Trudy Gold
The Beilis and Frank Trials in 1913: Two Blood Libel Trials in America and Russia, Different Endings

Trudy Gold | The Beilis and Frank Trials in 1913 Two Blood Libel Trials in America and Russia, Different Endings | 07.12.22

Visuals displayed throughout the presentation.

- Yes, thank you very much, Judy, and good evening to everyone. Today I’m doing something slightly different. I’m looking at the last and most terrible blood libel in the reign of Nicholas II. And as a comparison, I’m looking at a blood libel in America at exactly the same period. But before I did that, I thought I should talk a little bit about the blood libel itself. We had that superb presentation last week of Marion. You’ll remember she of course, was the sheriff of Norridge. And that, of course, is where the blood libel first began against the Jews. Now, let me just say, when we talk about when pagan tribes would sacrifice the blood of a baby or of a young woman, to fertilise the earth. And in the early years of Christianity, this was an accusation that was used against one group or another group, and it was also used against witches in mediaeval times. You know, it’s probably the worst thing you can accuse anyone of. Now, it first is applies to the Jews in the English Civil War.

During the first English Civil War, the Jews of course, are under the protection of the king, and the king took a percentage of the debts that Jews collected. So it was always in the interest of the monarch to keep the Jews safe. But in 1144, there was a civil war between Queen Matilda and her cousin Steven. The whole question was, can a woman rule in England? And the Barrons took sides. They ransomed themselves to the Jews because they had to equip all their troops. So they’re all in debt to the Jews and it’s Easter time, and of course you don’t have to use much imagination. We think it was a local Barron who was up to his neck in debt with the local priest. And the story went around that the Jews had used the blood of babies for their Passover bread. And of course the mob go on the rampage into the Jewish quarter. They burn the wooden houses, which in case what the wooden crates which have records of the debts. So they murder the Jews, they burn their property, and of course that means the debts are cancelled.

Now, the problem with the blood libel against the Jews is it’s exported. It’s spread throughout England. And the most famous blood libel in England is Hugh of Lincoln. And it’s particularly important because it was immortalised in Chaucer’s, “Canterbury Tales”, even though there were no Jews living in England. It spreads throughout England. There was one in Bury St Edmunds, there was one in Bristol. And as I said, the most famous one is in Lincoln. Now the Jews are expelled in 1290, but the blood libel spreads. It becomes a ghastly accusation against the Jews. And even in “Merchant of Venice” the notion of the taking of the pound of flesh, the audience would know you don’t need Jews in a country for them to be anti-Jewish feeling. And the problem with that terrible accusation, up until the modern period, there’s been over 150 accusations from country to country to country. And it usually leads to both the robbing and the murder of the Jews. And ironically, there in Russia in 1997, a boy called Gabriel of Białystok was canonised by the Russian Orthodox Church. This is as late as 1997, Another blood libel in Russia. And Belarus TV actually said, of course, this is a true story.

He actually served as the impetus for the writing of the “Golem of Prague” by the Maharal of Prague because he’s trying to do something to combat the blood libel. In the modern world, there have been a tremendous amount of blood libels. It’s fascinating, isn’t it? Because in modernity, when of course you see the rise of racial antisemitism as opposed to anti-Judaism, the old the old mediaeval superstitions are attached to modern antisemitism. And it begins in 1840 with a blood libel in Damascus, which was a Christian import. There’s another one in Georgia, there’s some in Hungary, there’s some in the Czech lands. It spreads throughout the whole of Europe. And of course in Kishinev in 1903, we’ve talked about that. That was an excuse for the appalling Kishinev Pogrom which was stirred up. You will remember the last presentation I gave, by the man who was one of the authors of one of the versions of the protocols. Now, of course, it becomes common currency in Nazi Germany.

And it tragically after the war, we find it in Poland where the most famous blood libel was in Kielce in 1946, where Holocaust survivors were murdered. It also has run riot in the Arab world. The Syrian Minister of Defence in 1986 actually wrote a book called “The Matzo of Zion” which was basically the story of the blood libel and the protocols. It was cited at a United Nations conference in 1991 by the Syrian delegate. In 2002, the London based Arabic paper, Al-Hayat talked about it. It’s in 2003 here was an is Syrian film company called “The Diaspora”, which talks about the blood liable. And it was shown in both Lebanon and in Syria. And of course Hezbollah very much took it on. In 2005 in Russia, the 20 members of the Duma made the blood liable accusation I’m quoting, “Anti-Christian inhumane and causes them to ritual murder.” And it’s a very popular trope today in Russia.

So look, I can go on and on and on and tragically about it. In fact, in April, 2013, a Palestinian nonprofit organisation, which was founded by Hanan ‘Ashrawi, she had to apologise because you may remember that President Obama attended a Seder and the White House. And in her magazine, the article said, “Does he know of the relationship between Passover and Christian blood? And tragically it’s become very, very important as part of anti-Jewish propaganda in the Arab world. So it’s something that has stuck. But what I want to talk about now is the Beilis case in Russia because what’s fascinating about the Beilis case, it’s going to fail. In the end a Russian jury is going to acquit mental Beilis. A version of it was made… a book, "The Fixer” was written by Bernard Malamud. And a film was made in 1968 starring Alan Bates, and directed by the brilliant director John Frankenheimer. So “The Fixer” is… well if you can get hold of it, it’s really worth viewing. It’s not an accurate representation of the case, but the point is it gives you an a sort of atmosphere of what Russia was like in the last years of the Czar. So can we see the picture of Mendel Beilis please? That’s a very good picture of Nicholas II. Isn’t he the image of his cousin? If we could see the first slide, if you don’t mind, Judy.

