August 9, 2022

"A grand jury in Mississippi has declined to indict the white woman whose accusation set off the lynching of Black teenager Emmett Till nearly 70 years ago..."

"... After hearing more than seven hours of testimony from investigators and witnesses, a Leflore County grand jury last week determined there was insufficient evidence to indict Carolyn Bryant Donham on charges of kidnapping and manslaughter.... In an unpublished memoir obtained last month by The Associated Press, Donham said she was unaware of what would happen to the 14-year-old Till, who lived in Chicago and was visiting relatives in Mississippi when he was abducted, killed and tossed in a river. She accused him of making lewd comments and grabbing her while she worked alone at a family store in Money, Mississippi. Donham said in the manuscript that the men brought Till to her in the middle of the night for identification but that she tried to help the youth by denying it was him. Despite being abducted at gunpoint from a family home by Roy Bryant and Milam, the 14-year-old identified himself to the men, she claimed."
The incident occurred in 1955, when Donham was 21. She is now 87 (88?).

Did the memoir say that she lied or was the grand jury asked to infer that she lied? If it was the latter, what was the basis of the inference? Was it that, considering what happened to him, he would have known not to do what she said he did? There seems to have been another book that says she admitted to lying.

77 comments:

alanc709 said...

If the woman was 21 in 1955 she'd be 88 now.

Buckwheathikes said...

Turns out you can't indict a ham sandwich.

Achilles said...

The people who spun up this grand jury knew there was nothing there.

They just did this to provide another story where a black "youth" was killed by evil white people for the state run media.

This is a desperate evil flailing regime who is resorting to the resurrection of 50 year old murders to divide the country and persecute white people.

Joe Smith said...

Emmett Till...lynched by Democrats...

mccullough said...

Believe All Women

n.n said...

Emmett Till...lynched by Democrats...

Some, Select [Black] Lives Matter #SS[B]LM

Jupiter said...

What's the statute of limitations on being accosted by a piece of shit?

David53 said...

Click bait AP style. Better yet, write some more about COINTELPRO and the FBI in the 60s.

gspencer said...

Lets take a Clintonesque approach. "This is old news. We're moving on and forward." "Mistakes might have been made. It was a long time ago with the people involved themselves long gone." "She's an old, enfeebled woman living out her final years. We should leave things alone."

Mason G said...

"The incident occurred in 1955..."

If anyone dares mention the election in 2020, they're told to move on and let it go.

Just sayin'.

Virgil Hilts said...

"not 87" should be "now 87"? That confused me for at least a minute.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

Did the memoir say that she lied or was the grand jury asked to infer that she lied? If it was the latter, what was the basis of the inference?

Timothy B Tyson, who wrote a book on Till, started the whole mess rolling by claiming that Donham admitted that she lied about what Till had done during an interview with her for the book. He was, however, unable to produce any corroborating evidence beyond his handwritten notes and claimed that he was changing tapes in his tape recorder when she said it.

n.n said...

Today, a back... black hole... whore h/t NAACP sets of a lynching campaign led by civil rights non-profits, journolists, politicians, and all manner of mobs and gangs.

Today, George "fentanyl" Floyd syndrome, under cover of Some, Select [Black] Lives Matter, renders thousands of Americans, annually, nonviable.

Today, a human rite can be legally and ethically performed for social, redistributive, clinical, political, and fair weather causes.

Today, the People, and our Posterity, are divided into color, class blocs.

One step forward, two steps backward.

gilbar said...

color me stupid (orm if you will; brain damaged), but huh?
How (HOW?) did SHE "kidnap and murder" anyone?
She either did (or did not) lie about being assaulted (is That kidnapping? is That murder?)
Then, when (apparently) the culprits asked her "is this the guy?" she said "NO"
(is That kidnapping? is That murder?)

Note: i'm NOT saying he wasn't kidnapped and murdered.. I'm asking how SHE did it?
Is there ANY evidence that she 'ordered the hit'? In Fact, is there ANY evidence at all?

