'Mississippi Burning' trial and conviction thread

Yes! Kudos for the judge, too, for sending a clear message!

I couldn't wait for this to be posted, so beat you to it.


Many STILL CLING TO NOTION THAT KKK WASN'T ALL BAD

By Merlene Davis

HERALD-LEADER COLUMNIST


As if it weren't bad enough that we had to endure the long-delayed triple murder trial of former Ku Klux Klansman Edgar Ray Killen, his defense attorney chose to show how stupid he thinks we are.

Killen's attorney presented, for all to see, former two-term Philadelphia, Miss., Mayor Harlan Majure as a character witness for their client.

Majure said Killen was a "good" man whom he had known for about 50 years. He said he had spoken with Killen at a wake the night the three civil rights workers disappeared from a road in rural Mississippi 41 years ago.

Killen a "good" man?

On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Majure if he was aware that Killen was a member of the Klan.

Majure said, "No."

Would it have made a difference in his opinion of Killen had he known?

Majure said, "Not necessarily so," adding that the Klan he knew did positive things.

Some of the 200 people in the courtroom gasped.

The prosecutor asked Majure if he knew the Klan beat and murdered people.

Majure said as far as he knew it was a peaceful organization that "did some good things too."

Why would you put a man like that on the stand in defense of your client knowing he would be grilled by the prosecution?

The Klan a peaceful organization?

Please.

At first I simply pushed that silliness out of my mind.

But days later I came across a posting at the Web site of The Neshoba Democrat, the newspaper in Philadelphia, Miss.

It was from Perian Colvin, who said she is Majure's daughter.

In answer to a few harsh comments about Majure, she said her father "is a good (there's that word again) and decent man, a devout Christian, but I doubt you want to hear that."

What Christian would call the Klan peaceful?

Colvin said that had her father been given a chance to fully answer the question as he had intended, we would have heard an explanation of why he considered the Klan peaceful.

"If my dad could have finished his testimony he would have told everybody the Klan did good (again!) things in the 1930's in (Philadelphia). They tried to get white and black men to work and support their families -- not cheat on their wives, etc.," Colvin wrote.

The Klan went after deadbeat dads in the 1930s?

If that is true, and I have no reason to doubt the woman, why would that be her father's image of the KKK, especially after so many horrific murders perpetrated by the Klan in the years since then?

Maybe there was something about the Klan that I didn't know.

Nope. The Klan I know now is the same Klan that Majure grew up with. It's just that the hatred they spewed was never directed at him, but at white Radical Republicans from the north after the Civil War, black people, Jews, Catholics and immigrants.

The KKK got its name from the Greek word "kuklos" which means wheel, circle, or band and the word "clan," which means family.

The first branch of the Klan was established in Pulaski, Tenn., in May 1866. Another local group was formed in Nashville in April, 1867. Most of the members were former Confederate Army soldiers, with the first Grand Wizard being Nathan Forrest, a general during the Civil War.

To keep what grip they thought they had in the South from being eroded by Northerners and freed slaves, the men, wearing masks, white cardboard hats and draped in white sheets, tortured and killed black Americans and sympathetic whites.

They also targeted immigrants who they thought were voting for the Radical Republicans who were forcing all the changes.

In 1871, a federal grand jury found that the Klan intimidated black people by "breaking into their houses at the dead of night, dragging them from their beds, torturing them in the most inhuman manner, and in many instances murdering."

Nothing about wayward husbands in that summation.

In 1922, a second edition of the Klan organized and grew rapidly gaining elected positions and political power in Texas, Oklahoma, Indiana, Oregon and Maine. Membership reached 4 million, making it virtually impossible for any Klansman to be convicted of a crime.

During the World Wars, however, membership declined, coming back in the 1950s with the civil rights movement.

Their main purpose in the Deep South was to keep blacks from voting. In Mississippi, where Majure lived, 42 percent of the population was black in 1960, but only 2 percent was registered to vote.

I'm not seeing evidence of that peaceful organization Majure spoke of. And in such a small town as Philadelphia, Miss., population 7,000, he would have known what his neighbors were up to.

"I told my dad that his friends don't need an explanation, and his enemies won't believe him anyway," Colvin wrote. "If you only knew what a good man he has been all of his life -- ask around you will see ... "

I'm sure Colvin loves her father. I'm pretty sure some of the townsfolk think Majure is a good man.

But protecting a hate-filled domestic terrorist group and painting it prettier than it is or ever was doesn't win high praise from me.

My definition of "good" is a bit different.

Good article, Edgar. Thanks for that.

I posted something similar earlier HERE. Your story does go into more detail though.

Oh, well, it bears repeating anyway.

For sure. I'm waiting for tomorrow to see if any motions are going to be put forward by the defense.

Backward people? by how do you mean?