• [Judi] Just gimme one sec. Something is just frozen on my end, Trudy. Gimme a second.

• Okay, alright. Let me just start by saying that very little was known about him. He was raised in a village, he was living illegally in Kiev, outside the pail. The story is this. Are we having any luck Jude?

• [Judi] Just gimme one sec. I’ll back with you shortly?

• Okay. There was a young Russian boy called Andrei Yushchinsky and it appears that he was murdered on March the 11th, 1911. We know because there was a lot of evidence, he was probably murdered by members of criminal bat gang. He’d been walking with a friend, Zhenya Cheberyak and his body was found after about eight days. Zhenya’s mother Vera was very much part of the Kiev underworld and the supposition that the police at the time felt was he’d had overheard information. Here you see a picture of Mendel Beilis. Yes, thank you, Judi. And can we go on and have a look at the picture of the boy? There you see Andrei Yushchinsky and the supposition, which the police believed at the time was that he was murdered by his friend’s mother because she was absolutely at the heart of the Kiev underworld. And the notion was that the boy had heard too much.

However, at the boy’s funeral, members of the black hundreds distributed leaflets saying that the boy had been murdered by the Jews for ritual purposes. Remember, it’s march, April, it coincides with Passover Easter. Now, can we see, I think we’ve got some shots of the black hundreds, haven’t we? Yes, we’ve looked at that before because I talked about them last time. And of course the black hundreds there, the president was the czar, Nicholas II was president of the black hundreds. They were a militaristic, extraordinarily right wing organisation that believed in autocracy, that believed in the power of the Czar, and also they were violently anti-Semitic. And the point is, it goes absolutely viral in the right wound press also amongst right wing politicians. Can we see the next slide, please Judi?

That’s Vera Cheberyak she is the woman who probably most likely murdered the boy. And can we see the next picture please? That that’s a home of Mendel Beilis. I wanted you to see that because that is so common to the kind of homes Jews lived in, in that part of Eastern Europe. And you’ll see it’s wooden. I’ve seen so many of these places, and actually in my travels in Eastern Europe and the Ukraine. As I said, we went there just not long after communism collapsed. And you could still see where the mezuzah had been pulled out of the walls. It almost became a sort of obsession with all of this. It was very, very, very strange. But one of the important members of the Duma, a very, very right wing character. Can we see his face next, please? That’s Gregory Zamyslovsky. He becomes involved. He says it’s a Jewish plot. And also the Minister of Justice is very much on the side of trying to push the blood libel.

Remember, it’s 1911, Russia is toppling into anarchy and chaos, as William brilliantly told us yesterday. Anyway, the police linked the crime to the gang, they invest and what happens is the Kiev district attorney actually dismissed the detectives and the head of the detective service was actually put on trial. And he finished up spending a year in prison. And what then happens is they prosecuted as a ritual murder trial. And Beilis is arrested and he’s going to be in prison for two years. Now what did he do? He was a Clark at a Jewish owned brick factory near where the boy’s body was found. The factory was owned by one of the wealthiest Jews in Kiev. We’ve already began to look at the class system in Russia and how of course, 40% of the Jews of Eastern Europe get out.

By 1900 of those who remained, 40% are on poor relief mainly from Jews who had already made it to the West. Having said that though, there were a wealthy stratum, and the factory is owned by one of the wealthiest Jews in Kiev. In Kiev at the time, there were 25,000 Jews out of a population of 400,000. You know, when William, yesterday, he was sort of making parallels between the Ukraine of today and what was happening then. And I find it’s absolutely fascinating that again, all these places are in the news. And I think one of the issues, when we think about it, it takes us back to that time in Jewish history. So Beilis, of course has been arrested, he spends two years in jail. Now September to October and he was very badly mistreated. And the whole of the Russian right wing establishment is pushing, pushing for a guilty verdict. And please don’t forget though, there was also liberal opinion in Russia.

There were Russians themselves who wanted a liberal parliament, who dreamt of a democratic system, something like that of England. There was international attention, there was actually calls for clemency. I’m going to read to you now from an extract from a very important editorial in “The New York Times” it’s called “The Czar On Trial”. And this is how it begins, “In Kiev, Russia, yesterday, there was placed on trial, behind closed doors, one Mendel Beilis, charged with the murder of a Russian lad, Yushchinsky, in 1911. Beilis is a Jew, and is accused of ritual murder, that is to say of having killed a boy to get his blood for alleged use in the rites of the Jewish religion. There are two elements in this case, which make it of great importance and interest to right thinking persons in all part of the world. One is the clear presumption on all available Russian testimony of the entire innocence of the accused.”

And it talks about how the chief of detectives had investigated and reported that there was actually no evidence against Beilis. And they knew that the boy was murdered by a gang of criminals. And he also points out how the chief of detectives had been imprisoned. And then they go on to say, “The second significant fact in the case is the nature of the accusation, the allegation of murder for Jewish ritual purposes. The crime does not and cannot exist. It’s been shown over and over again and long ago, there is nothing in the religious belief or practise of the Jews that remotely requires or sanctions or suggests the things charged. Strict and searching, inquiry, et cetera, et cetera, has resulted in the distinct and unqualified book verdict that there is not a slightest foundation.”

And goes on to say how it’s been denounced. And then this is the real nub of it. “What renders this baseless accusation more revolting at this late day and by the officials of a government Professedly Christian, is the fact that in the 20th century, the revival of a service used by the pagans in the first century, to justify the oppression and slaughter of Christians. The government of Russia, and especially the Czar of Russia, the authoritative head of a great branch of the Christian church in the mad stupid war on the Jews is 2000 years before the times.” And they go on to say they can’t really blame the peasants, but who they are blaming is the Czarist authorities.