Hunter Biden's tax payer funded Hooker said...

The story of Emmett Till is a story of obscene brutality by vicious cretins.

Those men tortured that kid. I assume they are dead? Are they? I hope so. I hope they died painful deaths.

This woman probably lied. I doubt a 14 old black kid of that era would be so bold.
The miscarriage of justice happened long ago.


Maynard said...

Next year it will be the newly expanded and weaponized IRS that will conduct these types of hearings.

The fools who voted the Democrats in power may be next if they don't max out their contributions.

We are becoming a Third World Banana Republic.

Ann Althouse said...

""not 87" should be "now 87"? That confused me for at least a minute."

Yeah. I've fixed it now, but I considered using my typo as a defense against the first commenter: "If the woman was 21 in 1955 she'd be 88 now."

I could have said, yes, I know, that's why I said she is not 87!

rcocean said...

Well, thank God for victory of commonsense and justice. The "journolist" who said she knew about the murder or Lied about being sexually harrassed, had ZERO proof for his assertion. He pretended to be some sort of friend of hers, and got the old woman to talk. He tape recorded the interview. His claim she admitted lying is NOT on the tape recording or in the notes he wrote right afterwards!

Anyway, her unpublished memoir is full of details on how Till Sexually assaulted her, when she was alone in the store. It was pretty physical. Till was from Chicago and didn't know Mississippi culture, and had a father who'd been hanged for rape and murder.

And she wasn't involved in the killing, in any case.

Frankly, even if she'd lied in 1955, who cares? What ever happened to the statue of limitations. Or Christian forgiviness? What possible concept of justice demands a Grand Jury over perjury related to 1955 crime?

bleh said...

what a tremendous waste of resources

Michael K said...

Dredging up old Democrat crimes. That'll help restore the peace.

They already dug up Nathan Bedford Forrest and his wife. This is more like the Red Guards every year.

rcocean said...

But Boy, oh boy, I sure hate those segregationists.

If only I could go back in time, and punch George wallace in the nose!

I'd give Thomas jefferson a piece of my mind too. Imagine owning slaves!

madAsHell said...

How many death bed confessions have been used to re-kindle controversy, and sell newspapers?

Andrew said...

You know, what happened to Emmett Till was cruel, vicious, and evil. I agree that his case should be well-known.

But the "Wichita Massacre" was equally horrific and grotesque. So were the murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom. So were thousands of examples of violent crimes - tortures, rapes, assaults, and murders - in which the races were reversed. But the names of those victims are not household words. They should be.

Leland said...

I guess they believed all women.

Carol said...

"I doubt a 14 old black kid of that era would be so bold."

He was visiting from Chicago, young and stupid enough to try.

Jupiter said...

"This woman probably lied. I doubt a 14 old black kid of that era would be so bold."

Do you doubt that the Army hung his father for raping and killing a woman in Italy?

Unknown said...

This woman probably lied. I doubt a 14 old black kid of that era would be so bold.
You either live in a gated community or in Vermont

AlbertAnonymous said...

What a colossal waste of legal resources.

The prosecutor should be fired.

Seeking to indict an 87 year old woman for “lying” in connection with a crime that occurred more than 50 years ago?

Anything to keep pushing the “racist US of A” narrative.

Howard said...

When you aren't playing the victim card and threatening Civil War, Ann always gives you a chance to feel at home amongst like minded friends and get some negro hate on.

If it feels good, do it.

Free Manure While You Wait! said...

"A grand jury in Mississippi has declined to indict the white woman whose accusation set off the lynching of Black teenager Emmett Till nearly 70 years ago..."

Shoudn't that be, whose alleged accusation set off the lynching...?

gilbar said...

final serious questions..
Is it Still bad and wrong, for a young man to sexually assault a woman
(what would YOU call him grabbing her ass?)
Is is Still bad and wrong, for a young man to verbally abuse a woman?

IF he'd mis pronouned her.. or; GOD Forbid, Dead named her? Would THAT be okay?
Not asking if these things justify a lynching (nothing does), just asking if they are still wrong?

