Killen to Go Home on Appeal Bond

The man has been on bond for 41 years, was that not enough? Killen was perfectly capable of assaulting media on his way out of the courthouse and also threatened his jailer. Does that not constitute a threat to the public? The bottom line is that Killen was convicted only of manslaughter and will be free on bond because many people in Mississippi supported this case only because it was good for Mississippi's image and economy and not because it was simply the right thing to do. Consider this quote: "If you can't do it because its the right thing to do, do it because its good for business"-Jim Prince, Editor, Neshoba Democrat and Co-Chairman of the Philadelphia Coalition.

I'm not surprised, but I am still disappointed. That man is not as feeble as he appears (with his microphone-socking self), and even if he couldn't just run off on his own, he has plenty of buddies who woul probably ship him to Canada on a stretcher. Either way, I don't want him to die outside of jail - he wasn't there long enough at all.

BTW, make sure you go to WJTV.com and vote in the online poll. As of this moment, 54% DO NOT agree with the judge's decision. WJTV also talked to Jewel McDonald, and my heart ached as I saw the tears streaming down her face. I didn't know that her mother and brother were beaten by the Klan five days before the murders. I didn't know the three guys came to her house and interviewed the family either. Mississippi has taken a huge step backward. It's just sad.

I thought this would get some post but I guess most people have realize that there wasn't much of an argument for denying bond. Is ERK an arrogant, racist, SOB who used a flawed justice system to escape prison for over 40 years? I think most of us would answer "yes" to that. However, those aren't elements used in determining bond nor is the fact that he is 80 and might die before the appeals process is exhausted.

Is ERK a flight risk? Why would he run from one of the greatest events of his life. While this trial may have created some hardships, it has elevated him from being a footnote to being a main character in the battle to save Mississippi from the "evils of intergration". This is his moment in the sun and he isn't going to run away from it. He also isn't going to do something stupid to get thrown back in jail when the appeals process is granting him his temporary freedom.

Is ERK a threat? The defense says yes because he told a jailer "I'll kill you before I kill myself" in response to questions about being suicidal. That's pretty weak but the C-L editorial staff was even weaker with their view of ERK as a threat. They basically said that granting bond was a threat because it might encourage others in the community to think that they can get away with the same crimes. I wish I had the exact quote but it was truly a stretch made so they could be on the PC side of this issue.

If you believe in judgment in the afterlife, I guess you can take some satisfaction in knowing that a person can't escape punishment forever.

Rita Schwerner Bender, as quoted in the NYT:

Rita Bender, wife of Mr. Schwerner, said the judge had not considered the danger to the community in the broader sense.

"To me this indicates a lack of understanding the seriousness of, and conveying the seriousness of, crimes of racial violence," Ms. Bender said by telephone from Seattle, where she lives.

Mr. Killen's release, she said, increases "the risk of violence by people who get the message once again that there is no control over them" (emphasis added).

I'm with Ben, and Mrs. Bender, on this one. I think there are plenty of reasons to deny bond -- and not just the more amorphous "message," although that is a good point. Despite his age and feeble self, he and his family have threatened, attacked and even entertained Klansmen on the even of the trial.

Maybe this is where we see Judge Gordon's true side?

And I don't agree with Frank, necessarily, that Killen won't "do something stupid" to get thrown back into jail. He has done stupid, threatening things his entire life -- why would he change now?

Yo! Lovers of justice:

Can someone tell me for sure: Was there any lawyer from the attorney general's office (Jim Hood's office) there in the courtroom to protest the motion for bond?

If not, does the AG forfeit any right to appeal the judge's ruling since he didn't show up?

I was wondering the exact same thing, Towanda. Someone told me they saw a report on WLBT that suggested neither Hood nor anyone from his office was at the hearing. Nothing on the station's website verifies this, however.

I take that back. Found the report:

No one with the Attorney General's office was in Gordon's courtroom Friday, but the office issued a statement saying, "We are in the process of looking at our options and considering filing a request with the appellate court for extraordinary relief."

I take that back. Found the report:

No one with the Attorney General's office was in Gordon's courtroom Friday, but the office issued a statement saying, "We are in the process of looking at our options and considering filing a request with the appellate court for extraordinary relief."

sure messed that one up... sorry about the double post with the broken link twice. Here's the link:

http://www.wlbt.com/Global/story.asp?s=3717401

I can't help but wonder how many death threats Judge Gordon got before coming to this decision. What if the prosecution didn't show up because of death threats? Scary...

Call me cynical, but I assume Hood wasn't there because the media circus is over and he already has the Killen conviction on his resumÈ. It does appear that Duncan was there, attempting to argue that Killen himself is a physical threat, though disabled and elderly. He should have asked Rita Bender for a legal consultation...

Well, if Killen dies outside of jail, I'm putting some of the blame on the prosecution. They could have tried much harder to keep him locked up.

Unfortunately, this is the system of justice we keep in office and keep in motion. We liked the verdict, and now we'll have to live with the rest of the rules and procedures of law. If we want to prove a just state, we'll have to live with what we have.

With that said, I'm sad he's out, and wish he'd get back in fast. I'm sure they wont' let him run around free long. Dying while on appeals isn't good for the image, and we all know no one will forgive us for letting him die while out. Even if there was nothing we could do. Sadly, they won't allow us a fair shot.

Anyone see the Marshall Ramsey cartoon today? As usual, he nails it. What long shadows.....

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=OPINION

He's what makes the C/L worth looking at.

C-L daily edition: 50 cents

C-L Sunday edition: $1.50

That Marshall Ramsey cartoon: PRICELESS!

It sounds like most people here are against bond being allowed for just about anybody during the appeals process. On flight risk, I would say an 80 year old man with health problems would rank in the bottom 1% of potential flight risks so I just don't see that as a legally viable reason to deny bond.

