On the nineteenth day of March in the year nineteen hundred and eighty-five, Alonzo Man departed this mortal realm, eliciting profound melancholy in the narrator. Subsequently, on the sixth of March, nineteen hundred and eighty-six, Ferris Moore was the recipient of a second entreaty for clemency on behalf of Leo Frank, tendered by the Board of Pardons and Parole. The aforementioned board expressed a desire to convene with the narrator and her paternal figure; however, the tumult precipitated by the board's denial of clemency in nineteen hundred and eighty-three had yet to abate. The newly appointed chief executive officers, Wayne Snow Jr. and Mike Wing, were apprised that the Jewish constituency intended to resubmit a petition for a posthumous pardon, the granting of which would hinge upon determinations of culpability or exculpation. It was alleged that the state had failed in its duty to safeguard Leo Frank, thereby infringing upon his inherent rights. The Board opined that the extrajudicial execution of Leo Frank was an egregious miscarriage of justice, and that such a pardon might serve to ameliorate longstanding grievances.<br /><br />In September of nineteen hundred and eighty-five, a reinvigorated campaign to secure a pardon commenced, with petitioners positing that, beyond the procedural machinations of the trial, a pardon might plausibly be attained by addressing Leo Frank's extrajudicial proceedings. The judiciary acquiesced in principle to the conferment of a special pardon, one that neither affirmed innocence nor imputed guilt, but merely addressed the concerns engendered by the case. Following consultations with representatives of the petitioners, the Board embarked upon the composition of the definitive pardon decree, which was ratified shortly after officials from the Anti-Defamation League and other stakeholders deemed it acceptable. Kinfolk queried the absence of a public proclamation regarding the acceptance of the application, as well as the lack of disclosure to those who opposed the clemency's bestowal. The Board harbored profound apprehensions that the precedent set by Frank might precipitate a deluge of posthumous petitions for amnesty predicated solely upon juridical grounds. Former Chairman Celis Moore proclaimed the issuance of the pardon warrant at the stroke of one in the ante meridiem on the eleventh of March, nineteen hundred and eighty-six, at the Georgia State Capitol. Board members ultimately concurred on the rationale for the pardon, reflecting anxieties that Frank's lynching had thwarted his endeavors to substantiate his innocence, whilst also addressing three ancillary legal concerns: the repudiation of lynching statutes, the imperative to mend historical wounds, and the specter of anti-Semitism. The question of Leo Frank's culpability in the murder was relegated to a mere footnote in the pardon deliberations.<br /><br />From September of nineteen hundred and eighty-six until March of the same year, the Commission refrained from
