The Origin of the ADL

[ConfusedJew]

1) because it was a plant.

2) because it's the front door, also, the blunt force trauma occurred in the metal room.

3) because it shows a pattern of exonerating child murderers when they are jewish, even if it takes hundreds of years.

I'm out.

1. That doesn't answer my question at all.

2. Also doesn't answer my question. Not being able to explain this suggests to me that you haven't thought this through for yourself.

3. That is obviously just racist. Even if that was true, which it most certainly isn't, the mere fact that they shared the same religion is irrelevant so to bring that up reveals huge racial bias which casts doubt on your judgment.

If you want to bow out, that's fine, but you haven't convinced me and I doubt anybody else would be convinced by your responses.

[Stubble]

Wait a minute, are you saying that jewish lobby had nothing to do with the removal of Saint Simon and that a jewish lobby has nothing to do with the Leo Frank case?

While you don't even know anything about it?

And while you don't study it, but you ask your ai to rebut for you?

But I'm a racist?

I mean, I am racist, and I've admitted bias, but, that doesn't give you the right to ignore facts, at all.

Furthermore if you can't see how I firmly answered both 1 and 2, you are far more bias than I am.

[Stubble]

Name 1 other pedophile you don't think got a fair trial.

I am not an expert on the legal history of pedophiles in the US. But the concern is that many people have been thrown in prison for false claims of pedophilia. During the Satanic Panic of the 1980s and 1990s, many people, especially those involved in daycare centers or communities, were accused of being involved in Satanic ritual abuse (SRA), despite a lack of physical evidence or real corroborating details. The accusations often came from children who were coached by therapists or investigators, and the claims were frequently sensationalized by the media. Many of the convictions were based on false memories that were either implanted or exaggerated by therapists, social workers, or law enforcement. The media also played a major role in amplifying fears about Satanic rituals, often sensationalizing and distorting facts.

As the years passed and more people were exonerated, it became clear that the Satanic Panic had done immense harm to both the accused and society. It led to reforms in how child abuse cases are handled, especially in relation to children's testimony. Take a closer look into this because this is one of the best examples. Hundreds of people were arrested and dozens of individuals were wrongfully convicted.

Leo Frank had a fair trial by an impartial jury. Every single court that was asked to hear agreed.

That he was ultimately lynched is unfortunate. That his sentence was commuted by a governor on his way out the door prompted that violation of his due process. Furthermore the commutation was not on the merit but from the purse.

I told you why I believe that Leo Frank wasn't given a fair trial and I provided several strong arguments why. You are just saying that you disagree with me without addressing any of my arguments or even introducing new arguments of your own. You say that every single court that was asked to hear agreed which is not true. The U.S. Supreme Court did not hear Leo Frank's case after his conviction, despite an appeal being made.

The claim that the Governor's commutation was based on financial pressure rather than the merit of the case is not supported by any evidence that I've seen. Instead, Slaton’s decision was a reflection of serious doubts about the trial and a desire to correct a potential miscarriage of justice. Slaton was a lawyer by profession and had a deep understanding of the legal issues surrounding Frank’s conviction. He reviewed the trial transcripts and considered the public outcry and concerns about the fairness of Frank’s trial. After a careful review of the case, Governor Slaton commuted Leo Frank’s sentence from death to life imprisonment. Slaton issued the

Both the length of deliberation and the unanimous verdict are sufficient for me as I believe in the rule of law. I also believe in swift justice. The penitentiary system I consider a travesty as I am an advocate for capital and corporal punishment.

The jury did convict him unanimously but this was only 12 people back in 1913. If you think that billions of people can be wrong about the Holocaust, how do you find it sufficient that 12 people believed in Frank's guilt?

Whether nor we should have capital or corporate punishment is a separate discussion that we should postpone to stay on track.

The molestation of the justice system under the guise of 'reasonable doubt' by you I consider to be farcical. Your wanting to relitigate the frank trial is to me repugnant and a slap in the very face of lady justice.

The reason for a jury of 12 is to insure that charges are beyond a reasonable doubt in the result of a conviction. Futher appeals and pleas, to me, undermine the justice system in general.

Leo Frank was not only guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but, found to be so by all 12 members of the jury.

The reasonable doubt standard exists for a reason. If you want to argue against it, you should argue that it is not a good standard and it should be changed or that the evidence in the case surpassed a reasonable doubt.

As an aside, plenty of court cases have affirmed the existence of the Holocaust and punished Nazis for their role in it during the Nuremberg trial. It's important to remain consistent. It's not intellectually honest to trust one jury and not others, unless you have specific reasons why this jury was very trustworthy and others aren't.

With the satanic panic we get into content for another thread, I will leave that dog laying right there, but, have no illusions, we are in staunch disagreement, children don't get the clap from going to daycare, they get it from sexual abuse.

It is somewhat relevant to this. I haven't seen any evidence that children "got the clap" and there's a lot of evidence showing that a panicked populous led to wrongful convictions. This is why we want to make sure the bar for convicting people is very high. Some people may be OK with a lower bar if it means putting away more criminals but you will have more false convictions too.

Yes, we can talk about that in a different thread.

Concerning the STDs and what you refer to as the 'Satanic Panic'.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html

Of course, I'm sure the LA Times isn't a reputable source, right?

Also, another thread;

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=326

We can discuss 'Satanic Panic' things there.

[ConfusedJew]

You're clearly not discussing this in good faith and you just admitted that you are a racist which destroys your credibility.

If you keep cherry picking data, it misrepresents the whole story and you can keep doing that again and again which twists the truth.

Perhaps a few children were sexually abused and contracted chlamydia. This is definitely possible because unfortunately sexual abuse is a real thing. But it totally ignores the fact that many people were falsely convicted for such crimes with very little evidence which were eventually overturned.

You definitely didn't clearly explain your argument about the bloody shirt and how it might all fit into Leo Frank's guilt. The fact that you are completely certain also shows that you aren't arguing in good faith because an intellectually honest person knows that they can't be 100% certain about anything in life. You're welcome to try again, but I'm here to have a serious debate, not just be trolled by a self confessed racist.

[Stubble]

I admitted I harbor judenhass pages ago. That I am also a race realist (your preferred term, racist) should really be no surprise.

I also said I was bias, pages ago.

You also are clearly bias, as you don't even know anything about the case, but, you do ask ai to carry your water for you.

So far as the 'Satanic Panic' goes, kindly move that conversation to the appropriate thread.

The difference between you and I is that I'm both blunt, and honest. You, probably sit down to pee.

(This guy, he obviously doesn't recognize my profile avatar)

[ConfusedJew]

I admitted I harbor judenhass pages ago. That I am also a race realist (your preferred term, racist) should really be no surprise.

I also said I was bias, pages ago.

You also are clearly bias, as you don't even know anything about the case, but, you do ask ai to carry your water for you.

So far as the 'Satanic Panic' goes, kindly move that conversation to the appropriate thread.

The difference between you and I is that I'm both blunt, and honest. You, probably sit down to pee.

(This guy, he obviously doesn't recognize my profile avatar)

Why do you have "judenhass" and what does that mean to you? What has any Jew ever done to harm you, either directly or indirectly? What is a "race realist"?

I do know something about the case but I don't have all the facts and neither do you obviously. If you are an actual truth seeker, you will be interested in gathering more facts but you have said that your mind is closed.

If a new piece of evidence hypothetically surfaced that irrefutably proved that Conley was the murderer and Frank was completely innocent, would you even care? Would you change your position and feel bad that an innocent man was lynched just because of his ethnicity or would you be happy that he was killed just because of his Jewish background?

I use AI as a research and analytical tool but it is not omniscient or omnipotent which is why I need to sort out what's factually accurate or not with somebody like you.

[Stubble]

This particular detail is not something I'm actively studying, I studied it for around 3 years and am confident in my position. Regarding any 'new evidence' I would be highly skeptical and I would hold a very high bar for acceptance. Again, I consider the Leo Frank case quite settled, I believe it has been quite settled for a great many years. I do not feel the individual case, which is cut and dry, ever merited the review it has undergone.

Regarding my personal views on race and on the jewish question, that merits another thread.

Race realism is recognizing that the different races and sub races are physically and cognitively different. Again, that's fodder for another thread.

What you ascribe to regarding race is what I term 'Blank Slate Collectivism', it could also be termed 'judeo bolshevism' or 'communism'.

I'm a nationalist, I'm not a cosmopolitan internationalist that believes everyone is the same.

Again, content for another thread.

If you would like to delve deeper into any of these particulars, start a thread, in the other sub forum most likely, or you can feel free to reach out via a DM. I am good about responding to posts and to DM's.

This particular thread, is supposed to be about Leo Frank and the ADL.

[ConfusedJew]

OK so I take it that based on your study of the evidence presented in the court, you believe "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Leo Frank murdered the girl?

Do you think the reasonable doubt standard is the right threshold to apply for punishing somebody for alleged murder or are you OK with lowering the bar and accepting that more people will be accidentally punished?

I'll continue to do research on this and if I come back with a compelling finding, I will see how you respond to it.

[Stubble]

1) correct

2) I believe in swift justice and the rule of law. This is not an omelet eggs kind of thing. It is a trust the judiciary kind of thing.

The judge and the jury heard the defense, they reached a unanimous verdict without much delay. There was no question. It was beyond any reasonable doubt. That you dispute and continue to litigate this shows an utter lack of respect for the process.