Robert Cook said...

"They just did this to provide another story where a black "youth" was killed by evil white people...."

Why the snark and the quotes around "youth?" Till was a youth, and the men--who never experienced any consequences for their brutal beating and murder of Till--were evil. The jurors were also evil by validating the murder by acquitting the men with scarcely any deliberation, though there was little doubt by anyone the men were guilty.

Given the culture, there is no way Ms. Donham could not have known would be done to him, given her claims as to his actions. (Reportedly, she later admitted her accusation was a lie.) Did she deny his identity to those who kidnapped him with murder in mind? Why would she? Why did she accuse him of having made a lewd and physical contact with her if not with the expectation that he would suffer dire consequences? She is guilty of Till's murder as much as her husband and his confederate were.

"The prosecutor should be fired."

Seeking to indict an 87 year old woman for 'lying' in connection with a crime that occurred more than 50 years ago?"


A lie that led to Till's torture and murder. Whether she knew her accusation would lead to his murder is unknown, but it is certain she knew (and expected) that he would be beaten brutally at the very least. The prosecutor should be applauded, even if his effort was in vain.

Robert Cook said...

"And she wasn't involved in the killing, in any case."

Of course she was. Her accusation precipitated the murder, which she could not, in that time and place, have been unaware would be a likely consequence.

Forbes said...

It's not clear to me, what crime is she alleged to have committed? For what crime were the prosecutors proposing she be indicted?

Earnest Prole said...

Lynch mob then, lynch mob now.

Ann Althouse said...

The charge of kidnapping and manslaughter had to rely on her intending to enlist the men in doing the kidnapping and manslaughter for her, like when someone hires a killer directly. They must have been trying to prove that she knew that the accusation she made would lead them to go after Till with great violence so to tell the story would be to deliberately set those actions in motion. I think the prosecutors wanted to establish that she lied about what Till did, and if that were so, it's much closer to hiring a killer. What is the purpose of inventing that story other than to send violent attackers after Till? But maybe they argued that even if it were true, she had the option of refraining from telling the story and therefore to choose to tell it was the equivalent of seeking to punish Till with death. There was no privilege self-defense, because she was not in danger. She was, I presume they argued, just seeking retribution. Her version of the story, or the version the grand jury seems to have believed, was that she described what Till did (more or less) without having much intention in mind about what ought to be done to Till. But maybe they thought she lied about it, but she didn't intend for the men to go out and commit murder.

Dave64 said...

This whole thing was designed to keep the tribe in the state of constant agitation. Have to keep everybody agitated or peace might break out.

Freder Frederson said...

Is it Still bad and wrong, for a young man to sexually assault a woman
(what would YOU call him grabbing her ass?)
Is is Still bad and wrong, for a young man to verbally abuse a woman?


Even if all this were true, does it justify torturing Emmitt Till and killing him without any kind of due process?

Oh, and by the way, this is what they did to him.

Freder Frederson said...

She was, I presume they argued, just seeking retribution. Her version of the story, or the version the grand jury seems to have believed, was that she described what Till did (more or less) without having much intention in mind about what ought to be done to Till. But maybe they thought she lied about it, but she didn't intend for the men to go out and commit murder.

Really?! How fucking naive and sheltered are you? This was goddamned Mississippi (I hope at least you understand the reference) in 1955. Do you really think that she didn't know exactly what would happen to him?

Jupiter said...

"They must have been trying to prove ..."

They must have been trying to find someone with a deep pocket they could get their cotton-picking fingers into. Is what they must have been trying to do. Is that difficult to see? Have you been under a rock somewhere for the last decade or so?
Re-Puh-Ray-Shuns! Reh-Puh-Ray-Shuns!
Where's Ben Crump at, anyway? I guess Ben can tell when there aren't any deep pockets to be found. He's giving this one a pass.

Joe Smith said...

'When you aren't playing the victim card and threatening Civil War, Ann always gives you a chance to feel at home amongst like minded friends and get some negro hate on.'