I am a Philadelphia resident.... I do not consider our very progressive town as a "backwoods" type at all.
I, for one, hold a bachelors degree from a prominant university- and am a teacher at a local school. I read several newspapers- travel the world- travel to our state's capital to enjoy some of the many culture events that pass through it- and actually read this forum...... so actually I come out the woods on occassion. My co-workers all have degrees as well, my neighbors are artists, authors, professional musicians, lawyers, and accountants. Our town rests next to an Indian Reservation, rich in culture and tradition.

Sure, our town is small, and has history-be it good or bad history... but don't confuse that with ignorance and "backwoods mentalitly".

The things that happened here over 40 years ago are something we can't change, we can't control, nor can we have prevented. We have mixed feelings. And I'm not so sure those feelings are race related.... Many, many- of the silent town folks (both black and white, residents) agree that this horrid trial should have been dealt with years ago. At the moment, it feels like a wound has been re-opened- be it that it will heal for good now.

I'm all for justice being served.... but in some instances this trial is just a nice little politcial feather for our AG and DA. And I am not a lawyer, but how can a dead man's testimony be allowed admissiable? If I were a defense attorney, I'd surely like to question that evidence. And like someone posted here, 25k is alot of money today, but 40 years ago, I guess it was a WHOLE HELL OF ALOT. Sooo.... I'm not saying he's not guilty, I'm just saying- Did he get a FAIR TRIAL?

Ok.. I'm off the soapbox. Thanks for letting me post a bit of rant.

~mildred yarborough

The trial was held in Mississippi, wasn't it?

Hello Mildred. First of all, I'd like to welcome you to A2K. I hope you enjoy your stay here.

It's nice to get a point of view from someone who lives in the area where the trial took place. Everything that is within this thread is naturally based on what we read in various media - mostly The Neshoba Democrat. It appears to me though that their coverage appeared to be fair and unbiased.

I always feel uncomfortable with terminolgy that paints whole groups of people with the same brush. So, I would not have used any word or phrase that categorizes the residents of Mississippi in any particular way. You'll always find exceptions naturally.

Now, to the trial. From my viewpoint, it shouldn't matter that the crime happened so long ago, but, of course, it would have been better if justice had been done in 1967, rather than in 2005. As a matter of fact, I would question why it took officials so long to come out with the second trial. That is the big failing here.

I'm not well-versed in law. I'm just a layman, like many others, but it appears to me that Mr. Killen received a fair trial. The only reason he was not successfully convicted in 1967, was due to a "hung jury". The verdict was 11 to 1, with the lone holdout saying that they "could not convict a preacher". I don't see why testimony from that trial would not be admissible in the current trial. If it was okay then, it should still be okay now.

My point about bringing up the $25,000 that was paid to the police officer, was that he may not have done it for pure motives. It doesn't mean that what he said was not true.

Lastly, should a man had been convicted after 41 years after the fact, after "old wounds had healed over"? Definitely! As painful as it may have been for the communities in the area, I think it was necessary for wrongs to try to be righted. Yes, it certainly won't hurt the careers of law enforcement officials now involved to have successfully completed the current trial, but that's the way it goes sometimes.

I would be shocked if Mr. Killen's legal defense did not appeal the decision. So, we should find that out today.

One can be very erudite and progressive in many respects, but the fact remains there could be no justice there until the people grew a bit in certain ways.

This poll is currently running in The Neshoba Democrat. As of today, 5pm Pacific Time, the results are up to now:

What did the evidence in the Edgar Ray Killen trial show in your opinion?

57%
Murder

16%
Manslaughter

28%
Not guilty

Total Voters: 348

A fair number of "not guilty" votes, I notice.

Source[/color]

Philadelphia, Mississippi.

I heard of the place becasue some years ago there was some football player, a good one, who was challenging the NFL on something, I forget what.

Although, the name "philly" seems to belong to the City Of Brotherly Love.

Baloney. Your cops were in league with the Ku Klux Klan, fer Chrissakes.

You could have prevented that.

Want to know how the back of the Klan got broken? When the Federal government stepped in and made it a Federal offense to violate the civil rights of someone. So if the white cops and white juries let off a man who murdered a black man, the Feds stepped in and prosecuted him anyway. Not for murder-for violating the civil rights of someone. If the jury rules the defendant violated the civil rights of someone by murdering him, so be it.

Then, and only then, was the Klan disempowered.

Why are so many Southerners so enthusiastic about "states rights"? You think the average Southerner cares that much about a constitutional issue? Back in the sixties, when few people went to college, "States Rights" was the call of the day down south. And the reason it was was because it meant, "Federal Government should leave us alone to treat the blacks anyway we want".

Was the North perfect, then or now? No, not by a long shot. But at least the Northerners did not hang black people everytime Jack Johnson, the first black heavyweight champion, knocked out a white guy in the ring. America as a whole was racist, but racism took it's most intense form down south. And this trial is reminding us of that.





Now wait a minute. You're trying to confuse two things.

I'll bet the black people think it should have been dealt with years ago, all right-but they're glad that at least they finally are getting the guy.

I'm sure the white people think it should have been dealt with years ago also-but are willing to say that since it wasn't, they should let the guy go.

Letting Killen go is not something too many black people are willing to do, I would think.