A little girl was raped and murdered by Leo Frank, and you, without even knowing the facts or understanding the case come here and continue to try to frame a Black man for that murder. You don't even know what the evidence was, how it was gathered or what the implications were. You can't even understand how murdering little Mary Phagan at the front door was problematic, for the act, for the timetable or for the evidence of where the attack actually took place. The only person that was in the correct place at the correct time to issue the blunt force to her skull was Leo Frank, what's more he tried to frame 2 separate Black men for his crime. After he paid one of them the sum of $200.00 (about 5,600 in 2025 dollars) to assist him with his disposal of the body.

3) feel free, understand that I am both bias and not easily swayed. Also understand that I have judenhass in me at this point and that I am a 'racist' to boot. I am very open about this, and don't take it personally. My judenhass is directed towards organized jewry and the evil it bears like bitter fruit any place it takes root and grows, not against individual jews.

To be very clear with you on this particular point, I don't hate you. As an example, I hate the people that murder ambulance crews, rape people and bomb infants in their cribs. I hate people that wage a war on me and hate me with every fiber of their being and every oz of marrow in their bones, because they think that I am amalek.

My judenhass is reactionary and completely rational and warranted. I will not sit complacently and idly by while a people wage a war on me and my family, even if that war happens to be unconventional.

I know that should go in another thread, I have no idea where to put such a thread as would be titled 'how I came to realize I was at war with jewry and that my skin color was a uniform'. I also don't know if you are even interested in an exposition on it. Here it is none the less however.

[ConfusedJew]

1) correct

2) I believe in swift justice and the rule of law. This is not an omelet eggs kind of thing. It is a trust the judiciary kind of thing.

The judge and the jury heard the defense, they reached a unanimous verdict without much delay. There was no question. It was beyond any reasonable doubt. That you dispute and continue to litigate this shows an utter lack of respect for the process.

That's fine but why do you "trust the judiciary" and not a million different historians? The judicial system gets things wrong all the time.

A little girl was raped and murdered by Leo Frank, and you, without even knowing the facts or understanding the case come here and continue to try to frame a Black man for that murder. You don't even know what the evidence was, how it was gathered or what the implications were. You can't even understand how murdering little Mary Phagan at the front door was problematic, for the act, for the timetable or for the evidence of where the attack actually took place. The only person that was in the correct place at the correct time to issue the blunt force to her skull was Leo Frank, what's more he tried to frame 2 separate Black men for his crime. After he paid one of them the sum of $200.00 (about 5,600 in 2025 dollars) to assist him with his disposal of the body.

I'm not framing anybody. I'm looking at the facts and trying to figure it out for myself as if I were a member of the jury. I certainly don't trust most juries, let alone one in 1913 in a region that was very racist.

3) feel free, understand that I am both bias and not easily swayed. Also understand that I have judenhass in me at this point and that I am a 'racist' to boot. I am very open about this, and don't take it personally. My judenhass is directed towards organized jewry and the evil it bears like bitter fruit any place it takes root and grows, not against individual jews.

You admit that you are racist and have bias. If you on trial in a murder case, which you know you didn't commit, would you want somebody with that description to serve on your jury?

What does it mean that you have a hatred towards organized Jewry? Jews organize for all different kinds of reason. Is it any worse for Jews to "organize" compared to fascists or Neo Nazis or the KKK?

To be very clear with you on this particular point, I don't hate you. As an example, I hate the people that murder ambulance crews, rape people and bomb infants in their cribs. I hate people that wage a war on me and hate me with every fiber of their being and every oz of marrow in their bones, because they think that I am amalek.

Who is waging a war on you and thinks you are Amalek?

My judenhass is reactionary and completely rational and warranted. I will not sit complacently and idly by while a people wage a war on me and my family, even if that war happens to be unconventional.

How is your judenhass reactionary and rational? I understand reactionary to be an emotionally thing which is by definition not rational. I don't understand what kind of a war has been waged on you.

I know that should go in another thread, I have no idea where to put such a thread as would be titled 'how I came to realize I was at war with jewry and that my skin color was a uniform'. I also don't know if you are even interested in an exposition on it. Here it is none the less however.

How are you being persecuted for your skin color, which I assume is white? Many Jews have the same skin color as you more or less.

[Stubble]

1) familiarity with the case.

The rest, fodder for a series of other threads.

Food for thought;





Regarding being reactionary and rational, it is surprising to see my journey echo so loudly in Mein Kampf. This is like a step by step telling of how I got to where I am.

[borjastick]

The ADL formed not specifically to protect Leo Frank, but to protect Jews as a whole from legal discrimination because they had been treated very unfairly for thousands of years up to that point.

Here we go again the jews deluded thinking that despite being hounded and hated for several thousand years it must be everyone else's fault. 110 regions/countries/locations and counting the jews have been despised and removed yet they blame everyone else.

Now it seems the true identity of London's Jack The Ripper has been exposed as ooops an eastern european jew. When that story gains traction wait for the jewish lobby to get stuck in and deny the facts.

They hate truth, ignore and deny historical fact and then cover up when they get exposed for their lies.