Your people murdered him, moron.

You know...white KKK democrats.

Amadeus 48 said...

The past is never dead. It's not even past.

Biden will say, "Come on, man! Look at all the good that Emmett Till's death did. That's why I signed that Emmett Till anti-lynching law six months ago. We are finally going to put a stop to all that lynching in those redneck states."

Nope. No useless grandstanding by the Biden crowd. None. Next up: Biden will sign a bill banning flogging in the US Navy and restoring a daily grog ration. "Come on, man! We need to protect our sailors! Give 'em something to fight for!"



Harsh Pencil said...

I'm curious about what our hostess said as a legal manner. Suppose a woman has a homicidally jealous husband and she knows this. Then suppose a man rudely propositions her away from her husband's sight. Is she legally obligated not to tell her husband? Seems odd. What if he raped her? Is she legally obligated not to tell the police because she knows her husband will kill him?

(I understand I might be misreading our hostess's comment, but if so, it's not deliberate).

Michael K said...


Blogger Howard said...

When you aren't playing the victim card and threatening Civil War, Ann always gives you a chance to feel at home amongst like minded friends and get some negro hate on.

If it feels good, do it.


Howard never disappoints. Virtue signaling ? Of course. Projection ? Of course. Those blacks could never get into college without my help. It doesn't matter that competent black physicians, some of whom I know, will be tarred with Howard's disdain.

Michael K said...


Blogger Robert Cook said...

"And she wasn't involved in the killing, in any case."

Of course she was. Her accusation precipitated the murder, which she could not, in that time and place, have been unaware would be a likely consequence.


Cook is just amazing. Were you really there? Or just bullshitting as usual?

Ann Althouse said...

“ Really?! How fucking naive and sheltered are you? This was goddamned Mississippi (I hope at least you understand the reference) in 1955. Do you really think that she didn't know exactly what would happen to him?”

Cool down and read competently. I’m speculating about what the grand jury might have thought.

I expressed no opinion about what she might have thought.

Why do you snap right into asshole mode? So disrespectful.

Ann Althouse said...

“ (I understand I might be misreading our hostess's comment, but if so, it's not deliberate).”

I meant to open up that question.

It’s one way that women can be controlled and abused. You have a higher obligation not to report abuse, out of mercy on the one who abused you. I was in a situation like that when I was a child. Because of the dire consequences for the person who did something to me, I was advised to do nothing about it. That was the moral high ground, so, of course, being a good little child, that’s what I did. Don’t want to destroy a man’s life, do you?

Geoff Matthews said...

For those saying that this lady had to know that Emitt Till would have been murdered for claiming he harassed her, how many black people do you think white people killed during this time?

I know that the number of black people lynched in the history of the USA is less than 4,000. I don't doubt that there was bullying and intimidation, but if the entire body count for a century is less than 4k, then murder as a solution wasn't a common solution.

Jim at said...

Why do you snap right into asshole mode?

Chuckle
He doesn't 'snap right into" that mode. It's who he is.

Amadeus 48 said...

"Because of the dire consequences for the person who did something to me, I was advised to do nothing about it."

Yipes, Althouse! Yipes!

Of course, Joe Biden got the benefit of this kind of thinking for his whole career. Does he creep you out? He creeps me out. And those middle-aged kids, Hunter and Ashley. Their lives are train wrecks. How did this man become POTUS? Why wasn't the Department of Children and Family Services called in by Dr. Jill? Or by the neighbors?

takirks said...

If you think the days of old ain't coming back, start considering where all the leniency and love are taking us.

It's an irony of modern life that I can even say this, but you can look around yourself and recognize that a lot of the maligned minorities of yesterday seem hell-bent on bringing the calumnies and accusations of the old-school bigots to life.

Time was, the various KKK types said that they were "forced" to do what they were doing, in order to keep "white wimmen" safe from the depredations of the "dangerous black male".

