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