On threat to the community, I'm not a lawyer but I think this is primarily weighing the likelihood that a person will commit another crime while out on bond. If he had been convicted of being a bitter, ornary, racist, hateful old man, then I would agree that he will commit that crime again. But is he going to murder someone or organize the KKK into some sort of violent reaction--that seems to be quite a bit of a stretch.

As Ironghost pointed out, it is our legal system. It appears that the lawyers on both sides were fairly certain that bond would be granted because they all knew that there really wasn't a legal argument to deny bond. If this had been a former Black Panther member charged with a murder in 1964 I would argue the same points.

In regards to the judge, the easy thing for him to do was to deny bond. He knew that letting ERK out of jail on bond was hardly the popular thing to do nationwide, statewide, and I suspect even in the local community. By following the law he set himself up for people to question his intergrity and to hint at the possiblity that he might have made his ruling because of racist leanings or because he feared for his life.

Frank,
Your balloon has not landed, that's for sure. This vicious, sorry creature, Edgar Ray Killen- shoud be in prison. Period. This is NOT justice. Anyone with a brain would see this smirking excrement as a threat to the community: he's a murdering klansman.

Importantly, he PLANNED those cowardly murders.

James Chaney was tortured, many broken bones, groin injuries. Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner: all tortured and murdered.

Edgar Ray Killen PLANNED THE TORTURE MURDERS. Killen loves revenge, he says. He has threatened to kill others.

No reasonable person could doubt for one minute that the old scumbag is entertaining other like-minded killers and wannabe killers in his home, holding court, planning . . . planning . . . planning.

This is an outrage. How do you think the victims' families feel? Mississippians should be outraged.

Judge Gordon is a coward or a racist, don't know which.

Jim Hood has no excuse for not being in court Friday. "No Show" Hood. Why? Political advantage . . . ? No decent prosecutor would miss a bond hearing for the convicted killer.

Here is a post that adds more weight to my argument that all of this was about Mississippi's image and not about justice:

"Unfortunately, this is the system of justice we keep in office and keep in motion. We liked the verdict, and now we'll have to live with the rest of the rules and procedures of law. If we want to prove a just state, we'll have to live with what we have.

With that said, I'm sad he's out, and wish he'd get back in fast. I'm sure they wont' let him run around free long. Dying while on appeals isn't good for the image, and we all know no one will forgive us for letting him die while out. Even if there was nothing we could do. Sadly, they won't allow us a fair shot."

The state of Mississippi did not do all it could do in this case. Regardless, a full measure of justice will not be achieved until the disparities and injustices against which Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner stood are eliminated in the State of Mississippi and the rest of the country.

Towanda, I can appreciate that you have a great deal of emotion involved in this decision. I come from a family that was targeted by the Klan so I know the hate and potential danger that they represent. It's fortunate that our legal system has guidelines and that emotions and politics are usually kept out of the decisions. It's a shame that following those guidelines means immediate and harsh slander from some who don't agree.

Obviously I've taken the JFP politically incorrect side of this discussion and I'm starting to feel like the ACLU. I haven't said that I'm thrilled that ERK is out on bond because I'm not. I've clearly stated my viewpoint of ERK as a despicable person. From an emotional standpoint ERK should never live another day as a free man, from a legal standpoint he had the right to bond. That's something that was basically agreed on by both sets of lawyers.

How do you know it was agreed upon, Frank- both sets of lawyers agreeing to his bond?

And I still disagree with you, not only morally, but absolutely from a legal standpoint. One does not consider his motion for bond in a vacume. He is a violent racist, and he is clearly unrepentent, without remorse, smug and has continued to threaten others, including only weeks ago.

Anyone would have to be quite naive to think this man can't carry through on a threat- he did before, and he has the support of others who are capable now. No telling how many deaths Killen has orchestrated.

Edgar Ray Killen is a vicious, dangerous, amoral killer.

I can't opine on what Killen can orchestrate or plan these days, but I think the danger is what Rita Bender has said:

Mr. Killen's release, she said, increases "the risk of violence by people who get the message once again that there is no control over them."

The danger is sustaining a permissive enviroment for white supremacismóa danger with special dimensions in Mississippi, but also a danger all around the country with groups like the Minutemen getting official sanction. They're getting increased acceptance at the same time that neo-Nazis are making appearances among their ranks.

Towanda, I believe I read or heard something when the bond was granted where the prosecuting lawyers said they weren't surprised that bond was granted. I can't find that quote now and if I was wrong about that then I apologize.

If true justice had been done in this case, ERK would have been asking for bond in the 1960's and I would have agreed that he was a threat to his community.

If I am naive, then I guess where I'm naive is in thinking that race relations have improved in Mississippi since 1964. I think that Killen is guilty of a lot of things but do you really think that he has orchestrated many other deaths? Why aren't these unsolved cases being investigated? Do you think the KKK of the 1960's still exists and they are just waiting on the order from ERK to go out and kill again? Do you think that our court system is still at a point where white on black crimes go unpunished because of the all-white jury system and fear in the community? If that's the Mississippi we live in, then maybe ERK is a threat to the community. I just find it hard to believe that ERK in 2005 has the powers that you attribute to him as an argument that he is a threat. Obviously you disagree and I'm sure that neither of us will change the other's mind on the bond issue even though we are of like mind in regards to ERK as a person.

By the way, Jerry Mitchell reported on the appeal bond issue back in June when Killen's lawyers were first saying they would seek it. Mitchell sought the opinion of Aaron Condon, professor emeritus at the University of Mississippi School of Law:

"It's pretty much up to the judge," said Aaron Condon . . .