Take a long, hard look at the crime stats, and ask yourself why it is that the black-on-white rape rate is what it is, these days. Makes ya wonder, that does. Along with the rest of the stats on black crime...

Back in the day, the eeeevul Nazis accused Jewish music moguls of promulgating that "African Jazz Music" as a malign destructive force. I never got that, or understood how something like jazz could do that, but... Take a long, hard look at who finances "gangsta rap", what it is, and the cultural impact it's had. Also, who really makes the money off of it, and it ain't the rappers.

When we were arguing the right to vote for women, one of the major accusations leveled against women was that they were too emotional, and would vote accordingly, rather than with careful consideration. Now, go look at the selection of Democrat women in Congress, and ask yourself if maybe, just maybe, those old-timey supposed misogynists weren't on to something...

I was raised by "right-thinking people" not to believe in any of these supposed "stereotypes", but I gotta say, looking around? It's almost as if some of these groups are going a long, long way to live out those stereotypes and justify all the old prejudices.

As well, on Emmett Till? I once knew a guy from that part of Mississippi that told me that his father had told him that Till was far from what he was described as by his supporters, and that he wouldn't have been at all surprised to find out that Till had done actually done something to Donham. His dad was a local black kid, about Till's age at the time, and had interacted with him. Supposedly. I've got no idea at all what the reality of it was, but there were apparently people in the local black community that considered Till to be a trouble-maker, and who had been forbidden his company by their parents that told their kids to stay away from that city boy who'd been sent down south to be kept out of trouble.

Being the well-developed cynic that I am about any of the grandiose fairy stories we've been told, down the years? I suspect there may be something to that, if only because I have come to expect feet of clay when I actually look at the lower extremities of all these "heroes of the revolution".

Che Guevara, anyone...? I mean, who knew he was a racist homophobe that delighted in watching his ideological opponents being murdered in cold blood? Growing up, I was assured by many of the "right-thinking" people that Che was a saint. I now question anything those people told me, and the premises of all their little fairy tales.

Jupiter said...

"It’s one way that women can be controlled and abused."

In Europe, many women don't report being assaulted by "migrants" for similar reasons. Or because the migrants kill them, that's another way women can be controlled and abused.

I would think that, as a legal matter, telling A something about B that you know or suspect will cause A to kill B is not illegal unless what you tell him is untrue. That would be slander, no? Fairly damaging slander.

Chris said...

"Though justice be thy plea, consider this, that in the course of justice, none of us should see salvation. We do pray for mercy. And that same prayer doth teach us all to render the deeds of mercy."
(The Merchant of Venice)

Our society needs fewer demands for justice and more deeds of mercy.

Freder Frederson said...

Cool down and read competently. I’m speculating about what the grand jury might have thought.

I expressed no opinion about what she might have thought.

Why do you snap right into asshole mode? So disrespectful.


Disrespectful?! Asshole?! How dare you? You are treating this like it is some abstract law school exam. You seem to forget that a fourteen year old child was tortured and murdered because he (supposedly) grabbed a white woman's ass. Where the fuck is your humanity? This was a crime against humanity and you are saying, "well, there are two sides to this story".

Yes, sometimes I can be, and deliberately am, an asshole. But this whole thread is awful. Look at the justifications your commentors are posting.

The Germans are still pursuing war criminals from WWII. Yet you apparently think we should just let bygones be bygones.

If you think that makes me an asshole, then I will wear that badge proudly. You should have unequivocally stated that the Grand Jury was a bunch of racist assholes.

Freder Frederson said...

Nope. No useless grandstanding by the Biden crowd. None. Next up: Biden will sign a bill banning flogging in the US Navy and restoring a daily grog ration.

You do realize that two men were sentenced today to life in prison (and a third to 35 years), after they already received life sentences from the state of Georgia, for lynching a Black man?

Freder Frederson said...

Because of the dire consequences for the person who did something to me, I was advised to do nothing about it.

So was the person who did this going to be tortured and killed without any kind of due process? Do not dare compare your fucked up late fifties, early sixties, suburban life with what happened to Emmitt Till.

