I didn't write anything first thing this morning, an unusual thing for me, just wasn't thinking about anything in particular I suppose. Later on I ran across an article about the authorities having no plans to prosecute the woman accused of making false testimony about Emmett Till. Apparently a warrant had been issued for her arrest back in 1955 but had never been served. This woman, now in her eighties wrote some memoirs about the whole thing. As to who is telling the whole truth about everything is left to speculation. That this boy of just 14 was taken out of his Aunts house by two white men at gunpoint is undisputed. We all know what happened. And there is no justification for that, none, period. That those men were acquitted is certainly a travesty of justice if ever there was one. Their guilt is without question in my mind. They admitted to killing him! That all happened sixty-seven years ago.
The family of Emmett now wants the woman arrested and brought to trial for her involvement. She is, after all, the one that accused him and set the whole thing in motion. In her memoirs she claims to have tried to get her husband and brother-in-law to release Emmett Till when they brought him to her to identify. She claims she just couldn't make them stop and Emmett Til told them he was the one. Does any of that make a difference? It does not in my book. But I'm not certain she should be brought to trial today. The court of public opinion has long convicted her and any resemblance to a fair and unbiased trial is simply impossible. I think she is guilty too! But, what purpose could it serve at this point? It certainly isn't going to bring Emmett Till back. The men directly responsible for his death are long since dead. The story has been told and everyone agrees. It was an extreme miscarriage of justice allowed to take place in the deep south of 1955. It wasn't right.
I'm not attempting to offer any justification for any of this. I doubt that woman ever thought it would go that far. Still, it was her statements that lead to it. Has that haunted her, does she feel any remorse, any regret? I don't know, only she knows that answer. A warrant was issued for her arrest on the charge of kidnapping. She didn't go into that house and abduct him. She wasn't guilty of kidnapping in my opinion.
An accessory after the fact? I'm no lawyer but that sounds right. She wasn't present when the crime took place either. So, what is she guilty of? All the witnesses in that store at the time say he did whistle at her. She claims he touched her hand and arm and that is disputed. She told the story that was at least partially a lie if you believe that he didn't touch her. Still, no reason for anything that happened after that to have taken place. I'm just saying I don't think there is any evidence strong enough to convict her of anything criminal.
An old arrest warrant? A warrant is nothing more than a summons to be questioned. Yes, it takes a judge to issue one feeling it warrants investigation. But it isn't proof of anything. Bottom line for me is simple enough, can she get a fair, impartial, unbiased trial anywhere in America? The answer has to be no. So, what punishment to give to a woman in her eighties for words spoken sixty-seven years ago? Her identity is no secret to anyone. Whatever consequences she has brought upon herself has been hers to bear. At this point it is no longer justice, it is revenge. And that isn't what the judicial system is supposed to be about. You can't correct a wrong through revenge. Might make you feel better, but it won't change a thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment