Innocent Lynching Victim”
Page: Blog post, unpaginated

Quantitative wording: “approximately half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews left the state.”

The wording is extremely close to an older Wikipedia formulation. The page even presents the statement in an encyclopedia-like “Aftermath” section. That makes this useful for tracking internet repetition even if direct copying cannot be proved merely from similarity.

Full URL:
https://poeforward.blogspot.com/2010/08/deathday-leo-frank-1884-1915-innocent.html

Verification: Direct web page verified.

---

Source Example 17

Date: Monday, September 12, 2011
Publication: Marietta Patch
Author: Todd Hudson
Article: “The Battle for Leo Frank”
Page: Web article, unpaginated

Quantitative wording: “nearly half of Georgia’s Jewish population is said to have left the state.”

The exact 3,000 disappears, while the one-half proportion survives. The phrase “is said to have” is revealing because it signals inherited reporting rather than a population count performed by the writer.

Full URL:
https://patch.com/georgia/marietta/the-battle-for-leo-frank

Verification: Direct Patch article verified.

---

Source Example 18

Date: Monday, May 27, 2013
Publication: The Times of Israel
Author: Matt Lebovic
Article: “The ADL and KKK, Born of the Same Murder, 100 Years Ago”
Page: Web article, unpaginated

Quantitative wording: “Half of the state’s Jews fled Georgia following the lynching.”

The 3,000 denominator is now gone altogether. Readers receive a straightforward assertion that half of an entire statewide Jewish population fled.

Full URL:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/the-adl-and-kkk-born-of-the-same-murder-100-years-ago/

Verification: Direct Times of Israel article, author, date, title, and wording verified.

---

Source Example 19

Date: Friday, August 23, 2013
Publication: The Jewish Standard
Article: “Georgia, It Is Time to Set Things Right”
Page: Web article, unpaginated

Quantitative wording: “About half the 3,000 Jews living in Georgia soon moved out of state.”

This takes us almost directly back to the 1982 formula. Thirty-one years later, the same 3,000 denominator and approximate one-half proportion appear again.

Full URL:
https://jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/georgia-it-is-time-to-set-things-right/amp/

Verification: Direct article verified.

---

Source Example 20

Date: 2013, exact publication day not yet established
Source: The Jewish Community of North Alabama: A Brief History
Institutional setting: Huntsville Jewish community historical/educational material
Page: Original document page not yet recovered

Quantitative wording: “half of Georgia’s 3000 Jews left the state.”

The statement is another clean half-of-3,000 version. I have located archival and historical material connected with the North Alabama Jewish community, but I have not recovered a stable original page displaying this precise sentence. It should therefore remain in the chronology with that limitation clearly marked.

Available archival locator:
https://theclio.com/entry/198941

Verification: Source family and quotation recorded. Original document URL, exact date, and printed page still need recovery.

---

Source Example 21

Date: Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Source: Arden Theatre Company
Author: Sally Ollove, Literary Manager
Article: “Post-Parade – What Happens to Georgia?”
Page: Web page, unpaginated

Quantitative wording: “following the Frank lynching, about half of Georgia’s Jewish population fled the state.”

This is educational background produced in connection with Arden’s production of Parade. It shows the numerical story moving into theater-based historical education. The 3,000 denominator is omitted, while the half-population assertion remains.

Full URL:
https://ardentheatre.org/post-parade-georgi/

Verification: Direct Arden page, date, author, and wording verified.

---

Source Example 22

Date: May 2014
Author: Jacqueline S. May
Institution: Florida Atlantic University
Document: Ph.D. dissertation
Title: Americans All! The Role of Advertising in Re-Imaging Ethnicity in America: The Case of the War Advertising Council, 1939-1945
Exact dissertation page for this sentence: Still needs to be logged from the paginated original

Quantitative wording: “Approximately half of the state’s Jewish population left the area.”

The dissertation identifies May, Florida Atlantic University, and 2014 directly. This entry is especially interesting for source genealogy because May cites Theoharis in the relevant historical discussion, giving us a visible academic transmission branch from earlier secondary writing.

Searchable dissertation copy:
https://paperzz.com/doc/8928830/americans-all–the-role-of-advertising-in-re

Verification: Dissertation title, author, institution, and May 2014 date verified. Exact printed page still needs recording.

---

Source Example 23

Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2015
Publication: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Author: Greg Bluestein
Article: “Roy Barnes: It’s Time to Pardon Leo Frank”
Page: Web article, unpaginated

Quantitative wording: “As many as a half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews fled after the hanging.”

The qualifier becomes “as many as”, but the old 3,000 denominator remains. The article appeared during centennial coverage of Frank’s August 1915 lynching.

Full URL:
https://www.ajc.com/blog/politics/roy-barnes-time-pardon-leo-frank/EoTyKGxfln5jgQuwi19tYM/

Verification: Direct AJC page and exact wording verified.

---

Source Example 24

Date: Friday, August 21, 2015
Publication: J. The Jewish News of Northern California
Author: Seth Brysk, then ADL Central Pacific Regional Director
Original article title: Direct original article still needs recovery
Page: Not yet verified

Quantitative wording: “half of Atlanta’s Jewish community, the largest in the American South, fled the state.”