Chris Lopes said...

"The people who spun up this grand jury knew there was nothing there."

Given the times she was living in, she has to know her accusation was not going to do Till any favors. She's morally responsible for Till's death.

n.n said...

The woman who aided and abetted Weinstein, who aided and abetted the abortionist, who aided and abetted others to take a knee, who aided and abetted pedophilia, who tolerated slaver, who tolerated diversity, who didn't report rape... rape-rape, who denied crowd management for selfiesh reasons, who forced a riot, who watched as they were assaulted and aborted, who should have inferred a clear and progressive path, perhaps a minority report, is guilty, today, yesterday, a decade, a century, and wherever social justice is entertained.

n.n said...

It’s one way that women can be controlled and abused. You have a higher obligation not to report abuse, out of mercy on the one who abused you.

What religion, behavioral protocol: moral, ethical, legal, secular or other, advises women to take a knee, to sustain a known risk, perhaps to herself, but also to society?

Conrad said...

There is no way a conviction would hold up against this woman if it was predicated on her TRUTHFUL statement that Till had harassed her. She or any person in her position obviously would have the constitutional right to tell her husband, the police, or anyone whatsoever what the kid did. It's called freedom of speech.

Also, while being black in the Jim Crow south was no picnic, I seriously doubt that EVERY instance in which a white woman accused a black man of looking at her the wrong way automatically resulted in a lynching. If it did, there wouldn't have been any black men doing time in southern jails for sex crimes.

Jupiter said...

"You do realize that two men were sentenced today to life in prison (and a third to 35 years), after they already received life sentences from the state of Georgia, for lynching a Black man?"

As you know perfectly well, the stupid asshole ran at a man with a shotgun and tried to take it away. Not the sharpest tool in the drawer, our Ahmed. Not the first time he proved it, either. He was a disaster looking for someone to happen to. Pity it was three nice guys. Since none of the three men had any intention of killing the stupid asshole, it is inaccurate to call it a "lynching". But you do you, Freder. May you live in a vibrant neighborhood.

Tina Trent said...

Not to justify his murder, but there was more that he did than was reported. Also a pretty sleazy juvenile record. He was trying to sexually intimidate her.

Die for that? No. But he was no innocent baby. Sorry.

Now let's apply the same attention to women, black and white, brutalized and killed by men over that same week.

FBI? FBI? Yeah. Seventy times the number. Any open cases there?

You fucking, lying, prejudiced, misogynist scum.

Achilles said...

Freder Frederson said...

Cool down and read competently. I’m speculating about what the grand jury might have thought.

I expressed no opinion about what she might have thought.

Why do you snap right into asshole mode? So disrespectful.

Disrespectful?! Asshole?! How dare you? You are treating this like it is some abstract law school exam. You seem to forget that a fourteen year old child was tortured and murdered because he (supposedly) grabbed a white woman's ass. Where the fuck is your humanity? This was a crime against humanity and you are saying, "well, there are two sides to this story".

Democrats lynched a kid over 70 years ago.

That gives modern day democrats like Freder a boner because he gets to attack his political opponents waving the Emmit Till bloody shirt around.

Meanwhile Democrats are defunding police in cities and thousands more black people have been murdered. BLM is turning inner cities into crime ridden wastelands.

Freder doesn't give a shit about black people. Freder has one use for Black people. Wait til one is killed by a white person then attack his political opponents. Freder spends his entire life supporting policies that destroy Black families and destroying Black lives.

Democrats are just terrible people.

rcocean said...

She knew what was coming to Till if she told her husband.

Hmm...she did NOT tell her husband. Another person did. Anyway, I suggest people look at the number of sexual assaults in mississippi from 1946-1955 (hundreds), and the number of lynchings (4). You will then see that a white woman reporting an assault, rarely resulted in instant death.