"It's one of those lengthy statutes full of sound and fury and signifying nothing," Condon said.

If Gordon does grant an appeal bond, it would mark the first given in a prosecution since 1994 involving killings from the civil rights era.

Murder convictions have resulted in most of those cases, making those defendants ineligible since they were sentenced to life.

In a 1999 trial involving the 1970 killing of Rainey Pool, a one-armed sharecropper beaten by a white mob and thrown in the river, a jury convicted three men of manslaughter, and a fourth pleaded guilty to the charge. Circuit Judge Jannie Lewis denied appeal bonds in that case.

Just a question about the argument that, "The danger is sustaining a permissive enviroment for white supremacism".

Are there supremacy groups out there saying, "Sure he was sentence to 60 years in prison but they did grant him a $600,000 bond so let's go out and kill someone." Maybe it will inspire all of the supremist who think they are 1 or 2 years away from death by old age but is this really a thing that will motivate others to commit crimes? I understand the emotional side of this argument and trying to find a way to keep ERK in jail, but I just don't think it is a very strong argument.

Are there supremacy groups out there saying, "Sure he was sentence to 60 years in prison but they did grant him a $600,000 bond so let's go out and kill someone."

Excuse me for sounding like the editor-in-chief, but it sounds to me (emphasis on the word "me") like you're putting a spin on what is being said here. I understand your point of view regarding the weak elements of the case, but what about precedence? Based on the comments from Professor Condon, denying bond would have been justifiable by the judge. Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to start any fires here. Just stating my point of view.

Thanks for stating your point of view in a calm manner. I don't think precedence pertained to my last post but it is something that should be considered. From what Ben posted, it appears that most of those convicted weren't eligible for bond. Apparently in the one case where they were, bond was not allowed. I'm sure there were similarities between that case and the ERK trial and I'm sure there were differences. Depending on the degree of similarities and differences regarding the issue of allowing bond, there may have been a lot of precedence or very little. I don't know the answer on that one.

Understood, Mr. Ezelle. There will probably be a lot of unanswered questions for a long time. My only consolation is that whether he goes back to jail or not, he will have to answer to a higher power about his actions.

Jared:

Thanks for the misquote. I prefer Justice over Image.

I'm all for justice, but you can't have it both ways. If you want justice, you have to let the system progress. Chances are his bond will be revoked. We have to be patient. Don't we all want Justice, Fair and Blind? He was eligable, and the judge made a decision. Hopefully, it'll be revoked. He deserves jail, after all. By his actions, Killen earned his stint in jail.

Chances are his bond will be revoked.

I hope so, Iron. Boy, do I hope so!

Misquote? I copied the quote just as it was. If Justice be the goal, who cares that "dying while out on appeal isn't good for the IMAGE." Dying while out on appeal isn't good for JUSTICE. Perhaps you were being sarcastic in that post. In that case, then I misunderstood and I apologize. However, I will add that while some may have been happy with the verdict of manslaughter and feel that Killen's conviction and sentence represented Justice in the Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner Case, many people do not see that as a full measure of Justice. The fact that Killen is out on appeal is not by any means the only thing preventing a full measure of Justice for Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner.

Are we really surprised that there is a KKK member who just went on trial for a murder that he committed 43 years ago is running free in Mississippi? I am not happy with the decision but i knew it would happen that is just how this sick govermetn works.

C-L is reporting that Killen's brother threatened the judge and others. Sounds like reason to revoke bond to me.

The C-L story brings up some interesting thoughts:
--Will this revelation prompt the defense attorneys to file for a mistrial claiming that the judge was biased towards their client because of threats made by ERK's brother?
--The judge acknowledges that he knew about the threats prior to the trial and therefore prior to the bond hearing so can this be considered new information in regards to allowing bond?
--The wording of the story is not clear. Jim Hood's office is asking for the bond to be revoked. Judge Gordon was threatened prior to the trial. The story never ties the two together so is the revoking of the bond request based on the threat made by the brother?
--Some people think the judge was racist in allowing bond. Just how racist could he be if he presided over a case that handed down a 60 year sentence knowing that his life had been threatened?
--And finally one that is really odd to me, if the brother threatened the life of a judge and was also guilty of attempted obstruction of justice, why didn't they arrest him when they learned of the threat. I didn't think that was the kind of thing that the authorities would just let slide.

I knew there had to have been some threats! This part tripped me out:

Several days into the trial, J.D. Killen picked up his cane "like it was a shotgun," said Marianne Todd, a free-lance photographer who took pictures for Getty Images. "Then he mimicked as if he were loading it, making that chink chink sound, four or five times as he moved the barrel left and right in front of us reporters and photographers."

Todd said she interpreted the act as a "threatening gesture. I guess if he were talking about his latest deer kill it would be OK, but I have a suspicion that's not what it was about."

Sounds like Edgar Ray needs to tell his li'l bro to go sit down somewhere and shut up! Ha ha...

An interesting story about "Scarey Jerry" (Killen's ornery brother). . . My girlfriend and I had exited the courtroom during a break in the Killen trial and were standing between the front courtroom doors and the elevator. Jerry Killen came busting out of the courtroom doors, swinging his cane in front of him, and nearly struck my girlfriend. (He would definitely have regretted it if he had). He grumbled that he had "had enough of this bullsh#t for today." Jerry was accompanied by his sister who couldn't understand "why they lied on Edgar."

Yep, Jerry is scary all right. I have a good idea where he can put that cane...

FYI: Be sure to vote on WJTV.com's current poll: Do the actions of Edgar Ray Killen's family make him a threat to society?