Here we go. The dodge. "I don't think they should let Killen go because I want them to let him go, I want them to let Killen go because it 's just a political football for the dirty politicians".
It's like back in the sixties, the real issue was not that people demonstrated and rioted because of injustice. The REAL issue, the southerners said, was these "outside agitators". And oh boy, did they ever hate "outside agitators". "Agitators" like Chaney, Mitchell and Schwerner.

Just a reminder, by the the way, the 1967 trial resulted in a jury vote of 11 to 1 for convicting Killen. That was an all-white jury.

We now can look forward to the appeal of Killen's conviction.

Killen taken to Rankin County correctional facility

The Neshoba Democrat
Monday, June 27, 2005
By DEBBIE BURT MYERS
Managing Editor

Former Ku Klux Klan leader Edgar Ray Killen was transported to the Central Mississippi Correctional Facility this morning shortly after a circuit court judge denied his request for a new trial in the 1964 murders of three civil rights workers.

Killen, convicted last week on three counts of manslaughter, is expected to undergo a series of medical and psychological evaluations there to determine his prison classification.

Correctional officials will then determine if Killen should serve out his 60-year sentence at the Rankin facility or at Parchman.

A jury convicted Killen on June 21 of manslaughter in connection with the deaths of Michael Schwerner, James Chaney and Andrew Goodman. The three had come to Neshoba County to investigate the burning of Mt. Zion Methodist Church and the beating of several of its members.

Killen entered the Neshoba County courthouse shortly before 9 a.m. today in a yellow prison suit, smiling and waving to family members. His wife went up and kissed him on the forehead and the couple chatted briefly with defense attorney James McIntyre before court came to order.

In asking the judge for a new trial, McIntyre said the defense did "not come to court prepared for a manslaughter trial."

He questioned the instruction which allowed the jury the manslaughter choice as opposed to murder or acquittal.

District Attorney Mark Duncan told the court that it had repeatedly ruled that the manslaughter option was proper in murder cases.

After the judge denied the request, McIntyre told reporters that he would appeal Killen's case to the state Supreme Court and would seek an appeal bond to allow his client to be free pending its decision.

Source[/color]

Fair enough, but there were many murders down South where the whites walked, despite good evidence, because

A) The juries were selected from the voting rolls

B) The blacks were effectively excluded from the voting rolls.

If the jury in 1967 came within a haribreadth of doing the right thing, without needing to resort to the Federal law, that is well and good.

But the fact is, the cops were complicit in the terrorism of the Klan against the black citizenry throughout the South, and the power of the Klan evaporated when these Klan killers and terrorizers could no longer do what they wanted with tacit permission from the police.

That's what happens when people are brought up, generation after generation, believing that one group of people "need to be kept in their place" and it is accepted as normal. When somebody questions the state of affairs, they are viewed as radicals and interferers in the peaceful life of the people.

That's what Chaney, Mitchell and Schwerner were-people looking to "interfere" and to overturn a way of life that had become entrenched as the normal way of doing things.

I don't disagree with you at all in this regard. I was just looking to bring up the facts of this particular case.

You know, just for the heck of it, I'm going to take Philly Resident's issue and agree with it just for the sake of argument.

There is another case which sticks in my mind. It happened in the seventies.

A retired elevator operator, black, (though I don't think it bears on the case), was discovered to have killed someone down south 40 years previous. He was 19 or 20 at the time.

He took it on the lam, and went to New York City, where he got a job as an elevator operator, married, lived an exemplary life with apparently no arrests, and retired until somehow it came out that he murdered this person back in the thirties.

There was much public protest that they would bother with the case now. Even among states, extradition proceedings are necessary, and there was some question if New York would hold up extradition to the Southern state.

He finally was extradited some months later, but was charged with a much lesser crime and sentenced, I believe, to something less than a year in jail. I'm going on memory, here.

It was not spelled out that a light charge might have been what New York wanted not to bog down extradition, but it wasn't denied either. Possibly, the Southern prosecutors were no more interested in "throwing the book" at the guy than the New Yorkers were.

At any rate, here we have a man who killed someone 40 years ago, and when it comes out, almost everyone is yelling, "Leave him alone".

But Killen killed someone decades ago, and hardly anyone thinks he should be let go.

Just for the heck of it, let's discuss: is the discrepancy justified?

Hey, sorry I've been gone for so long on this...I was very very sick and then I fell down some stairs and sprained my ankle. But here I am to say

Finally justice is served!

It took a long time but what needed to be done is done. We can't take back what happened but we can make sure that it doesn't even happen again and that justice is done.

I hope that man rots in hell. Ok, I take that back.

I KNOW that man will be rotting in hell.

It wasn't me or necessarily anybody else on this thread saying leave him alone, Wizard. I believe we should prosecute all murderers.

Agreed.

As for the elevator operator, he should not get a reduced sentence. Although, I would like to actually read the story before I make up my mind on sentencing. Perhaps there were extenuating circumstances. I'll leave it at that.