This is another geographical mutation. The population being divided in half is Atlanta’s Jewish community, while the destination language says they fled the state.

The exact original JWeekly article URL has not yet been recovered in this pass, so I would not disguise a newspaper archive locator as the direct article.

Newspaper archive locator:
https://www.nli.org.il/en/newspapers/jweekly/

Verification: Date, author attribution, and wording are part of the established chronology. Direct article page and printed page remain to be recovered.

---

Source Example 25

Date: Monday, September 21, 2015
Source: Philadelphia Anti-Defamation League / Philly.com
Author: Nancy K. Baron-Baer
Article: “Campaign Aims to Improve Response to Hate Crimes”
Page: Web article, unpaginated

Quantitative wording: “half of Atlanta’s Jewish community, the largest in the South, fled the state.”

The language closely follows the August Seth Brysk version. Again, Atlanta has replaced Georgia as the population denominator.

Full archived URL:
https://philadelphia.adl.org/nancy-k-baron-baer-campaign-called-50-states-against-hate-puts-focus-on-lax-hate-crimes-laws

Verification: Direct archived ADL reproduction verified.

---

Source Example 26

Date: Friday, September 25, 2015
Publication: Vindicator
Author: Nancy K. Baron-Baer
Article: “Taking on Hate Crimes”
Credit: Reprinted from the Philadelphia Inquirer
Page: Online archive, unpaginated

Quantitative wording: same half-of-Atlanta’s-Jewish-community formulation.

This is a direct example of republication. Baron-Baer’s argument is reproduced in another newspaper. It counts as another publication appearance, but obviously not another independent demographic study.

Full archive URL:
https://vindyarchives.com/news/2015/sep/25/taking-on-hate-crimes/

Verification: Article/date/reprint relationship established. Original printed page has not yet been logged.

---

Source Example 27

Date: Circa 2016
Source: Lorne Bair Rare Books
Document: Catalog Twenty-Five
Item described: C. P. Connolly, The Truth About the Frank Case
Page: p. 17 of the catalog

Quantitative wording: “as many as half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews left the state in the months following the Frank lynching.”

This requires a special warning. The sentence is modern bookseller catalog copy. It is not wording from Connolly’s historical publication. A modern demographic assertion is therefore visually attached to an old Leo Frank document, which can make the number look older than it is if somebody doesn’t separate the catalog description from the original work.

Full catalog PDF:
https://www.lornebair.com/images/upload/cat25-sold-items-marked.pdf

Verification: Catalog source and p. 17 location recorded.

---

Source Example 28

Date: Monday, February 6, 2017
Case: State of Washington v. Donald J. Trump
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case number: No. 17-35105
Document: Anti-Defamation League amicus brief
PDF: 32 pages
Location of assertion: PDF p. 7, footnote 3 / opening historical discussion

Quantitative wording: “about half of Georgia’s Jewish population to flee.”

This is the point where the numerical story enters a federal appellate filing. The official Ninth Circuit file shows the sentence on page 7.

Official Ninth Circuit PDF:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/02/07/17-35105%20-%20Anti-Defamation%20League%20Amicus%20Brief%20Updated.pdf

Verification: Official court-hosted PDF, case number, filing date, page, and wording verified.

---

Source Example 29

Date: Wednesday, February 8, 2017
Case: Aziz v. Trump
Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Case number: 1:17-cv-00116
Document: ADL amicus filing
Docket material: ADL motion and proposed brief appear in the case docket
Exact page containing the Leo Frank sentence: Not yet recovered from the underlying filing

Quantitative wording: part of the same ADL family stating that about half of Georgia’s Jewish population fled.

This should be retained as another documentary appearance, but until the actual PDF is opened and paginated I would not assign a page number.

Case/docket locator:
https://clearinghouse.net/case/15595/

Verification: Case and ADL filing history identified. Exact quotation page still needs primary-PDF recovery.

---

Source Example 30

Corrected date: Wednesday, February 1, 2017
Case: Darweesh v. Trump
Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Case number: 1:17-cv-00480
Docket entry: No. 33, motion for leave to file amicus brief by the Anti-Defamation League
Page containing the Frank wording: Underlying brief still needs direct PDF recovery

An earlier working chronology dated this entry February 14, 2017. The docket shows the ADL motion was actually filed on February 1, 2017 and granted on February 3. That correction should stay in the permanent source list.

Full docket URL:
https://clearinghouse.net/case/15590/

Verification: ADL participation and February 1 filing verified from the docket. Exact page of the quotation remains to be recovered.

---

Source Example 31

Date: Friday, March 3, 2017
Case: International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump
Court: United States District Court for the District of Maryland
Case: 8:17-cv-00361-TDC
Document: Amicus brief by the Anti-Defamation League and allied organizations
PDF: 30 pages
Location: PDF p. 5, footnote 2

Quantitative wording: “about half of Georgia’s Jewish population to flee.”

This is one of the most valuable documents in the entire genealogy because the footnote itself tells us where the writers got the proposition. It expressly cites Wendell Rawls Jr., The New York Times, March 8, 1982. This gives us an actual documented citation chain rather than a guessed one.