Sometimes I can be slow to see the light (finally I post something that the majority here will agree with). For those who think that Judge Gordon allowed the bond because he is racist or he has racist leanings, you therefore must think I'm racist or have raciest leanings since I've argued that his ruling was correct. Some how I totally missed the connection until it hit me last night. If you think that any of my future posts are racist then please feel free to just come right out and say it. I'm fairly hard to insult.

In an odd way I see the charges of racism as a sign of the positive changes that have happened in Mississippi. In my lifetime I can remember when people tried to stigmatize someone by labeling them a you-know-what-lover. Now you stigmitize someone by labeling them a racist. It doesn't mean that we've obtained perfection, but it is a quirkly little sign of progress that the label to avoid is now the exact opposite of 40 years ago.

For the record, I didn't think you were racist. There may be more of a generation gap thing going on, but I'm just guessing.

L.W., no I didn't think you did and for the record I think you add a lot of positive input to the JFP forums.

I'm afraid that "generation gap" is becoming more and more of a reality for me. At 53 I don't feel old but I took my mother to see "March of the Penguins" and the guy selling tickets gave us both senior discounts--according to the sign that's for people 60 and over. Now I have a cashier at McDade's who gives me the senior discount each time. It's nice to get 5% off but at what cost to the ego?

Well, I say you should suck up all the benefits you can. You get nothing for being 30. :-(

By Image, I mean if he does go free and dies, no one outside MS will believe we let Justice take it's course. Even though he's eligable for bond like most everyone else, we will all be seen as agreeing with that idiot Killen.

Seriously, Ms already has an image in most places and being racist. Do we want that to contiue, or be seen as a state facing the tough challenge of its past? I'd rather be seen as part of the side facing down the past.

Anyone with any ideas on how (and how soon) the MS Supreme Court is likely to rule on this case?

"By Image, I mean if he does go free and dies, no one outside MS will believe we let Justice take it's course. Even though he's eligable for bond like most everyone else, we will all be seen as agreeing with that idiot Killen. Seriously, Ms already has an image in most places and being racist. Do we want that to contiue, or be seen as a state facing the tough challenge of its past? I'd rather be seen as part of the side facing down the past."

I understand what you are saying. However, the State of Mississippi chose only to convict one person out of many directly involved with the murders and chose to continue ignoring the complicity of those persons from all levels of Mississippi society and government who contributed to the climate (through financial assistance to the Klan, the Sovereignty Commission, and White Citizens Councils; through legislation; and through corrupt law enforcement) that precipitated the murders . These facts do not render an image of Mississippi confronting its past . . . irregardless of Killen's status. No one will believe that Mississippi let Justice take its course, because Mississippi did no such thing. And as I have repeatedly stated, Justice will ultimately only be served when the injustices and disparities that have plagued Mississippi and the rest of the country are eliminated. Jim Prince of the Neshoba Democrat and the Philadelphia Coaltion stating that "if you can't do it because its the right thing to do, do it because its good for business" does not portray an image of Mississippi confronting its past. Leroy Ripley of the Philadelphia Coalition stating that the Coalition had accomplished what it set out to do by simply making a call for justice does not reflect a genunie attempt at change, but rather a public relations campaign. No one is saying that Mississippi has not changed or progressed to an extent, but the dynamics of the reopening of this case are transparent for those who choose to look with their eyes wide open.

What steps do you suggest that Mississippi should take to confront its past?

How about indictments of the other living suspects?

How about a true accounting of the role of the White Citizens' Council and the Sovereignty Commission in the Neshoba murders and in the many, many other crimes against African Americans and their allies?

How about a true accounting of the many, many other crimes against African Americans and their allies? That would include all of the beatings, surveillance and harassment, in addition to the murders.

How about a true accounting of the role of the White Citizens' Council, the Sovereignty Commission and other elements of the white power structure in protecting white, racist murderers from prosecution?

How about talking about who those people were and how the power structure worked to perpetuate totalitarian repression of African Americans and their allies?

Ben--I know a lot about the numerous injustice that went on during those times against the black community and the members of the white community who spoke up for civil rights. I just am not sure how people feel that these injustices should be address--I'm sure the feelings range from "let the past be the past" to "we can't move forward unless we totally rehash all of the past". If it is Mississippi and we are talking about race, I don't think the solution is ever easy or clearcut.

Frank, you asked, "What steps do you suggest that Mississippi should take to confront its past?" I just rattled off some things that would be more substantive than a poorly prosecuted case againse one old, unrepentant Klansman. Whether everyone in Mississippi agrees that such matters should be aired is another matter, isn't it? (To be clear, I am speaking as an outsider.) If you're asking me how to overcome societal resistance to confronting the past, that's another question.

Personally, I think locking up these old, unrepentant Klansmen sends a pretty important message, too, though I agree it's the first step in this process and not by far the last.

I'm in favor of airing anything we can prove--but when we air things we can't prove, that's called rumor. We don't want to create some kind of weird McCarthyesque enemies list of people who may or may not be guilty of anything.


Cheers,

TH

Tom makes a good point. As my research has been showing, there is a lot out there about civil rights murders that is just plain rumor and passing it off as fact doesn't do any good. As we do our stories, we're trying to get the truth out there, as well as quash myths as we can. But it has to be research-based.

While I appreciate the basic sentiment, Tom, I find your use of McCarthyesque very discordant here. McCarthyism, HUAC, SSIS, etc. all were part of the power structure that enforced white supremacism. Yes the naming of names has to be research based, but even the most irresponsible version of such a process could not begin to replicate the intermixture of federal, state and local powers in the service of white supremacism in the bad old days. It's sort of like calling examples of black bigotry against whites "reverse racism." It ain't the same thing.

Anyway, who said it shouldn't be research based? Hell, I'd be all for a state funded research institution whose job it was to analyze and describe the white power structure of old in the interest of truth and reconciliation. I'm sure it wouldn't need as big of a budget line as the Sovereignty Commission.