So basically, and this is just representative of a huge number of articles in the West, they are saying that this is a totally baseless accusation and it’s absolutely appalling. And the problem was the prosecution included, some of the emperor’s leading Jew haters. Shall we have a look at them? That’s Justin Pranaitis. He was a Catholic priest and he was called as a witness and he claimed to know all about Jewish practises. In defence now the Jewish… what happened was, is that a lot of liberal lawyers and some Jewish lawyers came together to actually really work the case and to prove, hopefully for all time that the blood liable didn’t happen. And what they did was they brought in a Moscow rabbi to show that the priest had absolutely no knowledge. Can we see the next. Yes, Faivel Schneerson he was a Jew living Kiev, and he was…

They tried to bring the whole of the Schneerson dynasty into disrepute, the prosecution. So what happened was the the Rabbi Schneerson actually worked with the Rabbi of Moscow bringing together all the texts of the Tamu to actually show that the blood libel was absolutely fallacious. And actually several witnesses on the stand actually relaid on their testimonies. They’d been bribed on, they’d been threatened, and others actually claimed that Vera Cheberyak was actually to blame. And also the other thing that hampered the prosecution was that Mendel Beilis was not in the least observant. So why on earth should a non observant Jew be involved in any blood liable? So, and also the defence managed to prove that the murder had not taken part in the cave near the factory, but another location. And also what comes out is the little boy was a truant. He never went to school and he spent all his time hanging around with his friend in the criminal gang.

Now, the woman Vera, she testified she’d seen a man with a black beard chase him. And again the prosecution pushes and pushes the blood libel. There were other witnesses who testified that they’d heard of a struggle in the Cheberyak home. And two sisters from a flat nearby testified to seeing suspicious details like bloodstained carpets. And another witness said the boy had actually been beaten in the apartment. So it was overwhelming that Vera and her gang were responsible and the defence lawyer’s comment on her, “She lies when telling the truth, she lies even when she is sleeping.” They even brought in a professor. The prosecution brought in a professor of psychiatry. He was emeritus professor at Moscow University, but he was actually completely insane. And he gives evidence on the veracity of the blood liable and also claimed that the Beilis defence was paid for by international jury. “The International Jewish conspiracy is backing the defence,” he said. And he tried to implicate the whole of the Hasidic movement.

So it all gets very, very nasty. I’ve already mentioned the appeal in the New York Times, but heads of government really pushing at the Czar to do something about it. And in the end it goes to trial. Two questions were put to the jury. Was it proven that on March the 12th, 1911, that he was killed, that knife wounds killed Andrei Yushchinsky. Yes, that was proved. Did Beilis drag the boy to the cave? No. There was big debate in the jury, but in the end, a majority jury in Russia, in Kiev, remember it’s part of the Russian Empire, voted for acquittal. So ironically, even though gave a medal to the prosecuting attorneys, by the way. So Beilis, what happens to Beilis? He goes off to Palestine and can we go on please? Let’s have a look at him. That’s Krasovsky.

Now Beilis himself said there were real heroes in the case. That is Detective Krasovsky. There was another journalist, a man called Brushkovsky, and in their fight for justice, they completely lost their careers. But, and Krasovsky never let go of finding out who the real… he wanted absolute proof that it was the gang. And of course he was vindicated, but it ruined his career. So these were the heroes, just as in the Dreyfus affair, who were the real heroes of the Dreyfus affair. It was the people who gave up everything to stand up for Dreyfus. Now, what happens to… Can we just have a look at the Beilis family. There you see him with his family. Very sad story really. He wasn’t… it’s interesting, isn’t it, just as Dreyfus wasn’t a very interesting person, nor was Beilis. He wasn’t very interesting at all. But he was caught in this terrible trap and his whole family was subjected to this appalling calumny.

And they go to Palestine, but he doesn’t like it there. And he finishes up in New York and he’s actually buried in the Glendale Cemetery in Queens. Shall we have a look at the grave of… Yeah, there’s the grave of Mendel Beilis. It’s in America. And he lies not far away from the second character that I’m going to talk about. Before I do that, I want to just give you a quote from the great historian Michael Stanislavsky. “Although the Russian government steadfastly campaigned for a conviction against Beilis. He was ultimately acquitted by a jury of non-Jews. Some of the outstanding Russian Jewish lawyers of the period and Russian lawyers participated in his defence, which was interpreted ideologically as proof of both of the enormity of Russian anti-Semitism and the strength of anti-czar’s forces in the Russian Empire.” So it was actually an important test case, but then three years later, it all topples into the First World War which William, of course talked about. And what happened, of course to the Czar in 1917.

What I’m going to do tomorrow evening at the 7:30 slot, I’ve needed to squeeze in another lecture. I’m actually going to be talking about Russia and Jews and Revolution before I actually get onto Stalin, because blood libel protocols of the elders of Zion theological hatred. The other terrible part of the story that is going to rebound so terribly on the Jewish people is the involvement of a disproportionate number of Jews in the various revolutions. I’m going to say this until I’m purple. The majority of Jews were never revolutionaries, but a huge number of revolutionaries were Jews.