And Till was not a "poor little kid". According, to the victim he was much taller and stronger than she was. She was so scared afer his assault, she got her gun in case he came back. Wasn't Trayvon Martin also a "poor little Kid" who eneded up beating 175 lbs. George Zimmerman's head against the concrete?

Anyway, i love the phony libtard OUTRAGE. after all its the party line. And if tommorrow, the party line is "Forget Till" the libtard's will return to radio silence. LAUGHABLE FAKES.

Amadeus 48 said...

Freder. Correct me if I am wrong, but murder is illegal in Georgia and was illegal before Biden signed the Emmett Till antilynching act in March 2022. I doubt it is necessary but it makes guys like you feel good.

That is grandstanding, pushing emotional buttons 70 years after the fact to please one of the few remaining client groups of your political party.

Narayanan said...

She accused him of making lewd comments and grabbing her while she worked alone at a family store in Money, Mississippi.
==========
why was she believed? why is she still being believed to be telling the truth?
for all we know she may have been rejected!
She accused him >>>> she told somebody who told somebody?

Free Manure While You Wait! said...

"She knew what was coming to Till if she told her husband."

Communication between spouses is privileged.

Jack Klompus said...

Watching obnoxious sanctimonious
douchenozzle Freder flail around pretending to give a shit about black people is quite amusing.

Jupiter said...

During the period of, say, 1300 to 1800, the various peoples in Western Europe used, or perhaps suffered, a system of law that imposed Draconian punishments upon all offenders apprehended. Both hanging and exile to the colonies were imposed for what would now be considered trivial offenses. One may ponder on how exactly this relates to the populations of Australia and New Zealand, and to a lesser extent the US, but it has been credibly argued that both of these punishments had the effect of removing the offenders' genes from the European gene pool, and this may well have some bearing on the relatively low rate of criminal behavior among populations derived from that gene pool. Of course, Negroes were not subjected to these genetic pressures, and it shows.

entropic said...

@Robert Cook, are you saying that even if Till did sexually assault her, and/or make lewd gesture or comment, she should have just kept her mouth shut to protect him?

You’re assuming what a young girl “knew” would happen. 70 years later sitting at your keyboard pontificating on the internet and you just *know* what things were like in Mississippi back then, huh? And what young girls knew about the world? And exactly what she was thinking? Well, hombre, I submit that the very fact that Till’s murder has become a cause célèbre nonpareil—complete with an unscrupulous DA using an old and enfeebled sex assault victim as cannon fodder 70 years after the fact—indicates the *infrequency* of such events back then. For if they were so common surely he could have picked a better example for his crusade.

Else you better believe that a concerted effort would be made to bring the other cases to light—in year 14 of the woke calendar we drool over causes célèbres, and the parasitical machinery of the woke techno-religious complex will do anything to generate them—a faked one in some respects is even better than a real one—first because real examples are so rare—demand chronically exceeding supply—and second because just like Havel’s green grocer, psychological domination is derived from the blunt exercise of control—place this sign in your store window, and in private reflection cower at the nonsense you are powerless to resist. The charges are not nonsense you say? See for example Nick Sandman, “hands up, don’t shoot”, Juicy’s mullet, Bubba’s noose, etc.

Or is your idea that it doesn’t matter if it really happened to her, that she should have kept her mouth shut and hid the truth to protect Till? Is that a novel legal theory I spot? Duty to prevaricate? Duty to conceal? Duty to hide race of perpetrators on nightly news report so our racist hoi pilloi don’t get riled up? The cognitive dissonance from the colliding pieties is unresolvable, I suppose.

This was a horrible prosecution by a crusading DA sifting through history for grist for his mill of retrospective “justice”. Just hope that some politicized government office armed with tendentious legal theory doesn’t start rifling through your life’s history when you are old and infirm.