BG, I don't know what the heck you're trying to say in your first paragraph. First you essentially agree that naming names without evidence is a McCarthyesque tactic; then you object to my use of the term because McCarthy was a white supremacist. Well, no shitake, Sherlock--all the more reason not to go out of his way to borrow his M.O. Basically, your posts on this topic sound like a broken record: Mississippians in general, and implicitly the NAACP in particular, just don't care about these issues. That they sit on their hands. I don't agree with you. I think the reason more hasn't been done is because it's harder than it looks.

I do not use the term "reverse racism," and I challenge you to find any post among my hundreds on this site where I have ever complained about black bigotry against whites. Hell, your site is linked off my homepage. One more case that demonstrates the importance of actually checking facts about people before passing judgment on them.

You and I both know that Haley Barbour isn't going to fund a Truth and Reconciliation Commission; that would be a stretch even if Musgrove were still in office. The last governor we had who would have had the moral conviction to do anything of that nature was William Winter.

But a lot can be done in terms of private initiatives. The Southern Poverty Law Center has done much of what you describe here, as has the NAACP. Heck, I note that most of the lists of lynching victims in the back of Susan's book are credited to the hard work of the SPLC and NAACP. So it seems to me that if you want to help, you should humbly present yourself to the leaders of these organizations and ask what they need you to do--rather than treating them like a bunch of hapless idiots who have never thought about any of these issues before. I can pretty much guarantee you that our local NAACP leaders know much more about these issues than either of us ever will.


Cheers,

TH

In about 1995 I was helping coach the St. Joseph HS soccer team. One evening we were taking the school bus for a game in Vicksburg. The team was about a 50-50 racial mix and I remember thinking that if it was 1960 instead of 1995, this bus wouldn't make it past the city limits without being stopped by the Highway Patrol and all of us being arrested. In 1960 our bus trip would have been headline news and 35 years later no one thought it was anything other than a sports team riding over to a game.

We have made tremendous strides in racial equality since 1960 and tremendous strides were needed. I strongly encourage all of you to read the JFP interview with William Winter ( http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/comments.php?id=6827_0_9_0_C ) for his perspective on this. Also note that here is a man who has done amazing things for all races in this state but in his own words he tells us, "I grew up in segregated Mississippi as a segregationist. That was all I knew."

I understand the desire to go back and highlight all the ills of the past and expose all of the people who weren't as quick to see the light as someone like William Winter. I fully agree with the need to go back and try the old murder cases where justice wasn't done because of a flawed justice system. On the other hand, I know that it is hard to build a positive relationship when dwelling on the negatives of the past. We've all seen marriages that have hit rocky spots and they never recover because the couples can't let go of the past. One of my grandfathers didn't talk to his brother for over 30 years because they had a disagreement that they couldn't move beyond.

I know I've been long winded here but my point is this: There were a lot of things done wrong in the past by individuals, organizations, and the government. We have made a lot of progress and we continue to make progress. Everywhere you look there are things that just wouldn't have been possible or allowed in Mississippi in 1960. Will opening up the old wounds to the extent that you propose be something that will improve race relations or would it act as a devisive element that pushes the races apart? Sometimes reliving the past is the worst thing that can happen in a relationship.

C-L daily edition: 50 cents -C-L Sunday edition: $1.50 - That Marshall Ramsey cartoon: PRICELESS!

LW, you are priceless yourself. I don't know how I missed this one, but now that I saw it, I'm laughing myself silly. :-)

Y'all see the stories today about Killen threatening a reporter with a shotgun and telling a writer that "Had I done it, I wouldn't have any regrets." This article also has some interesting (if irrelevant) facts about repeating dates in this case.

I see how quickly emotions escalate on this thread, particularly among some who have had "words" before. Maybe some of those otherwise great people (you know who you are) need to stop and try to understand where the other is coming from and disagree without being so quick to jump the other guy - and in this instance, ought to let go of (recent) past personal attacks. :-) I know it's hard, but try.

Frank, this is not meant to be a criticism, but a disagreement. I believe you are being sincere (and not racist), however. . . There is a time for the past injustices to be "let go", but first there must be some acknowledgement of the injustices, acknowledgement that those injustices were injust, and some sincere regret expressed. We haven't managed that part yet, but when (and if) Mississippi does, then we can move past it.

IF we try to move past the injustice without addressing it in a healing way, the moving past it will be insincere and ineffective, as old resentments fester in those who feel forced to "appear" forgiving of old wounds that are not regretted by the perpetrators.

Tom,

If you want to question what I mean by something it is a little difficult for me to answer when I have to first start with all the things you attribute to me that I didn't say.

The basic sentiment I appreciate is that talk about what actually happened in the past and who was and is accountable, should be pursued responsibly. What I'm objecting to is bandying around the term McCarthyesque. McCarthyism wasn't just naming names. It was naming names culled from state and federally sponsored surveillance of American citizens whose political views were designated as deviant from the mainstream. Many of the people who were targeted for surveillance were listed in what was eventually called the Security Indexóthe list of individuals who would be quickly rounded up and imprisoned in a time of "emergency." There was a free flow of information between folks like Senator Eastland, who headed the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security, and the the Sovereignty Commission. Eastland and others in Washington wanted to know who the Sovereignty Commission had identified as "communist," and the Sovereignty Commission got info from Washington on civil rights workers. Susan describes one such scenario regarding intelligence on Andrew Goodman and his family, as a result of his parents' involvement with Pacifica Radio. McCarthyism, for want of a better term, was part and parcel of the government powers that contributed to the climate of repression and indiscriminate violence and murder in Mississippi and elsewhere. Of the thousands who were spied on, harassed, kept from gainful employment, and bullied out of legitimate political activity almost none had committed any crimes.

