I repeat: how could the notes implicate Lee if they were in Conley’s handwriting?

1) If the idea for the notes came from Frank, why would he care who gets blamed as long as it’s not him?
2) If the idea was Conley’s, it’s likely he didn’t consider that the notes would implicate himself based on his handwriting. He was a dumb drunkard, remember?
3) Conley probably wrote “long tall black negro” because even a dumb drunkard can be mindful enough that he should try to implicate someone other than himself.
4) You yourself have pointed out that the notes don’t necessarily implicate Lee. So what?

In other words, from the self-interested view of either Frank or Conley, either one could reasonably believe the notes would direct suspicion away from themselves.

But answer came there none…

You’re making a fool enough of yourself by pretending nobody is answering you. If you’re not willing to engage what I’ve said or written rather than pretending nobody has responded or that you can’t understand it, then I’m not going to make a fool of myself by letting this idiocy of yours go any farther.

On page 9 of Slaton’s commutation letter, he notes:

Wherever a physical fact is stated by Conley, which is admitted, this can be accepted, but under both the rules of law and common sense, his statements cannot be received, excepting where clearly corroborated. He admits not only his participation as an accessory, but also glibly confesses his own infamy.

Slaton then dedicates pages 10 – 22 (more than 1/3 of his 29 page letter) to scrutinizing Conley’s testimony in light of a variety of corroboration and contradiction. It is the centerpiece of Slaton’s argument.

The bolded portion above was highlighted by Porter, which indicates why he misconstrues ALL of Conley’s testimony as legally worthless. He discounts the import of the first portion of what Slaton said, thus he discounts even the portions of Conley’s testimony which were corroborated, either by evidence or by the testimony of others.

Conflicting evidence and testimony is perfectly normal in legal disputes, and juries are expected to resolve such issues as a matter of course. Porter’s notion that conflicts “cancel out” is common, but not the only resolution. Slaton and the Frank jury did not simply throw out both sides of any conflicting account. Instead they decided that in some cases, including some involving Conley, they believed one account more than the other. This too is normal. The bottom line is that they believed the totality of what Conley and others claimed over what Frank and his supporters claimed.

Regarding Porter’s rhetorical questions on Conley’s murder notes…

Starting on page 19, Slaton argues that Frank did not dictate the notes. Slaton did not argue that this, together with everything else he considered, “proved” Frank’s guilt was “absolutely impossible”. That is Porter’s leap. Slaton saw and described only enough doubt in Frank’s guilt to justify the legal technicality he used to alter Frank’s punishment. As far as I can see Porter doesn’t add any new or substantial fact or argument to Slaton’s analysis to justify his far more extreme conclusion.

I am unable to understand your argument.

Well, I am able to understand yours. My argument is that you haven’t demonstrated what you claim to “prove” – that Frank’s guilt is “absolutely impossible”. Slaton, whom you cite as your main authority, argued doubt, not innocence.

On another point, accomplice testimony must be corroborated. Where is the corroboration?

Did Slaton argue this? Why didn’t any of the appeals catch it? Were Frank’s attorneys inept? Are you the only one making this point? Could it be because you’re the one who misunderstands a subtlety of the law in this case, rather than everyone else?

You can think what you like. I don’t give a damn.

Likewise. I’m not trying to change your mind. You have made it crystal clear that you are convinced Frank was innocent and have been for decades. I’m only saying your flatly stated assertions and unwillingness to think otherwise isn’t an argument which convinces me. You can do with that feedback whatever you wish.

You haven’t answered my question. I knew you wouldn’t.

You have insisted Conley and his notes are the most important issue. You say others run away from this issue. I’m not trying to change the subject. You are.

You asked what the point would be for Frank to ask Conley to write those notes. I provided a reasonable answer. Frank might have thought it would serve his interests and Conley might not have seen how it might harm his, at least until later. Has it really never occurred to you that Frank might have wanted to sow exactly the kind of doubt and confusion you and others have used to argue his innocence?

You ask many similar questions to which I could provide similar answers. I see no point in doing so. They’re rhetorical questions. You ask them because you’ve convinced yourself they don’t have answers.

OK, Carlos, I’ll play Devil’s Advocate here, …

A Negro would automatically be suspected of the crime. What difference would it make to Frank which one?
—————–
That’s easy. The difference, perhaps, of going free? He had to pick the negro with the most likely evidence against him. Therefore it would be quite important which one he choose.

How would the notes implicate Newt Lee, the night watchman, if they were in Conley’s handwriting? The notes led the police to Conley, who led the police to Frank. Anyone could have predicted this. Or did Frank think the police would think they were written by the victim during the act of rape? “I wright while play with me”. What is the sense of that?
—————-
The senselessness of it would be the whole idea and therefore point to a dumb negro and away from Frank.

If Frank was guilty, and Conley knew it, or even had any evidence of Frank’s guilt, he was in a position to blackmail Frank for very large sums of money. Conley could have lived a life of luxurious drunkenness for the rest of his days.
——————
But such blackmail couldn’t possibly work as there had to be murderer somewhere there in the woodpile. And I don’t think that even a dumb, drunkard negro could imagine he could out-jew a jew and then live in luxury, untouched.

Most likely he was simply going along with his ‘boss-man’ and would be grateful to come out alive with a few bucks.

Why put his head in a noose for a few dollars?
——————
I don’t think it was a case of him putting his head willingly in a noose for a few dollars, it was more likely a case of keeping his head out of a noose for a few dollars.

What criminal “dictates” a note leading the police straight to his accomplice? What is the logic of this?
—————-
The logic is this: When an intelligent, amoral man sees he is likely cornered and has few options, is desperate and has a handy black patsy there to take the blame, and will have the backing of his tribe behind him.