Full PDF:
https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/ab-2017-international-refugee-assistance-project-v-trump-us-court-md.pdf

Verification: Direct PDF, case, filing date, page, footnote, wording, and Rawls citation verified.

---

Source Example 32

Date: Tuesday, March 14, 2017
Case: State of Hawaii v. Trump
Court: United States District Court for the District of Hawaii
Document: ADL and allied organizations’ amicus brief
Exact PDF page: Needs to be rechecked in the original file

Quantitative wording: “about half of Georgia’s Jewish population to flee.”

This is another member of the same ADL litigation family. The wording tracks the Maryland filing and its use of Rawls. No new Georgia migration calculation accompanies the new case.

Full PDF:
https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/ab-2017-hawaii-v-trump-us-district-court-hi.pdf

Verification: Document/source family identified. Exact PDF page should be logged before citing a page number in print.

---

Source Example 33

Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2017
Case: International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Case number: No. 17-1351
Document: ADL and allied organizations’ amicus brief
Page containing numerical sentence: Not yet rechecked

Quantitative wording: same “about half of Georgia’s Jewish population” formulation.

The sentence has now moved from the district court to a federal court of appeals. This adds legal-document circulation but no independent demographic source.

Full PDF:
https://go.adl.org/sites/default/files/ab-2017-irap-v-trump-usca-4th-circuit.pdf

Verification: Filing and source family established. Exact quotation page remains to be logged.

---

Source Example 34

Date: Friday, April 21, 2017
Case: Hawaii v. Trump
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case number: No. 17-15589
Document: ADL and allied organizations’ amicus brief
Length: Approximately 35 pages in archived copy
Quotation page: Needs final pagination check

Quantitative wording: same “about half of Georgia’s Jewish population” formulation.

The sentence is now traveling through a second federal appellate court.

Full PDF:
https://go.adl.org/sites/default/files/ab-2017-hawaii-v-trump-usca-9th-circuit.pdf

Verification: Filing identified. Final exact page should be checked against the PDF before publication.

---

Source Example 35

Date: Saturday, September 2, 2017
Author: Neil Silberblatt
Source: Boston Area Small Press and Poetry Scene / Doug Holder blog
Item: Review of Zvi A. Sesling’s The Lynching of Leo Frank
Page: Web page, unpaginated

Quantitative wording: “the exodus of around half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews.”

This is another Internet-era half-of-3,000 version. The same review also incorrectly associates Frank’s 1915 lynching with the ADL’s creation in October 1913, which is one reason every surrounding assertion in a secondary source needs separate checking.

Full URL:
https://dougholder.blogspot.com/2017_08_27_archive.html

Verification: Direct online review and wording verified.

---

Source Example 36

Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2017
Publication: The Somerville Times
Author: Neil Silberblatt
Item: Review of Zvi A. Sesling’s The Lynching of Leo Frank
Issue: Vol. 5, No. 37
Page: p. 23

Quantitative wording: same “around half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews” formulation.

This is essentially the print appearance of Silberblatt’s earlier online review. It counts as another publication appearance but belongs to the same authorial source family.

Full issue PDF:
https://www.thesomervilletimes.com/getnews/tst_9_13_17.pdf

Verification: Date, issue, author, and p. 23 location recorded.

---

Source Example 37

Date: Thursday, September 14, 2017
Court: United States Supreme Court
Cases: Related travel-ban litigation, including Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project and Trump v. Hawaii
Docket numbers: Nos. 16-1436 and 16-1540
Document: ADL and allied organizations’ amicus filing
Quotation page: Needs final page check against PDF

Quantitative wording: “about half of Georgia’s Jewish population to flee.”

This carried the same historical paragraph into a filing before the United States Supreme Court. The source family continues to trace back to Rawls.

Full PDF:
https://go.adl.org/sites/default/files/ab-2017-international-refugee-assistance-v-trump-us-supreme-court.pdf

Verification: Filing identified. Exact PDF page should still be logged.

---

Source Example 38

Date: Thursday, March 1, 2018
Publication: Public Books
Author: Joshua Benjamin Leavitt
Article: “Walking the Beat in Segregated Atlanta”
Page: Web article, unpaginated

Quantitative wording: “nearly half of the city’s Jewish population left Atlanta after Leo Frank’s lynching.”

This is another geographic mutation. It is no longer half of Georgia’s Jewish population leaving Georgia. It is nearly half of Atlanta’s Jewish population leaving Atlanta.

Full URL:
https://www.publicbooks.org/walking-the-beat-in-segregated-atlanta/

Verification: Direct article, date, author, and wording verified.

---

Source Example 39

Date: Friday, March 30, 2018
Case: Trump v. Hawaii
Court: United States Supreme Court
Docket: No. 17-965
Document: Brief of Anti-Defamation League and allied organizations as amici curiae
PDF: 40 pages
Location: PDF p. 13, footnote 2

Quantitative wording: “about half of Georgia’s Jewish population to flee.”

This is one of the strongest documented examples of citation transmission. The footnote expressly identifies Wendell Rawls Jr.’s March 8, 1982 New York Times article and even prints its URL.