So I’m going to leave Russia for a while because I want to now talk about the trial of Leo Frank because it’s always fascinated me that you have a trial in the southern states of America, a blood libel trial, at the same time as a trial in Kiev. And this of course it’s the trial of Leo Frank. And can we have a look at Leo Frank, please? There you see Leo Frank. He is a German Jew. And he was the manager of a pencil factory. And I’m going to talk a little bit bit about him. He was born in Paris, Texas in 1884. His father was born in Germany, but was a doctor. And when he was still a baby, the family moved to Brooklyn. He took an engineering degree at Cornell University. He came from a very wealthy German Jewish family. And he went to work for his uncle, Moses Frank, who was the main shareholder in the National Pencil Company, which had a factory in Atlanta. So that’s how he’s going to arrive in Atlanta. He’d actually gone to Germany to learn the business. And that’s when he then goes as the superintendent of the factory. Atlanta’s Jewish community was actually mainly German. It was under the leadership of a reform rabbi called David Marks. It was very small, but it had its roots in the city’s history.

And in 1911, Frank married Lucille Selig. She also came from a very wealthy family of industrialists. And they had themselves had founded the Atlanta Synagogue two generations early. They lived very much an upper class Jewish life. They were very cultured, they were very privileged. They loved opera, they loved bridge, they loved tennis. They lived the upper class life. And in fact, an uncle of Frank’s had been a veteran of the Confederacy. And he was president of the local B'nai B'rith and he earned quite a good salary. He earned $180 a month plus profit. Now let’s see, the victim. Mary Phagan. Mary Phagan, her name is going to go down in history. There’s been a couple of films made about Mary Phagan. One made in 1938 no 1937 starring Lana Turner, believe it or not, it’s her first. It’s actually her first film role. And another one, the other film, it’s starred Jack Lemmon that came out in 1968. It’s called “The Murder of Mary Phagan.” And then there was a mini-series, which isn’t worth looking at.

So it did grapple with Americans’ imagination. There was also a musical. I have problems with these kind of things. I think there are certain things that you do not make into musicals, but this is sweet little Mary Phagan. Now and around her, after her death, she’s going to become a cult figure. And a group of right-wing reactionaries, known as the Knights of Mary Phagan, are going to affiliate and be partially responsible for the resurrection of a very, very dangerous organisation, the Ku Klux Klan. So she’s born in 1899 to a family of Georgia tenant farmers. She’s born in Marietta. Her father dies before she was born, and her mother opened a boarding house to try and support the family. When she is 10 years old, she leaves school to work in a textile mill. And in 1912, her mother remarries and the family moved to Atlanta. And she gets a job in the pencil company. And I want you to think of what I’ve just told you about Frank.

She worked 55 hours a week inserting rubber eraser into the pencils. She operated a machine in a section of the factory opposite Frank’s office. Now the crime. There was a crime, she was murdered. 3.00AM on the morning of April the 27th. Again, it’s Easter Passover. The police receive a call from the factory’s night, watchman Newt Lee reporting the discovery of a dead white female. She was discovered in a dark basement. She’d been raped and stripped and strangled with a stripped torn from her petticoat. We know that the crime scene was totally inappropriately handled. Footprints were never identified. Both Newt Lee and a friend of Mary Phagan were arrested, but the police let them go. Now, the murder of Mary Phagan absolutely shocked Atlanta. It already had experienced serious race riots and recorded the highest rate of arrest in any major city in America. It’s in the South, remember Atlanta, Georgia, it’s like a tinderbox. There’s also, can we go on please, Judi? Yeah, keep it there please.

There’s also an era of huge competition between newspapers each going further and further for sensationalism. And you can just imagine this very pretty little girl has been murdered. And as many as 40 extra editions were printed on the day of the murder, everybody wanted a read about sweet little Mary Phagan and her murder. And the paper offered a huge reward for any information. Right-wing paper sensationalism this sweet little girl who did it. They offered $1,800, which was an absolute fortune. Now, and of course what happens when you do that sort of thing, it leads to lots and lots of phoney leads, which tied up all the police. Now two notes were found at the plant, supposedly written by whom? Accusing of a negro of murdering her. Jim Conley, the plant’s black janitor.

Now the murder really unleashes all the pent up fury. Child labour was also a terrible problem. Not only are they angry that the sweet little girl has been murdered, they’re also angry that think about the sort of hours she’d been working at the factory and that she had worked. And there was going to be a lovely parade and instead of her being able to be part of the parade, she lies raped and in a pool of blood. When she was buried, 10,000 mourners lined up to view the body. And the citizens are totally whipped up by the press. The mayor of Atlanta, you can imagine he’s got to protect his own position. He says, “The police must find the murderer or you are all going to be fired.” So he needs to justify his own position. So basically that’s what happens. And also, there’s a lot of resentment in Atlanta against bosses and also against the Jews.

The Ku Klux Klan had already been founded after the American Civil War. And it wasn’t just anti negro, it was anti-Western. it was anti anyone from the north, and particularly Jews. And a friend of Mary Phagan told the police that Mary had told her that Frank had made advances to her. And then a woman of a rooming house, a woman called Nina Formby, who was actually running a brothel. She claimed Frank had made calls to her on that day of the murder, asking for a room for himself and a girl. Now, this evidence was later totally contradicted by a maid who said, no calls were made on that day, ‘cause she always answered the phone and she could say, her mistress didn’t answer the phone. It was a brothel. The maid answered the phone, and there were no calls by Frank. Also, reports began to surface that a black sweeper at the factory, Jim Conley admitted to writing the notes and evidently he’d actually been observed washing blood from a shirt by a foreman at the plant. And this evidence was ignored by the police. Why didn’t the police even want to implicate a black?

