" 

 ::I do not agree with conflating any anti-Semitic reviews pro / con of anyone's writing. Mary Kean's book ""The Murder of Little Mary Phagan"" is accurately described as ""the most even handed book about the subject."" and is used quite often by every modern scholar of the Frank case. I found no anti-Semitism in her book or anti-scholarship. Give me an example of anti-Scholarship in her book. She dispels Dinnerstein's ""hang the Jew"" hoax and Phagan bitemark hoax in 87' / 89' treatment. Oney dispelled Dinnerstein's anti-semitic ""hang the jew"" death-threats-being-screamed-at-the-trial-jury hoax.  If you can show me examples of anti-Semitism in the Kean book, please share it. Tom W. Brown was an attorney and professor at Emory University, who was trained in evaluating testimony weight or ""sifting"" as another user put it. Show me examples of anti-Semitism in Tom W. Brown's 1982 research report on Frank case. I found no racism or anti-Judaism.  The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles said Alonzo Mann's testimony and other evidence presented was insufficient to exonerate Leo Frank. Therefore in 1986, Leo Frank's guilt is fully established by GA law, contrary to these so-called scholars providing no substantial evidence that hasn't been reviewed by the Georgia tribunal during four years (82'-86'). The board reviewed all the modern claims pressed by ADL and other cohorts who-worked-together-for-exoneration that were ruled insufficient to address Frank's innocence or guilt. Verifiability and reliability are scholarship hallmarks at Wikipedia. Nothing silly bout' that. Credentials don't make scholars when they use fabrication (academic dishonesty) and fallacious evidence. Making claims and not supporting them with evidence deemed officially valid by the Georgia BOPAP is not scholarship, it's anti-scholarship. Using fabrication (according to Wikipedia academic dishonesty or academic misconduct is a serious violation) to convince people someone is innocent or guilty is not scholarship, it's lying, which is anti-scholarship. Anyone can say Leo Frank is innocent. Anyone can say Leo Frank is guilty. But verifiable and reliable evidence is required. Dozens of the sources listed in bibliographia of the Frank article use Dinnerstein's now acknowledged-by-him as ""insufficient"", or as Gulbenk put it bogus ""hang the jews"", (re: Leo M. Frank and the American Jewish Community', American Jewish Archive Journal, 1968, Volume 20, number 2), is not scholarship, it's academic dishonesty / academic misconduct. Dinnerstein and Oney both promulgating Pierre van Paasen's Mary Phagan bitemark hoax 64' as ""real evidence"" this not scholarship, it's called academic dishonesty / academic misconduct. These other so-called scholars you mentioned, the evidence they present in their books is insufficient according to Georgia BOPAP. Isn't it silly to say Kean's book isn't scholarship when it represents a lifetime of scholarly research? Isn't it silly to accuse Tom W. Brown of conflated guilt by association because of his grandfather's words from 1915? Isn't it silly that everytime someone discovers one of the so-called scholars of the frank case you tout fabricated evidence, or promulgates false evidence or is put in question, you behave like a POV warrior making attacking accusations against the person suggesting anti-Semitism (re: Tom W. Brown)? I turn now to Tony Stewart who emailed Dinnerstein and finally got him to admit the ""hang the Jews"" is not reliable or verifiable (Where's the newspaper clipping? Does it even exist?). Tony, please find out once and for al from Dinnerstein about the Phagan bitemark hoax he promulgates as ""real evidence"" of Frank's innocence in his PHD thesis paper and books.   "