Official Supreme Court PDF:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-965/41716/20180330121250017_Amicus%20Brief–17-965bsacAnti-DefamationLeague.pdf

Verification: Official Supreme Court document, filing date, page, footnote, wording, and Rawls citation verified.

---

Source Example 40

Date: Thursday, August 23, 2018
Publication: Atlanta Jewish Times
Author: Logan C. Ritchie
Article: “Historical Marker of Leo Frank Returns”
Page: Web article, unpaginated

Quantitative wording in the article’s chronology: “Thousands of Jewish residents escape the city.”

This again converts the original approximately 1,500 statewide departures into unspecified thousands connected with Atlanta.

Full URL:
https://www.atlantajewishtimes.com/historical-marker-of-leo-frank-returns/

Verification: Direct article and exact timeline wording verified.

---

Source Example 41

Date: Sunday, October 28, 2018
Publication: Haaretz
Author: David B. Green
Article: “From Lynchings to Mass Shootings: The History of Deadly Attacks on Jews in America”
Page: Original web article, unpaginated

Quantitative wording: “More than half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews left the state after Frank’s killing.”

This is a numerical escalation. Roberts wrote half, Rawls wrote about half, others wrote nearly half or as many as half. This version becomes more than half, while keeping the 3,000 denominator.

The original Haaretz article is not fully exposed in the current search interface, but History News Network preserves an accessible article locator/reproduction.

Accessible source:
https://www.hnn.us/article/from-lynchings-to-mass-shootings-the-history-of-de

Verification: Article, author, date, and wording identified. Original Haaretz page should be retained if a stable direct URL is recovered.

---

Source Example 42

Date: Friday, February 1, 2019
Publication: The Washington Post
Author: Emily Langer
Article: “Leonard Dinnerstein, Distinguished Historian of Anti-Semitism in America, Dies at 84”
Page: Web obituary, unpaginated

Quantitative wording: “Half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews fled the state, the New York Times reported years later.”

This is unusually useful because The Washington Post names the source family in the sentence itself. It tells its readers that the numerical statement came from The New York Times.

Full URL:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/leonard-dinnerstein-distinguished-historian-of-anti-semitism-in-america-dies-at-84/2019/02/01/06c29680-25d8-11e9-90cd-dedb0c92dc17_story.html

Verification: Direct Washington Post result, title, author, date, wording, and New York Times attribution verified.

---

Source Example 43

Original publication date: Sunday, March 3, 2019
Original publication: Deseret News
Authors: Utah Attorney General Sean D. Reyes and ADL Central Pacific Regional Director Seth Brysk
Article: “Utah’s Hate Crimes Law Would Protect Everyone. Here Are the Facts”
Republication: Utah Attorney General website, March 5, 2019
Page: Web article, unpaginated

Quantitative wording: “half of Atlanta’s Jewish community, the largest in the American South, fled the state.”

The Utah Attorney General’s page expressly says the op-ed was originally published in the Deseret News on March 3, 2019. Brysk therefore carries substantially the same Atlanta-community wording that appeared under his name in 2015 into another publication four years later.

Full Utah AG reproduction:
https://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/hate-crimes-law-would-protect-everyone/

Verification: Authors, original publication date, republication date, and exact wording verified.

---

Source Example 44

Date: 2020
Author: Taylor Marks
Institution: University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Document: M.A. thesis
Title: The Jewish Problem: Anti-Semitic Admissions Quotas in Southern U.S. Medical Schools, 1920s-1960s
Printed thesis page: p. 50

Quantitative wording: “an estimated 3000 Jews fled Georgia.”

This is one of the biggest numerical changes in the chronology.

The early formula was:

3,000 total population → approximately 1,500 departures.

This version makes:

approximately 3,000 people → the departures themselves.

The alleged departure count has doubled.

Full thesis PDF:
https://ninercommons.charlotte.edu/record/1389/files/Marks_uncc_0694N_12555.pdf

Verification: Thesis, institution, wording, and printed p. 50 location identified.

---

Source Example 45

Date: Fall 2020, chronology dated September 1, 2020
Publication: The Cairo Review of Global Affairs
Author: Jonathan Weisman
Article: “Resisting the Tide of Bigotry”
Page: Web article, unpaginated

Quantitative wording: “Half of Atlanta’s Jewish population simply left.”

Georgia has again become Atlanta, and the denominator of 3,000 disappears. The one-half proportion survives intact.

Full URL:
https://www.thecairoreview.com/essays/resisting-the-tide-of-bigotry/

Verification: Direct Cairo Review article and wording verified. Publication is identified as Fall 2020. September 1 is the working web chronology date.

---

Source Example 46

Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2020
Program: Let’s Go To Court!
Episode: No. 149, “Wrongful Convictions”
Format: Podcast
Transcript location: Approximately 02:26:51

Quantitative wording: “roughly half of the Jewish population there fled.”

The surrounding discussion is about Atlanta’s Jewish community. This carries the half-population assertion into popular true-crime podcasting. The searchable transcript provides the starting timestamp.

Full transcript URL:
https://podscripts.co/podcasts/lets-go-to-court/149-wrongful-convictions

Verification: Episode, date, transcript, wording, and approximate timestamp verified.