Because it’s a tinderbox in Atlanta now. And if a Jew… and if you think about it, the press are whipping up hatred against this Northerner. Think about the carpet baggers who had come from the north to the south, the exploitation of Atlanta. And Conley then claimed he is arrested. But he claims he wrote the murder note at the behest of Frank, and claimed he’d guarded the door, while Frank had sex with her. But things went wrong. Mary fell against a machine and was killed. Later on in 1982, Alonzo man, a 13 year old office boy, admitted that he himself had seen Conley drag Mary’s body. He kept silent because Conley had threatened his life. He was only 13 at the time. So we now know that Connolly actually was the perpetrator, Alonzo swore, an affidavit just before he died. So Frank was arrested. He actually had alibis for the time of the crime. He employed Pinkertons, but they were seen as foreigners. You know the famous Pinkertons detective service. They came south. They found out everything that had happened.

They found out that the woman who ran the brothel was a total liar, and she’d actually had pressure put on her by the police. And even though the witnesses later on were going to admitting court, that evidence that incriminated Conley, it wasn’t taken as true. And it also later came out that the brothel owner had also been coerced. They just didn’t want a black accused because they were terrified of more race riots. So the trial is set for the 28th of July, 1913. It’s sensationalism. You’ve got all these rival newspapers, headlines like “The Yankee Jew,” “The Yankee Jew Murderer” and then of course, the suspicion of ritual murder. Now the… can we move on please, Judi? Yeah, okay, thank you.

Now that is a man called Thomas E. Watson. He was the editor of the Jeffersonian, he was the main figure behind the right-wing press. He was the one who’d offered the reward. The prosecutor was a man queue called Hugh Dorsey. And the defence, believed that the jurors were being intimidated and they asked for a mistrial. And the judge begins to fear for the safety of Frank and his lawyers. So he actually, in the end, brokered a deal that Frank would not be present when the verdict was read out. That’s how the judge felt about it. But Watson is really, really spinning it up, spinning this story out of control. He’s later is going to be a very important leader in the recreation of the Ku Klux Klan. And believe it or not, he was elected to the Senate. The prosecutor Dorsey, who was pushing Frank as a blood libel killer later became the governor of Georgia.

So he is found guilty, he appears to the Georgia Supreme Court, it fails the Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes denies habeas corpus, but he did write, “A very serious doubt if the petitioner had done due process of law that had had to process of law. The trial took place in the presence of hostile demonstrations as seemingly dangerous crowd. It was thought by the presiding judge to be ready for violence unless a verdict of guilty was rendered.” Now, this is the great Oliver Wendell Holmes. He refuses that he denies because what Frank asked for was habeas corpus. He wants to be freed. And this is… let me read that again it’s important. “A very serious doubt, if the petition had had due process of law, the trial took place in the presence of hostile demonstrations and a seemingly dangerous crowd. It was thought by the presiding judge to be ready for violence unless a verdict of guilty was rendered.”

And at the Supreme Court, it was denied seven to two with Holmes and Jar Evans dissenting and citing a terrorised jury. And Watson wrote in the Jefferson, so this is this man again, writing his newspaper. “If Frank’s rich connections keep on lying about this case, then something bad will happen.” Now Frank then appealed for clemency and the Deputy John governor of Georgia, a man called John Stanson. Can we go on please? Yeah, I’m going to talk about him in a minute. He actually read 10,000 pages of testimony and he made the decision to commute to life imprisonment. And this is what he later said, this is an interview. He later on gave to “Time Magazine.” “I assumed that Frank’s innocence would eventually be fully established and that he would be set free. I can endure, misconstruction abuse and condemnation, but not an accusatory conscience would remind me that I as a governor of Georgia, failed to do what I thought was right. It means I must live in obscurity for the rest of my life, but I’d rather be playing the field in the fields than to feel I had blood on my hands.”

Now so the deputy governor, who’s a bit of a hero, is the chap who Jack Lemmon plays in the film. You know, he of course is the great hero rather than Frank. And the point is he realises it’s a miscarriage of justice. But because you’ve got this tinderbox situation, he can’t go any further. But he thinks if he commutes to life imprisonment, then everything will be okay. Now, Watson rails against the decision. And what then happens, he urges, he is one of those who’s screaming, and along with Hugh Dorsey, they rally against, they rail against the decision. And they then begin to scream for the lynching of both Frank and Stanson. The mob actually threatens to attack the governor at home. And a detachment of the National Guard has to be sent to his house to protect him. And it’s at this stage, the group calling itself, the Knights of Mary Phagan, began openly organising a plan to kidnap Frank. He’s put in a state prisoner sort of farm prison and to transport him away.

So now they are deciding what they’re going to do, is they’re going to kidnap him from this farm, this state farm prison and hang him. So, and they decide they’re going to hang him in Marietta because it was the home of Mary Phagan. 28 men are recruited with six as ring leaders. Can we go on please Jud? Yeah, here you see Leo Frank’s family. This is at the case there, you see his wife with him. It’s a terrible, terrible story. Now, amongst the men who were reputed, Joseph Mackey Brown a former governor who had threatened lynching during the clemency appeal, judge Newt Morris, Eugene Clay, who’s the son of a US senator and former mayor of Marietta, John Tucker Dorsey, who I’ve just shown you a picture of. He was a lawyer and a state legislator, another lawyer called Fred Morris, Bolan Grover Brumby, who was the owner of a big furniture factory. So it’s lawyers, it’s officials, this is not the thugs of the streets you are talking about so called good citizens of Atlanta and other people involved were was a man called Gordon Baxter. He was later mayor of Marietta.

