Comments on: Genarlow Wilson = Leo Frank?

By: memberg

memberg — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:28:35 +0000

Rogue,
I know you don’t think they’re the same…

I’m not thin-skinned, but I don’t like to let the misappropriation of Jewish issues go unchecked, e.g. I’m against comparisons of Darfur to the Holocaust.

By: Rogue109

Rogue109 — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:46:01 +0000

Memberg: You think I was writing that there was a comparison? I agree….there isn’t any comparison. Looking at it from a LEGAL standpoint, though, was where I based my comments. I think we are on the same page but I may not be scripting it as such. Thanks for the comment…

By: memberg

memberg — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:14:20 +0000

Rogue,

You’re way, way off. The main difference is NOT the emergence of new evidence.

The main difference is that Leo Frank was made a scapegoat by a media sensationalism (thanks Hearst!) and anti-Semitism and lynched, while Generlow Wilson had a normal trial and all the media support in the world.

In fact, I don’t think there is any fair comparison between the two cases.

By: griftdrift

griftdrift — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:01:54 +0000

Blankenhorn also insist on calling me a liberal (a not so uncommon disparage among some here as well).

And people think I’m the one using various mind altering substances.

By: Rogue109

Rogue109 — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:13:06 +0000

Spot on analysis, Buzz. As you point out, the main difference between the two is summed up here:

“Shortly after Frank’s conviction, new evidence emerged that cast doubt on his guilt.”

With Wilson, there is no new evidence and no chance of the conviction being overturned. All we are talking about is the length of the sentence.

By: Decaturguy

Decaturguy — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:40:04 +0000

I agree with you Buzz. Blankenhorn is over the top.