---

Source Example 47

Original date: Wednesday, January 6, 2021
Updated: January 29, 2021
Publication: Hey Alma
Author: Emily Burack
Article: “Who Was Leo Frank, the Jewish Man Lynched in Georgia?”
Page: Web article, unpaginated

Quantitative wording: “around half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews left the state.”

This is extremely close to modern Wikipedia wording. The page first says Jewish families began fleeing Atlanta, then immediately gives the statewide half-of-3,000 formula.

Full URL:
https://www.heyalma.com/who-was-leo-frank-the-jewish-man-lynched-in-georgia/

Verification: Direct article and wording verified.

---

Source Example 48

Date: Friday, January 8, 2021
Publication: Jewish Journal
Author: Eric Kingsley
Article: “Jewish Georgia – a Century in the Making”
Page: Web article, unpaginated

Quantitative wording: “About 3,000 Jews, roughly half the state’s Jewish population at the time, fled the state after the event.”

This is the doubled version in full.

Earlier version:

3,000 total, about 1,500 leave.

Kingsley version:

approximately 6,000 total, about 3,000 leave.

We are no longer looking at a small difference in adjectives. The arithmetic has changed.

Full URL:
https://jewishjournal.com/commentary/327146/jewish-georgia-a-century-in-the-making/

Verification: Direct article, date, author, and exact numerical formulation verified.

---

Source Example 49

Date: 2021, book publication commonly dated March 2, 2021
Author: Gwendolyn Midlo Hall
Book: Haunted by Slavery: A Memoir of a Southern White Woman in the Freedom Struggle
Publisher: Haymarket Books
Printed page containing sentence: Not yet independently logged

Quantitative wording: “About half the Jews living in Georgia moved out.”

The 3,000 denominator has disappeared, but the one-half statewide proportion remains. A searchable electronic edition confirms the book’s existence and text availability.

Searchable book record:
https://www.perlego.com/book/1436891/haunted-by-slavery-a-memoir-of-a-southern-white-woman-in-the-freedom-struggle-pdf

Verification: Book and wording identified. Printed page still needs physical or paginated-edition verification.

---

Source Example 50

Date: Wednesday, April 28, 2021
Institution: Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives
Article: “The Lynching of Leo Frank”
Page: Web article, unpaginated

Quantitative wording: “half of Georgia’s 3,000-large Jewish community fled the state.”

The statement appears on the American Jewish Archives website. The surrounding paragraph also invokes Jonathan Weisman when discussing assimilation, but the page does not supply a separate statewide departure table underneath the numerical sentence.

Full URL:
https://www.americanjewisharchives.org/snapshots/the-lynching-of-leo-frank/

Verification: Direct institutional page and exact wording verified.

---

Source Example 51

Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2022
Speaker: Trudy Gold
Institution/program: Lockdown University
Lecture: “The Beilis and Frank Trials in 1913: Two Blood Libel Trials in America and Russia, Different Endings”
Format: Video lecture with transcript
Page: Transcript is unpaginated

Quantitative wording: “the lynching led to half of Georgia’s Jews leaving.”

The statement appears directly in the searchable lecture transcript. This is therefore no longer an unverified secondary attribution. The original Lockdown University transcript is recoverable and confirms it.

Lecture page:
https://www.lockdownuniversity.org/lectures/153-the-beilis-and-frank-trials-in-1913-two-blood-libel-trials-in-america-and-russia-different-endings

Transcript:
https://www.lockdownuniversity.org/lectures/153-the-beilis-and-frank-trials-in-1913-two-blood-libel-trials-in-america-and-russia-different-endings/transcript

Verification: Speaker, lecture title, July 12, 2022 date, and exact half-of-Georgia formulation verified from the primary transcript.

---

Source Example 52

Date: October 4, 2022
Author: Adam Hochschild
Book: American Midnight: The Great War, a Violent Peace, and Democracy’s Forgotten Crisis
Publisher: Mariner Books
Printed page: Not yet independently logged

Quantitative wording: “Half the 3,000 Jews living in Georgia left the state.”

The book’s wording is independently confirmed by Hochschild’s later American Heritage adaptation, which repeats the exact sentence. That gives us strong textual confirmation even though I have not yet assigned a printed book page.

Searchable book record:
https://www.everand.com/book/598418945/American-Midnight-The-Great-War-a-Violent-Peace-and-Democracy-s-Forgotten-Crisis

Verification: Book, author, publication year/date, and sentence confirmed. Printed page remains to be logged.

---

Source Example 53

Date: October 2022, working chronology dated October 6
Source: Los Angeles Anti-Defamation League
Authorial source: Eric Kingsley
Article: “Jewish Georgia – a Century in the Making”
Source relationship: Republication of Kingsley’s Jewish Journal article
Page: Web page, unpaginated

Quantitative wording: “About 3,000 Jews, roughly half the state’s Jewish population at the time, fled the state after the event.”

This is not a new demographic study. It is an ADL republication of Kingsley’s 3,000-departure version. The page itself identifies the source as Jewish Journal.

Full URL:
https://la.adl.org/jewish-georgia-a-century-in-the-making

Original Jewish Journal source:
https://jewishjournal.com/commentary/327146/jewish-georgia-a-century-in-the-making/

Verification: Direct republication and source relationship verified.