“You see, your honor, the defendant should have known, even as a 4 year old, that when he told on his brother for punching him that his father was going to whip off his belt and spank his brother with it. And of course, we all know that corporal punishment of children is a moral abomination—no matter that people had different, less exquisitely evolved sensibilities back then—and it doesn’t matter whether his brother actually did punch him, because the defendant should have known even as a child what society was like back then, and realized his telling on his brother would cause his father to commit a retrospectively adjudicated first-degree assault on his brother, plus the crime of retro child abuse. It’s a good thing the politically-appointed Truth and Reconciliation Commission on Childhood Spanking and Other Forms of Corporal Punishment took the bold step of retroactively extending the statute of limitations on what are now Rightly seen as violent and brutal forms of child abuse—discipline they called it!—and codified special charges for old cases like this one where using a belt gets extra federal points added to the defendants’ rap sheets, who, even though in some cases less than 2 years old, should have better understood the corruption and disease of the society of the time (unlike the enlightened present) and the overall sociopolitical context in which the parent they were tattle-tale’ing to would be perceiving the complaint, and thus should have known that a bright red whippin’ of their targeted sibling was a preordained response. So now our noble, selfless prosecutors can expunge the filthy immoral collaborators of the repugnant childhood carceral system of the past age, before the woke dawn, a dawn which gave new meaning to Ἠὼς Ῥοδοδάκτυλος.”

Josephbleau said...

Is it not the case that if you show mercy and don’t report an assault, and the perpetrator goes free, you can be morally guilty if the guy harms another person due to your silence. There is no morality in letting them go, you will never know if you cased more harm than good.

Robert Cook said...

"You’re assuming what a young girl 'knew' would happen."

She was a 21 year old married woman who was born and raised in the deep south in the pre-Civil Rights era. There is no way she could not have known her accusation would result in some kind of violent retributive action being taken against Till. Thus, she was complicit in Till's murder. Her acquittal is not outrageous, given the decades that have passed, but the acquittal of the murderers, who subsequently openly admitted (and described, for a payment) their murder was an outrage against justice...but not at all unusual in the South of that era.

Drago said...

Has Freder gotten a Magistrate Judge to rule that Freder can offer mind-reader testimony for this long past case?

If not, he should get on that.

Drago said...

Robert Cook: "She was a 21 year old married woman who was born and raised in the deep south in the pre-Civil Rights era."

It's true that the South was a very different place when democraticals (Jim Crow-ers/KKK-ers/Segregationist-ers) were running it.

Thank goodness the republican's finally flipped the south to the R column in the very late 1990's/2000's/2010's after the bulk of those yellow-dog democraticals died off and business and economic migration moved republicans into the south.

Grey Tree Frog said...

The quote I have seen from Tyson's book is that Carolyn Bryson said, “Nothing that boy did could ever justify what happened to him.”

That is the quote I always see. Is there more to it? Because that quote is in no way an admission of lying.

And this leaves out her daughter in law's denial that Bryant said she lied or exaggerated, the absence of tape recording, and perhaps the timing of Tyson's notes.

I can see a woman committing perjury and exaggerating to get her husband acquitted of murder, but that is not the same as lying to induce her husband to commit murder.

Jupiter said...

"She was a 21 year old married woman who was born and raised in the deep south in the pre-Civil Rights era. There is no way she could not have known her accusation would result in some kind of violent retributive action being taken against Till."

Because, as is well-known, every black male who ever made sexual advances on a white woman in America in the 1950s was tortured to death. Right, Cookie? There are literally millions of them, still hanging from the trees all over the South.

Robert Cook said...

"Because, as is well-known, every black male who ever made sexual advances on a white woman in America in the 1950s was tortured to death. Right, Cookie? There are literally millions of them, still hanging from the trees all over the South."

Do you think millions of black men made sexual advances to white women in the 1950s south? Either you don't, in which case your childish rhetorical question is dishonest, or you do, which makes your rhetorical question stupid beyond belief. Actually, stupid and dishonest, as you not so deftly substitute your phrase "America in the 1950s" for the 1950s south, the location of the event and the region under discussion.

As to your general question, I'd say that any black man making unwanted sexual advances to a white woman in the 1950s south would have to get of town as swiftly as possible or face a very high possibility of suffering terrible personal consequences.