And the former sheriff of Cobb County John Tucker Dorsey who was also a solicitor. So the point, I’ve just shown you his picture. So the point is, you have all these characters who have positions of power. And ironically, John Tucker Dorsey was also the solicitor general for the area. So ironically, if the lynching happens, he would behight the man in charge of prosecuting the lynchers. And we know that the group also included lawyers, other lawyers, and a couple of doctors. So why should we be surprised? I’m always surprised when educated people behave badly. But then all I have to do is think of the history I teach and study and it’s never ever been a bar. Education tragically, as we know it today, is not a bar to horror. So you have all these characters whipped up and they’re going to get the Jew. Can we go on please?

Yeah, so on August the 17th, 1915, they organised, it’s a very highly organised break from the prison farm with of course, the help of many of the guards. And the lynching site, which was three kilometres from Marietta, had already been prepared with a rope by the sheriff and he’s hanged. And after the murder, crowds just descend on the site, they’re snatching souvenirs. And later on, Frank’s body was taken down. And this was really the signal the Knights of Mary Phagan was a signal. Can we see the next slide, please, Judi? Yeah, let’s leave it at that first. But I want to talk about his grave in a minute. The Ku Klux Klan experiences a really huge regrowth after the trial. It’s also further exacerbated, ironically, by WD Griffith’s famous film, “The Birth Of A Nation”, which of course is deeply positive about the Deep South and about the Ku Klux Klan.

So ironically, it leads to a huge growth of the Ku Klux Klan and Watson was very important in the recreation of it. And by the early 1920s, by the way, ladies and gentlemen, the Klan had 4 million members and it was inaugurated in 1915 on top of Stone Mountain, a few aged members of the old Ku Klux Klan attended with the Knights of Mary Phagan. So this case is actually, if you like, a watershed, this sweet little blonde girl who worked so hard in the Pencil factory had worked from the age of 10 is murdered by the evil one and revenges taken, the lynching and the purification. Now the lynching led to half of Georgia’s Jews leaving. Many Americans see it as America’s Dreyfus case and one positive side of the horrible tragedy, it leads to the formation of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith. Because where on earth can we go from there? And let me have a look at, can we please see the last slide? I’m sorry I had them on the wrong way, Judi.

Yeah, and this is the stone now there, “The trial of Leo Frank in 1913 was motivated by the rampant anti-Semitism of the time. The founding of the Anti-Defamation League, that same year was motivated by a passion to eradicate such injustice and bigotry. Despite his innocence, Frank was abducted from jail and lynched. ADL remembers the victim, Leo Frank and rededicates itself to ensuring there we no more victims of injustice and intolerance. So he now rests in a cemetery in New York and that’s his stone. So I just thought it was a two very, very strange incidents. That’s why I wanted to bring them together for you. It was in not until March the 11th, 1986, that he had a posthumous, pardon? You can imagine what his family went through. Not only his appalling death, but they tried so hard to seek justice. And it’s not until 1986 that he is finally vindicated. So two cases, complicated cases, both blood libels, the Russian one fails, the American one, there’s a lynching and he dies.

So it just also shows you that just how complex human relations are. And also as I was listening to William yesterday and he was talking about Nicholas the second of Russia, I always think Jewish history in a way as inside-out history. We have to look at European history and see what’s happening and how the Jews fit in or not. And as I said, tomorrow at 7:30PM I’m going to look at Jews in Revolution. And then on Thursday I’m going to look at Stalin. Now obviously we could look at Stalin for the whole term, so I’m going to concentrate on Stalin and his attitude to the Jews.

So let’s see the questions Judi.

Q&A and Comments

Peter’s asking, Wendy, with all those flight cancellations, how does Wendy manage to get to a different country every few days? Oh, this is from Eric, "Latest blood libel last week, the prime minister of the PA says that the IDF takes organs of dead terrorists.” Francis says, “You can’t put a brain in a totally ignorant head.” The problem, Francis, is it not just about ignorance. I wish it was, it’s about deep seated hatred. And of course there was a member of the House of Lords in Britain who said that one of the reasons you may remember in those, that terrible earthquake in Haiti, the Israelis were the first group in to try and help. And a member of the House of Lords actually said they were harvesting dead organs. I mean, thank you, it’s Ku Klux Klan. Of course, Ku Klux.

Q: Trudy, I just started watching the last Czar on Netflix. Do you know if it’s authentic or romanticised? A: Romanticised, I’m afraid. Romanticised Patricia. And the good news is that Janet Suzman, of course she played Alexandra in Nicholas and Alexandra. And she has agreed in August because August we are lightning the programme you’d be pleased to know. We’re in the main early running a 5:30 slot and one of those slots, Janet is going to be talking about her time in Hollywood, including playing Alexandra in that incredible epic.

• [Wendy] So Trudy only for August, because it’s holidays going on holiday.

• Yes, exactly, exactly. Wendy is being so fair. What we’re saying is it’s just for August, we’re running 5:30. That’s correct, isn’t it, Wendy? Then we’re back to full pelts, I suppose after the holidays. Yes?

• [Wendy] Exactly and then in August also, I can be still for five minutes and also have a holiday.

• I’d love that. Wendy, I’d love to see that. Tim says, you mentioned the czar being right-wing.

Q: Was Russia a communist country at that stage? A: No Tim. If you’d listened to William yesterday? He talks about the revolutions. I’m going to talk about the communist revolution tomorrow and Jew’s involvement in it. And of course that is left wing, that is left wing. So it’s a right-wing, czarist authoritarian, autocratic government.