---

Source Example 54

Date: Wednesday, October 26, 2022
Case: Moore v. Harper
Court: United States Supreme Court
Docket: No. 21-1271
Document: Amicus brief of the Anti-Defamation League, Sikh Coalition, Union for Reform Judaism, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Women of Reform Judaism, Men of Reform Judaism, and others
PDF: 24 pages
Location: PDF p. 8, footnote 2

Quantitative wording: “about half of Georgia’s Jewish population to flee.”

The footnote again points directly to Wendell Rawls Jr., March 8, 1982. Five years after the travel-ban briefs, the same Rawls-derived sentence appears in unrelated Supreme Court litigation.

Official Supreme Court PDF:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1271/244089/20221026190232773_21-1271bsacAnti-DefamationLeagueTheSikhCoalitionTheUnionForReformJudaismCentralConferenceOfAmericanRabbisWomenOfReformJudaismAndMenOfReformJudaism.pdf

Verification: Official Supreme Court PDF, filing date, page, wording, and Rawls citation verified.

---

Source Example 55

Date: Thursday, January 12, 2023
Program: No Agenda
Episode: No. 1520, “Hambone”
Format: Podcast/show notes
Page: Web notes, unpaginated

Quantitative wording: “After Frank’s lynching, around half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews left the state.”

The wording is extremely close to the modern Wikipedia formulation. It shows the same numerical sentence moving into podcast-associated web material.

Full show-notes URL:
https://adam.curry.com/html/NoAgendaEpisode1520H-RrpLW906gx37FG83S09FPfGgf90gmD.html

Verification: Episode/date and wording recorded in chronology. Direct page is intermittently inaccessible to the current crawler.

---

Source Example 56

Date: Winter 2023
Publication: American Heritage
Volume/issue: Vol. 68, No. 1
Author: Adam Hochschild
Article: “These Are No Ordinary Times”
Page: Web version, unpaginated

Quantitative wording: “Half the 3,000 Jews living in Georgia left the state.”

This is adapted from Hochschild’s American Midnight. It is therefore a new publication appearance but not a new authorial or demographic source.

Full URL:
https://www.americanheritage.com/these-are-no-ordinary-times

Verification: Direct American Heritage page, issue information, author, and exact sentence verified.

---

Source Example 57

Original publication: Thursday, April 6, 2023
Updated: May 28, 2025
Publication: HISTORY
Article: “The Lynching of Leo Frank: Trial, Murder & Legacy”
Page: Web article, unpaginated

Quantitative wording: “In the aftermath of terror, about half the 3,000 Jews in Georgia left the state.”

This is one of the clearest modern citation-chain examples because HISTORY immediately identifies the source as The New York Times. The wording is essentially the Rawls sentence from March 8, 1982.

Full URL:
https://www.history.com/articles/leo-frank-lynching

Verification: Direct HISTORY page, publication/update dates, wording, and New York Times attribution verified.

---

Source Example 58

Date: Wednesday, May 31, 2023
Publication: Jewish Journal
Author: Thane Rosenbaum
Article: “Leo Frank and the Parade of Horribles”
Page: Web opinion article, unpaginated

Quantitative wording: “Soon after the Leo Frank verdict, half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews left the state altogether.”

The wording also shifts the timing. It says “soon after the Leo Frank verdict,” rather than specifically after the August 1915 lynching. The 3,000 denominator and one-half proportion remain.

Full URL:
https://jewishjournal.com/commentary/opinion/359291/leo-frank-and-the-parade-of-horribles/

Verification: Direct article, author, date, and exact wording verified.

---

Source Example 59

Date: Thursday, October 26, 2023
Source: Davelandblog
Article: “Trip to Atlanta, Pt. 3”
Page: Blog post, unpaginated

Quantitative wording: “around half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews left the state.”

This is another close reproduction of the familiar Wikipedia-style wording. It shows the statistic entering travel and personal historical blogging.

Full URL:
https://davelandblog.blogspot.com/2023/10/?m=0

Verification: Date and wording recorded. The site’s monthly archive URL is currently more stable than a separately indexed post URL.

---

Source Example 60

Publication date metadata: March 18, 2025, with March 19, 2025 also appearing in the page’s publication/update history
Publication: The Georgia Sun
Author: Erin Greer
Section: Opinion, “Underdressed and Overeducated”
Article: “Leo Frank: Pentagon Official Reignites Firestorm Around Century-Old Georgia Murder Case”
Page: Web article, unpaginated

Quantitative wording: “Fearing for their lives, half of Georgia’s Jewry fled the state.”

The article is explicitly an opinion column, which should be included when describing the source. The exact 3,000 denominator is absent, but half of the statewide Jewish population remains the assertion.

Full URL:
https://thegeorgiasun.com/opinion/underdressed-and-overeducated/leo-frank-pentagon-official-reignites-firestorm-around-century-old-georgia-murder-case/

Verification: Direct Georgia Sun page and wording verified.

---

Source Example 61

Date in working chronology: Friday, September 12, 2025
Source: Chai Channel
Article: “The Antisemitism of the KKK”
Format: Blog article/archive page
Page: Unpaginated

Quantitative wording: “In the aftermath of terror, about half the 3,000 Jews in Georgia left the state.”

