by C.W. Roberson

There are a few troubling questions that have been nagging away in the dark corners of my mind, and I believe it may be time to drag them into the sunshine.

In a recent article I read that Attorney General Jim Hood had stated that the pursuit of other complicit criminals in the Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner murders of 1964 is not likely because the case against those others is “weak.”

Weaker than Killen’s case?
To begin with, the reason given previously for not trying to indict Killen was that the case was weak, there was not enough evidence to pursue a conviction. Yet, when sufficient pressure was brought on the Attorney General’s office (pressure from several different directions) to indict Mr. Killen, he was indicted, and much was ballyhooed in the mainstream press about new evidence. What new evidence? If there was new evidence, where was it when Mr. Killen was tried? He was convicted on old transcripts from the federal conspiracy trial in 1964 and a couple of living witnesses repeating testimony they’d given at that trial, and possibly, ironically, on the testimony of a couple of Killen’s own character witnesses.

That’s a whole other story - what were Killen’s attorneys thinking, bringing on another preacher who was so reluctant to agree that the murderers of the three civil rights workers should be punished that a very tentative assent was literally verbally dragged out of him? They followed that up with ex-Mayor Majure who stated that the Klan was a peaceful group that did “some good things down here.” I’m sure that Mr. Hood and Mr. Duncan greatly appreciated their help. Still, I’m surprised that the man who was Ross Barnett’s speechwriter (and now Killen’s lawyer), James McIntyre, didn’t do a better job. I suppose his most effective (if sleaziest) bit was the “Old Mississippi” rant and diversionary racial tactics he used in his closing arguments. Killen’s other lawyer, Mitch Moran, was another asset to the state’s case. The trial had not yet begun when he admitted to the media that Killen was a member of the Klan. I understand that the theory is to defuse incendiary testimony before it comes out, but considering that he made a liar out of Killen from the beginning, I doubt it was a good move (Killen had previously maintained that he was not even a member of the Klan) .

Killen's lawyers were right about one thing
When Killen's lawyers complained of the unfairness of only one man being tried for these murders, I have to agree with them. Time to pursue the rest of them.

Mr. Hood stated that the reason there was no new evidence provided was that the people still living (he stated “seven” I believe, yet I’ve heard higher numbers than that) would not give evidence, even when offered immunity. Why weren’t any of them called as “hostile witnesses”? Leaving that aside, however, the fact that they were not called raised my hopes quickly that since they were not given immunity, they could be, would be, prosecuted. That hope was soon dashed by Mr. Hood’s statements to the contrary.

Perhaps he was misquoted; one can always hope.

The really big question I have, though, is this: if the transcript from the Federal conspiracy trial, which was not only the cornerstone, but nearly the whole prosecution case in Killen’s trial, was enough to convict him of manslaughter, why are the Federal conspiracy trail transcripts not used again to indict and try these other coconspirators? I don’t know about anyone else, but manslaughter convictions would suit me just fine (in lieu of anything else). Considering the obvious mood of not only the whole country, but of most Mississippians, that justice needs to be done in this case, I would think this would get more consideration than the quick denial offered by Mr. Hood.

In for a penny, in for a pound
And, Mr. Hood, remember that old (trite, but true) saying, “in for a penny, in for a pound”? You’re not going to make the bigots of this state any angrier than they already are (judging from the letter to the editor in the Clarion Ledger lambasting the state for pursuing justice, they are already angry and likely to stay that way til they die), so why back away now? What have you got to lose? Votes from the Council of Conservative Citizen’s crowd were nonexistent from the git-go, and any votes you might have gotten from the next notch down, the closet bigots, went with Killen’s indictment. See, nothing to lose, at least not from those quarters.

Maybe it’s the influence of the wealthy and/or powerful in that county who make you reluctant to do your duty and pursue the rest of the conspirators. Are they really that fearsome, Mr. Hood, and are you fearful?

And, lastly, why should the rest of the state (minus the Klan and CofCC folks and their friends down the bigot ladder) vote for you again if you don’t have the guts to stand up to the power structure in Neshoba County? You give the appearance of having only pursued justice this far because of the pressures to do so, of having worked only minimally on this case. While this case has been a milestone, you seem to have been involved more by luck than by choice.

Show some real interest, show some real guts, show us you are after more than flashy headlines and political objectives. Go after the rest of the guilty parties in the murders of Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner. Then we can talk about Emmett Till, Phillip Gibbs and James Earl Green, Charles Eddie Moore, Henry Dee, Mack Parker and Herbert Lee. I really wish that was all of them, but that's enough for now.

Come on, Mr. Hood, be the Attorney General for the State of Mississippi and finish the job you started.