Francis is telling him, “I never have to say.” This is from Debbie. “When news of Beilis innocence reached my granny’s village, the whole Jewish cheered, he became a celebrity. And there was a book with picture cards, which he posted in, which my granny collected. She was 11 years old,” Debbie, that’s amazing. Did she keep it? That would be incredible. Yes, Elena says, “We’re applying today’s right and left wing terminology to the times. There was no such definition.” Well put Elena you are of course right. No, the czarist regime was autocratic. It was totally an anti-democratic and the Communist revolution of course, what do they want? They wanted a classless society. One of the tragedies of communism is that the theory didn’t work in practise. in left wing terminology start at the time in the French Revolution. Oh, I love the meaning of words. You know what we should do? This would be a good debate, wouldn’t it? Karl Popper, the great Austrian intellectual. He of course, had to leave after with the Nazis. He finished up at LAC and he said, “The 20th and 21st centuries there’ll be no more philosophy. It’s always going to be about the meaning of words.” What do you actually mean?

This is Serena. I read an English translation of Sholom Aleichem novel about the Beilis Place in blood libel. The novel features an illustrated Haggadah with the picture of the binding of Isaac which they interpret as killing of Christian child for Jewish ritual use Passover. You see, this is one of the problems that you’ve pinpointed, Serena, of course, the story of the binding of Isaac is such a complicated tale. Enemies of the Jews can take a tiny grain of something, twist it with something else. But you could say that about any racial prejudice. Look, there have been trials of the protocols, the blood libel even the church said the blood libel didn’t happen. But it doesn’t matter, if you believe in conspiracy. Look at the world we live in at the moment. If you believe in conspiracy, you’ll swallow all these crazy ideas. Yes, Hindy ironically, “The binding of Isaac becomes the end of human sacrifice in Jewish religion.” Yes.

Q: Do I know if Leo Frank was any relation of Anne Frank? A: I have no idea, Tim. I think it’s very, very unlikely. It’s a very common name. And Frank, of course came from Holland. I’ve never heard of any connection.

Yeah, Marcia is saying it’s a common name. Bernice is saying, I’ve seen plays that tell the story of Leo Frank. Yes, there has been a play, as I said, it was even made into a musical. The first film that Lana Turner did, it appeared in with Claude Rains, is actually about the Frank Case, although it’s faction. And as I said, there was a very good film. It was in 1978, the murder of Mary Phagan. But the hero is in fact the governor.

Q: What made them arrest Mendel Beilis? A: Well, the body was found in a cave near the brick factory and they were looking for a suspect. And why not blame the Jews? Just think of the level of antisemitism at the time. And of course the brick factory, was owned by Jews, even though they all knew that the real criminal was in fact the gang. This is from

Q: If Beilis was prosecuted today in Russia, do you think he’ll be declared innocent? A: I’m really asking about the traction of the blood libel in today’s world, David, the problem is, it’s a very, very easy one to tell. People who believe in conspiracy theories believe it. So consequently, I would say to you, Look, there’s something very, very strange. There was a convention of the Russian Orthodox Church. I think I got it written down. I do not want to give you any misinformation on this. This is terribly important. I was looking… oh yeah, yeah. In 2017, there was a Russian investigation. This was looking at whether the czar had been ritually murdered. They didn’t mention Jews. And it was a conference at Moscow’s main monastery, and it was headed by the head of the Russian Orthodox Church the patriarch also present was Bishop Tikhon Putin’s confessor. And he said, “We relate most seriously to versions of ritual murder.” To very careful, they don’t actually mention Jews. But in 2017, they were discussing whether Saint Nicholas, Tsar Nicholas was made into a saint in 2000 by the Russian Orthodox Church and so was Alexandra. The whole of the Imperial family were canonised. The servants weren’t, but they were. And that was one of the problems. So sweet Saint Nicholas, was he part of a ritual murder? The word Jew isn’t mentioned, but we can presuppose tragically. Ritual murder unfortunately usually involves either Jews or Freemasons. The accusation, obviously. So I think that answers the question.

Q: Why is it they were arrested about race rights if they arrested a black person? A: Not if they arrested a Jewish person. The point was, Tim, there weren’t many Jews in Atlanta. It was like a tinderbox. You’ve also got to remember the South felt, it had been completely raped and pledged by the north, but the north was booming. You have these carpetbaggers, you have this wealthy Jewish family. They come down, they have a pencil factory. You can imagine the kind of lives that Frank and his family lived. You know, they were living sophisticated cultural lives. They were reformed Jews. They were trying, I suppose, to integrate into the upper echelons of Atlanta society. That wouldn’t have made them popular with the right wing or can I use that term? No, with the very arch conservatives, I’m going to use that term.

The proud boys are today’s KKK even though the KKK still exists in the States. Interesting. Ku Klux Klan, Ku yeah, I must remember that. Leo Frank was pardoned. Yes, I think I said that he was pardoned.

Q: Was Frank’s case more about the blood libel or the Jewish sexual predator that Nazis took up? A: Unfortunately, the Nazis took up both. Don’t forget, strikers Newspaper was published every day. So if you have the misfortune to have a look at any of that absolute evil garbage. You will see they play all those games. The Jew is everything you don’t want to be.

This is from Jonathan. “The KKK marched in four regalia down Pennsylvania Avenue pass the white play. And this at the time, president Trump called them the good people on both sides.” Thomas Watson and Dorsey were prominent Democrats were most KK members democrats. Thank you Fay I don’t know the answer to that. I don’t know. That’s a very, very interesting question. If you’ve got time, can you research it for us? That’s fascinating. I think the divide is far more than North and the South, isn’t it?