This is an unusually useful example because the surrounding text identifies Wendell Rawls Jr. of The New York Times before reproducing the Rawls passage. It therefore openly shows the transmission route rather than forcing us to infer it.

Full archive URL:
https://chaichannelnews.weebly.com/chai-blog/previous/2

Verification: Article wording and Rawls attribution verified on the Chai Channel archive page. A stable individual-post URL has not yet been recovered.

---

Source Example 62

Source date: 2026
Support-material asset: May 2026
Institution: Georgia Public Broadcasting
Series: Georgia Stories
Program: “Justice or Prejudice? The Leo Frank Trial Explained”
Narration: Tess Hammock
Educational level: Social Studies, grades 6-8
Standard: SS8H7.d
Page: Web lesson page, unpaginated

Quantitative wording in the program transcript: “about half of Georgia’s Jewish population left the state out of fear and concern for their safety.”

The GPB page is significant because this version has entered standards-aligned middle-school educational material. GPB provides a video, teaching materials, discussion questions, and a downloadable transcript.

Main GPB URL:
https://www.gpb.org/education/georgiastories/the-leo-frank-trial-explained

Transcript/support file:
https://www.gpb.org/sites/default/files/2026-05/ga_stories_-leo_frank–final-_cw_v1_1080p_0.docx

Verification: Official GPB lesson page, target grade range, standard, and support-material link verified.

---

Source Example 63

Retrieval date for this chronology: September 2026
Source: Wikipedia
Article: “Leo Frank”
Page: Web encyclopedia article, unpaginated
Current footnote: The numerical sentence currently carries Wikipedia footnote 244

Quantitative wording: “After Frank’s lynching, around half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews left the state.”

The figure remains visible in the current article. This is one of the most important transmission nodes because derivative websites can reproduce Wikipedia’s wording without independently checking the underlying source.

Full URL:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Frank

Verification: Current wording and footnote position directly verified.

---

Source Example 64

Retrieval date: September 2026
Source: Wikipedia
Article: “Lynching in the United States”
Page: Web encyclopedia article, unpaginated

Quantitative wording: “After the lynching of Leo Frank, around half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews left the state.”

The same statistic therefore appears in a second major Wikipedia article. One numerical assertion now has multiple Wikipedia entry points into search engines and derivative writing.

Full URL:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States

Verification: Direct current Wikipedia wording verified.

---

Source Example 65

Source: MurderIndex
Entry: “Leo Frank”
Publication date: Not stated on page
Page: Online crime-reference entry, unpaginated

Quantitative wording: “After Frank’s lynching, approximately half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews left the state.”

The wording resembles an older Wikipedia formulation almost word for word. This source is especially useful for documenting the migration of the numerical formula into online true-crime databases.

Full URL:
https://murderindex.com/offender/3185-leo-frank

Verification: Direct MurderIndex wording verified.

A separate attribution of similar wording to Murderpedia remains unconfirmed and should not be merged with this confirmed MurderIndex example.

---

Source Example 66

Source: Langdon Manor Books
Current accessible listing: AbeBooks
Item being described: Reuben R. Arnold, The Trial of Leo Frank
Original work: 1915
Catalog/listing date: Not established
Page: Online bookseller listing, unpaginated

Quantitative wording: “Around half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews left the state.”

As with Lorne Bair, this needs to be labeled correctly. It is a modern bookseller description, not language written by Arnold in 1915. The distinction is crucial because otherwise a reader could mistake the modern population claim for a contemporary 1915 source.

Full listing URL:
https://www.abebooks.com/first-edition/Trial-Leo-Frank-Arnold-Reuben-R/32085628226/bd

Verification: Listing/source relationship identified. Original Langdon Manor listing date has not been established.

---

Source Example 67

Source: HistoryCentral
Article: “Anti-Semitism in America”
Publication date: Not displayed
Page: Web educational/history article, unpaginated

Quantitative wording: “Following the lynching, nearly half of Georgia’s Jewish population of 3,000 left the state.”

“About half” has become “nearly half,” but 3,000 remains the denominator.

Full URL:
https://www.historycentral.com/semitism.html

Verification: Direct HistoryCentral article and exact numerical wording verified.

---

Source Example 68

Source: Stride, Inc. educational material
Host: UJA-Federation of New York
Document title in file: “Leo_Frank_Case”
File name: Blog-By-Rebecca-Tanenbaum.pdf
Length: 6 pages
Location of numerical assertion: PDF p. 2 of 6
Publication date: Not visible in the PDF copy checked
Copyright: Stride, Inc.

Quantitative wording: “After Frank’s murder, about half of the Jews in Georgia left the state.”

The PDF provides the assertion directly on page 2. The document is educational material, not a demographic publication.

Full PDF URL:
https://www.ujafedny.org/api/v2/assets/Blog-By-Rebecca-Tanenbaum.pdf

Verification: Direct PDF, six-page length, page 2 location, copyright line, and wording verified.