Truth about the past in Mississippi and elsewhere involves investigating crimes and holding criminals accountable. And it is about being honest about how power was brokered to allow such things to happen. McCarthyism was about investigating, as if they were fact, lies and rumors about thousands of innocent people.

I did not say you used the term "reverse racism." I was making what an analogy in order to make a point. The rightness of the analogy is that racism and McCarthyism are both terms for describing harmful power imbalances.

I have made no statements about the role of the NAACP or the SPLC in these matters. I did once criticize a statement Leroy Clemons made in his capacity as co-chair of the Philadelphia Coalition. Like Donna, I am doing work and research that I cannot elaborate on right now because that would be irresponsible.

John Suggs made a couple of points that I hadn't seen delineated in quite this way (and hadn't really thought too much down this line, but I believe he is right). He says

Marcus should be worried about the jurors who convicted Killen. The killer is now in a position to summon the boys with white sheets in the trunks of their cars. I fear for the many, many good citizens who spoke out against Killen and Klan terror before and during the trial.

You have to scroll down a way to find this piece, entitled "Mississippi - Dangerous Postscript." It's an interesting piece with a lot of stuff I haven't seen elsewhere. He talks about a rather large policeman who hung out with Killen's brother and wouldn't identify himself to the many media who asked, and who actually tailed one very persistant female reporter, and, I'm sure, caused her disquietude.

That was an implicit threat, and is the kind of thing I'd expect from the klan types. Cowards, never standing up to a fair fight, they have to go in pairs and groups to overwhelm others with weapons and just plain sneakiness. Their threats show what they are made of, too - following people, calling them up on the phone and just breathing or making anonymous threats, masking themselves, going out to bomb and set fires in the dead of night. What a bunch of cowardly, slippery, slimy chickensh*ts.

OK, don't know how I got that link to John Sugg messed up, but here is the link: http://www.johnsugg.com/

Ben G., that's fine. But when you come into these threads talking about what "Mississippi needs to do" without consulting the organizations in Mississippi that deal directly with our legacy (and whose leaders have no doubt dreamed of things like a state Truth and Reconciliation Commission already), it makes me feel like what you're doing is textbook regional snobbery rather than actual civil rights work. I have seen enough of your blog to know that's not the case, but I do wish there was more respect in your posts for Mississippians who have dedicated their lives to--and, occasionally lost their lives in--the struggle for civil rights. And, heck, for the rest of us; I fail to see how you can say JFP isn't doing enough, for example, to deal with these issues. I think you need to talk to us as peers instead of acting as though you're delivering the Sermon on the Mount. That's what it basically boils down to. I'm not suggesting that you don't do enough, or that your passion for civil rights isn't sincere, or that your potential in this movement isn't considerable; heck, I recommend your blog to people all the time. Please, keep doing what you're doing. But please put an end to the Mississippi-bashing, the criticism of folks for not making public accusations we don't have the evidence to back up, and the tendency to either dismiss or criticize every single organization that works for civil rights in Mississippi. That taints what you're trying to do here. It makes you seem much less serious about this, and much less educated about this, than I suspect you are.

Frank, I'm all for opening the wounds of the past if they've got rusty shrapnel in them. One thing I do agree with Ben on is that we need to pursue any and all civil rights murders and build groundswell movements to pursue indictments when the evidence is there, much like Donna is helping to do with Dee/Moore--I mean, if Dunn Lampton will go after Klansmen, then obviously this is no longer a partisan issue; everybody wants a piece of these racist old coots, and I think that's fantastic. And although civil rights historians do this as a matter of course, let's help publicize what the Sovereignty Commission was doing. Let's do our part in all of this. But let's do it with the knowledge that what we are doing is just our part--that there was a movement before we got here and there will still be a movement when we're gone. Donna has it right: Equality never ends. We need to be humble about this. We need perspective. And we need to be cognizant of who's doing the real work in all of this--folks like Thomas Moore and Rita Schwermer, who understand the phrase "wounds of the past" more than any of us ever will but are courageously coming forward and getting things done. The rest of us are bit players.


Cheers,

TH

Tom, I'm going to cool my jets a little before I respond to you again, since I hear you trying to meet me half way even as you tell me you don't like my style.

Frank, you made the comparison to a marriage:

On the other hand, I know that it is hard to build a positive relationship when dwelling on the negatives of the past. We've all seen marriages that have hit rocky spots and they never recover because the couples can't let go of the past. One of my grandfathers didn't talk to his brother for over 30 years because they had a disagreement that they couldn't move beyond.

I think the thing that has to be factored in is that we are talking about a situation that involved some serious domestic violence. I don't think any domestic violence advocacy organization would tell the battered partner in a relationship to just go back to the batterer, let go of the past, and move on, no matter how much the batterer seems to have changed. If I'm not mistaken, most domestic violence organizations would do everything they could to support the victim in making the decision to never go back. Since neither resegregation nor forced relocations are palatable options, I think something else has to happen before everyone lets go of the past.

What that something else should like in the end, I don't really know. The things I mentioned above are the things that I think should be in the mix of the discussion. The hands on murderers are one thing, but Lord, the evil was much greater than that. Why shouldn't the people guilty of cutting off federal food subsidies to Blacks in Leflore County from 1962-1966 go to trial? By their actions those WCC, Klansmen and county officials caused mass starvation and malnourishment of countless African Americans. Isn't that as serious as what Edgar Ray Killen did?