Judith, “If children are not educated, that anti Judaism is a racism like others hatred, it will never stop. I’ve written a guide for teachers for the campaign against anti-Semitism called "Love Thy Neighbour.” He provides teachers with lessons and PowerPoint, how to teach about anti-Semitism. It’s been promoted by the Church of England. It’s available in the CAA website.“ Thank you very, very much for that Judith. I’m afraid we’ve had this conversation before. I love to believe that education works. I think it’s so deep. What I’m more concerned with these days is educating Jewish children because I’m far more concerned that they will know their history and that they will be able to deal with it and they have to face it.

One of the things that I have found completely demoralising is that many people from other minority groups see us as perpetrators. And I really do believe, I’m afraid, and you could quarrel with me over this, you can argue. I think Jew hatred is so deep in the western world, not in India, not in China, in the world of monotheism. That even though, and it changes shape every time, look, it starts out as theology, it moves into race. And I think tragically today it’s moved into anti-Zionism. Now let me be very careful. That doesn’t mean I excuse everything that Israel does. I can criticise Israel’s government, like I can criticise the government of England and I’m sure Americans can criticise the government of America. That is our right if we live in a democratic country. However, the criticism of Israel is completely out of control. And I’d love to be educated on the issue of all this interfaith work. I know Marion gave a very powerful presentation on knowledge, she’s very involved in it. I was involved for a while, but frankly you are looking a very disillusioned person who spent 40 years in this kind of work. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t go on though by the way, Judith, I’m not saying you should stop.

Rod is saying, "I’m the firm believer the blood libel as a result of ideology.” Yeah, thank you. Myrna, “To put it politely, I believe Trump’s ancestors were KKK supporters.” Who knows? This is from Rhoda. “About five years ago in Toronto, there was a well done play about the Leo Frank.” Thank you Rod. And isn’t it odd that the Catholics symbolically eat and drink the body and blood of Christ. Yeah, anyone who knows anything about Jews will know about the blood taboo. It’s absolutely taboo, but it doesn’t… But then I’m being logical.

Oh, Marcia, “The musical was called "Parade” written by a Jew. There was a scene based on a real incident where the Atlanta Jews from Germany who were very assimilated, held a dinner for the newly arrived Eastern European Jews where they served pork, not realising the implications.“ Oh, that’s interesting. Yeah, yeah. What did we learn from this? How far can we assimilate? How far can we acculturate? All these big debates? Sheila’s telling us she was born in Frankfurt. Tessa is talking about a very disturbing documentary called "The Wave” about a teacher who tried to show students how people could be on powerless group. Yes, I remember that. I believe Wendy has some copies of it as well. It is very, very powerful. There’s been lots of powerful documentaries on this kind of topic, how you can take over a crowd. What we really need to do is to bring together the best educators from country to country and seriously allow them to think about all these issues. I was part of the-

• I miss that. What was that?

• Remember Wendy, you saw the film “The Wave” didn’t you? Do you remember? I think… yeah it was very powerful. Wasn’t it?

• [Wendy] It was.

• Yeah, I suppose the question is for this kind of work, and there are many innocent, there are many, many very powerful documentaries and somehow it’s not… Well, as I said to you before, when there’s economic, social, and political issues in a society, it all seems to go out of the window. Would the Frank the fair had happened if there hadn’t been terrible racial Trump tension in Atlanta, would it have happened if you hadn’t had that disastrous American civil War where they were poor, they felt displaced and they hated? It’s a good question for you to think about. That’s why any minority always fare’s best when we have economic and social and political ease. Yes, Shelley is saying in the 1920s, the KKK became very popular in Indiana. This is David, “Southern Democrats were segregationist. Lincoln was Republican, wars were reversed after Reagan and the rise of the political right.” Thank you David. I think the change came after Lyndon Johnson’s race reforms. I think this is something, Wendy, that we should later on have as some presentations on. Howard Jacobs summed it up. Anyone who says Israel shouldn’t exist as an antisemitism,. Wonderful, wonderful Howard Jacobson. Totally profound, I think one of the highlights for me of lockdown was when he and Anita Lasker-Wallfisch were in conversation. And I believe he’s going to he’s going to join our programme next term because it’s his 80th birthday and he’s written his memoir, so going to invite him on. But he is profound on the issue of antisemitism, yeah. And Francis is saying education is extremely important. It will never eradicate antisemitism. Yep.

Am I allowed to mention the name Woody Allen? Because he’s…your words are interesting, aren’t they? I’m going to quote one of his funniest statements, even though I’m sure many of you have problems with him because of his own life. But he said, “If I can’t leave you on one positive message, will you take two negatives?” And I promise that in August, and this was absolutely, Wendy laid it down. In August, we’re going to be much more cheerful. We’re going to look at the light side of life. I mean, I believe Professor is going to do Elvis, the king of rock and roll. Every one of my colleagues are turning to their light side. I’m going to look at the Jewish mother on film. I’m also going to look at some of my heroes. But so I promise you, in the summer, we’re already in the summer, but in August we promise we will be lighter.

• [Wendy] Okay, less doom and gloom.

• That’s all we like, is too much gloom, isn’t it? But on the other hand, Wendy, I do believe knowledge is important. At least if you’ve got the knowledge, you know what you’re up against. Do you agree with that?

• No, I agree. Yeah, I agree.

• Okay darling. Alright, so, and we’ve got another presentation tonight, haven’t we? A very, very good one I believe.

• We do all

• Kandinsky, yeah. All right, God bless.

• So thank you very much.

• Bye darling.

• [Wendy] for joining us. Thanks bye-bye.

• [Trudy] Bye.