---

Source Example 69

Source: Today in Civil Liberties History
Entry: “Leo Frank Lynched – Anti-Semitism Rises”
Historical event date displayed: August 17, 1915
Web publication date: Not stated
Page: Web historical chronology entry, unpaginated

Quantitative wording: “Reportedly, half of the Jews living in Georgia left after the lynching.”

Like JTA in March 1982, this page uses “reportedly.” The 3,000 denominator is gone, but the statewide one-half proportion survives.

Full URL:
https://todayinclh.com/?event=leo-frank-lynched

Verification: Entry and wording recorded. The site’s publication date for the webpage itself is not stated.

---

Source Example 70

Source: Temple Judah educational handout
Current surviving copy: Doczz mirror
Original publication date: Not established
Length of mirrored document: 8 pages
Location: p. 4 of 8

Quantitative wording: “After Frank’s lynching, around half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews left the state.”

The surviving handout closely follows encyclopedia-style wording. Because the present copy is a mirror, not Temple Judah’s original server, it should be described exactly that way. The source still counts as a documentary appearance, but its precise original publication date and original Temple Judah URL remain unresolved.

Full surviving mirror URL:
https://doczz.net/doc/1017993/here—temple-judah

Verification: Mirrored eight-page handout and p. 4 location recorded. Original publication date and original host URL remain to be recovered.

Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.

Atlanta Journal
September 2nd, 1913

New Grand Jury Organized, Nineteen True Bills on First Day

Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey stated Tuesday morning that in all probability Jim Conley, the negro on whose evidence the state mainly rested its case in the trial of Leo M. Frank, will be indicted Friday at the next meeting of the grand jury. The charge, said the solicitor, will be accessory after the crime.

The new grand jury met Tuesday morning, organized and transacted routine business.

Nineteen true bills were returned, most of them being against negroes.

Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.

[This is a newly transcribed article that was previously missed during transcription. Here is Chapter 4 from the chapter series the Atlanta Georgian had printed in July of 1913 over the course of several days.]

Atlanta Georgian
July 25^th, 1913

Inquest Into Slaying of Factory Girl and First Sensational ‘Confession’ of Negro Sweeper Jim Conley.

CHAPTER IV.

Through all the interrogation of witnesses by the Coroner’s jury and through the ordeal of a half day’s inquisition of Leo M. Frank, no bit of direct and positive evidence was developed against either Newt Lee or Frank. When, however, at the close of their session on Thursday, May 8, the six jurors found that Mary Phagan had come to her death by strangulation and ordered that Frank and Lee be held to the Grand Jury, they did the only thing left to them.

So far as they knew at that time Frank and Lee were the only persons who could have had the opportunity to commit the crime. They knew that they were unequal to the mystery, the baffling elements of which mounted in numbers and proportions as the case progressed. They passed it on to the Grand Jury.

Lee and Frank, as the two persons who presumably would know the most about the crime, were probably the most important witnesses, but the closest interrogation of the negro failed to bring out any important testimony that he had not already given the officers.

Continue Reading →

Dear PBS Board of Directors:

Paula Kerger, President

Chair Catherine Robb,

Co-Chair Geoff Sands and Jayme Swain

Members: Delores Fernandez Alonso, Mark G. Contreras, Bob Culkeen, Mildred Garcia, Anne Gates, Susan Goldberg, Chuck Hagel, Shae Hopkins, Marvin Irby, Larry Irving, Michael Isip, Gunjan Kedia, Becky Magura, Carla McCage, Sandra Cordova Micek, Luis Patino, Greg Petrowich, Vivian Riefberg, Tina Sharkey, Amy Shaw, Holden Thorp, and Ed Ulman

My name is Mary Phagan-Kean (@PhaganKean). I am the great-niece and namesake of little Mary Phagan (1899 – 1913), the thirteen-year-old girl murdered at the National Pencil Company in Atlanta on April 26, 1913. [1]

Continue Reading →

William J. Burns and the Great Leo Frank Case Carnival

Introduction

IN 1914, six days short of the first anniversary of the strangulation-murder of 13-year-old Mary Phagan by Jewish businessman and B’nai B’rith official Leo M. Frank on Confederate Memorial Day, 1913, the Frank case entered its most frenetic public phase. A major legal decision was slated to be dropped in a few days. By then, Frank had already been convicted of the gruesome murder of Mary. But Frank’s defense team, flush with money from a national publicity campaign, was furiously working to get witnesses to reverse their testimony, and get Frank a new trial or exonerated one way or another — an exoneration effort that still continues today, led by Jewish groups including the ADL (Anti-Defamation League).

Continue Reading →

by Claire Randall

WITH OVER 500 pages, more than twice the length of the first (1987) edition, the newly-revised and expanded second edition of The Murder of Little Mary Phagan is now available for purchase via the link on www.LittleMaryPhagan.com

The author, Mary Phagan-Kean, states: “This book is the great work of my lifetime, a compelling personal journey, a tale of the shocking sex murder and abuse of my great-aunt, 13-year-old Mary Phagan — and it’s the story that the ADL and other shadowy forces don’t want you to read.”

This is the monograph that finally, and definitively brings the truth about the murder of Mary Phagan by her killer, sweatshop boss and B’nai B’rith official Leo Frank, to light. It’s available now! Click the link or scan the QR code to get your copy at a discount price today.