Ben, I think I owe you an apology anyway. My criticism all along the line has been directed at the tone of some of your posts on the Jackson Free Press blog. Period. That's it. It goes no deeper. I have immense respect for what you do, and never meant to suggest otherwise. In making strategic suggestions to a fellow soldier-in-arms, I'm afraid I've created the impression that I don't support you in this fight. Nothing could be further from the truth. My criticism is strategic. We ultimately have the same goals. Sometimes I'm sure it sounds like I don't recognize that, but I do. I'll try to watch my tone.

As far as Leflore County is concerned, I'm afraid I can't find much information about this particular incident online--which is a good indicator that more needs to be written. If you can point me to some resources, I'll try, in my own subtle way, to get the meme out there. I do know that Leflore County was a hotbed of Klan activity, so I'm not surprised to hear this but I am surprised that I haven't heard this before.


Cheers,

TH

Tom, Most certainly accepted. Thank you. And I am sorry if my comments have seemed abrasive or inconsiderate of local folks. That's not what I intend.

You can find material on Leflore County in Susan's book and in Cagin and Dray, We Are Not Afraid.

Just writing very briefly at the moment since I'm on my way out for the day.

Thanks,

Ben

Also in "Local People. The Struggle for Civil Rights in Mississippi", by John Dittmer, Tom. If you haven't read this book, you need to. It's an essential, enclycopedic work on the civil rights movement in Mississippi up until the time of it's publication. I know it's not possible to cover EVERYTHING, but he's come closer in this book than any other I know of. It's a shame it was published before the Sovereingty Commission papers were unsealed by judicial decree.

God bless Eric Stringfellow for just ][url=http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050821/COL0601/508210377/1189/NEWS01]]http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050821/COL0601/508210377/1189/NEWS01][/url] laying it on the line[/url] today in a follow-up to his earlier article about Killen's release on bond.

He quotes the NAACP's Derrick Johnson and then makes his own comment,
"Killen's release raised a lot of questions about justice in Mississippi," said Johnson, state NAACP president. "When the national media was here, we saw justice. "When the national media left, we got Mississippi justice."

Justice and justice in Mississippi. The suspicion is alive and well.

According to Eric, Hood said
Killen's appeal, Hood said, will probably take 12 to 24 months. His office did not attend the bond hearing because Hood didn't think it would make a difference and because he wanted to see how Gordon would rule.

That answers how long, which is something I was wondering about, but I had to laugh (in a rueful way) about Hood saying he wanted to "see how Gordon would rule." I believe he meant he wanted to see how people would react.

Agreed on the Leflore County example. Ever since I read some years back in the Seth/Cagin book that white folks in Greenwood tried to starve black people to death for trying to vote, I've used that as an example to younger people who don't know enough about the realities of Jim Crow. It's a good one.

Sharing these types of examples and stories are alwaysbetter than lecturing people about what they don't know.

Did anyone catch Meet the Press? I don't watch it often, but I caught some of it on MSNBC, and OOOOOOOOOH BOY!

Feel free to check out the transcript, mainly Sen. Trent Lott's interview. He made some comments about civil rights issues, and I wanted to know if anyone can validate any of what he said.

Hey, C.W....your link is busted. :-D

I'll try it again for you ]here.

Ben, just to clarify, I am in agreement with you on going back and addressing some of the ills of the past. Where we may disagree is just how many wounds need to be addressed.

I think C.W. nailed the Jim Hood comment on the head. As far as what Eric Stringfellow wrote about justice and Mississippi justice, that assumes that there was a gross miscarriage of justice in allowing bond for JEK. From what I have seen so far, everyone seems to be grasping at straws in order to make JEK a threat to the community that would fit the legal requirements for denying bond. Yes he is a cranky old man who likes to threaten people, but has anyone found anything from the last 20 years or so where he has actually be caught doing a violent crime or even directing others to commit a violent crime?

Don't get me wrong, it wouldn't have bothered me if the judge had denied bond and that would have been the easy and the politically correct thing to do. I just think that in this case he followed the law and I think the judge is being unfairly criticized and I think Mississippi is being unfairly criticized by those who are saying that two types of justice were used in this case. Just my opinion and I know that many of you disagree with it and those who do agree with me are probably smart enough to know not to post.

Frank, I will repeat it once more...a full measure of justice was not served regardless of the bond issue or any other issue directly related to Killen's prosecution. The sheer fact that Killen was the only one prosecuted negates any attempt at a full measure of justice.

It's also a stretch to assume he's not a threat. He hosts gatherings at his home for white supremacists and KKK members and sympathizers. One of the Klansman ran off two reporters the night before the trial started. He has already served time for threatening a woman. He pushed reporters coming out of the courthouse. He and his family members threatened folks in various ways.

I wonder if folks would make the same argument for an old Mob boss -- that he shouldn't be in prison because he's no longer a threat to society. This ain't got nothing to do with "political correctness." In fact, the most leftist people I know who have commented on this case don't think it does any good to keep put or keep him in jail. So playing the PC card here adds nothing to this discussion.

Well, I had a reply but I erased it. I then had a second reply and I erased it. And now I've just erased my third reply.

Now I've erased a 4th. I guess we should just agree to disagree and we can all wait on the outcome.

Frank, we'll just have to agree to disagree - but I do admire a person who sticks to their guns in the face of overwhelming disagreement. :-)

I got a kick out of reading in one article (can't remember which one) that said that Killen was telling Judge Gordon that he'd lost the use of his right hand since the accident he had. I immediately remembered him writing on his pad during the trial (does he think people are both blind and stupid?). Then the article continued to say that when his microphone slipped, Killen reacted quickly and grabbed it - with his right hand.

On Hood, I read one article that quoted him as saying he didn't show up for the bond hearing because he was sick. Hmmmm. This C/L article quotes him giving a different reason for missing it .


I don't know what you erased, but I imagine that you and I and others on here are set in our particular opinions, so there really isn't a lot of point in arguing it (since no one with power over this is listening to us). I will say, though, that I wasn't sure at first - not wanting him out, but thinking it was normal due process; however Ben cleared that up for me by quoting Professor Condon. Now it appears to me that what I wanted and what the law allows are in agreement. I'm hoping the Supreme Court sees it that way too, but considering that some of them have spoken at Council of Conservative Citizens' meetings, that worries me. For all I know, some of them may belong as well.

Donna is making a good analogy with the issue of mob bosses. And I simply don't believe this old man is as bad off as he pretends. I didn't believe for a minute that he was really sick when they took him to the hospital. Call me cynical, maybe I am (and I admit that I could be wrong about that illness - but it seemed entirely too convenient and too staged)

I guess we will just have to see how this plays out, won't we?

You'd be surprised who reads these threads, C.W. ;-)

I don't entirely disagree with Frank, I should add. I believed, for instance, that the manslaughter conviction made perfect sense ó at least based on the case as presented. I just don't think that, in this case, the argument that Killen is harmless is sound based on his own history. I think there's too much forgiveness of a harmless-old-white-guy thrown into folks' thinking, even if they don't mean to. It's the same thinking we're all used to -- ah, he's too old anyway. Why worry about it now? Meantime, many of the same people want 16-year-olds put away for life without parole, or sent to the electric chair. By the Killen-apologist logic, you should just let them go free as soon as they get old and "harmless." Either you want a tough-on-crime society, or you don't.

Personally, I want long-overdue justice, and that's not found in Killen's eating his wife's butterbeans every day until the court gets around to his appeal.

Personally, I want long-overdue justice, and that's not found in Killen's eating his wife's butterbeans every day until the court gets around to his appeal.

Now you made me hungry! LOL!

I believed, for instance, that the manslaughter conviction made perfect sense ó at least based on the case as presented.

But why was such a poor case presented? Could the less than stellar performances of AG Hood and Judge Gordon that we're seeing now be an indicator that their tone of seriousness in front of the national media was something of a put on?

If a fair number of usówho frequently disagree about how to look at the big pictureóare all angry that Killen is out on bail, shouldn't we also be angry that the case for murder charges wasn't more vigorously pursued?

Over on my blog, I have a couple of posts pertaining to what, with hindsight, is troubling legal information:

There is one other legal principle that should be kept in mind under the law in Mississippi. That is, as explained in the Bill Smith decision, one of the Dahmer cases, a conspirator in Mississippi becomes an accessory before the fact and is tried and punished the same as the principal...

It appears the prosecution did not have to prove direct responsibility as a murderer in order to convict Killen for murder.

If they'd convicted Killen of murder, he would not, according to Professor Condon, be eligible for appeal bond. Condon also contends that

Because Gordon sentenced Killen . . . to the maximum 60 years . . . the judge may treat Killen's case as if it were a murder conviction.

Under state law, appeal bonds are denied to those sentenced to death or life, or to those convicted of felony child abuse.

Now to come back around to Jared's insistence on a full measure of justice, the legal principle cited above also suggests that there may be a stronger case against some of the other living suspects than Hood and Duncan have claimed. A number of people named in Delmar Dennis' 1967 testimony, which was admitted as evidence in the 2005 case, are strongly implicated in this legal framework as accessories "before the fact."

Did FBI informants report who was present at the Klan meetings where the "elimination" of "Goatee" was discussed and decided? If so, that could be an awful lot of people who should go to trial.

If a fair number of usówho frequently disagree about how to look at the big pictureóare all angry that Killen is out on bail, shouldn't we also be angry that the case for murder charges wasn't more vigorously pursued?

Consider this, Ben (and it doesn't sound as if you have) - many of us are angry that the case for murder charges weren't more vigorously pursued, but we are limited in what we can do about it.

The whole problem with getting on Hood's case (and I've done my share of it) is that the choice we had when we went to vote was a choice between him and a Mississippi Republican. (how much do you think we'd have gotten out of him?) The sad truth is that we won't likely be given any better choice come next re-election time. There has to be a balancing out between being angry and getting past that to get something accomplished.

We're pretty well left with either railing bitterly but ineffectively, or working with what we've got to work with. The former doesn't get us anywhere and the later will bring accusations of sellout. I think the frustration that many on this blog have been expressing is the frustration of being Mississippians feeling caught between a rock and hard place with people looking in from the outside to judge how the state is doing.

You're probably not going to like hearing this, but having indulged in the bitter but ineffective railing, and getting tired over the years of accomplishing nothing with it, I'm going as far as is honestly possible down the path of working with what we have, although I reserve the right to mutter and occasionally curse political reality while I'm doing it.

You'd be surprised who reads these threads, C.W. ;-)

Probably not. I'd just be surprised if you tried to tell me that most of those in power in this state give a flip about the opinons expressed. Those guys are looking for sheeple, not independent thinkers. Sorry, I'm feeling a little politically jaded right now.

Meantime, many of the same people want 16-year-olds put away for life without parole, or sent to the electric chair.

Now, this is true, but I really, really don't understand it. A 16-old-old can do you the harm an adult can, but they don't have the capacity for judgement and responsibility as adults have - or should have (or we'd be letting them have the privileges of adulthood as well as trying to hold them to the same standards of punishment).

I've had a person on another blog try to tell me that it would be fitting and just for Killen to be out on appeal and have "something happen" to him while he's out. Sometimes I wonder if people have lost their minds. Fitting and just, at this point, is for him to live a long, miserable life behind bars. I want him back in jail and I want him living to 100, at least.

Well, C.W., I have added a new word to my vocabulary - sheeple.