Jackson Free Press

Excuse me if I'm a little cynical when it comes to the American judicial system. Any system run by human beings is going to be flawed. Being that we are supposed to be the superior species on the planet, we're often too smart for our own good. We're a civilized society (sometimes), so we have laws and rules. Sometimes, however, our predilection to interpret and follow rules overrides basic common sense.

As you know, Edgar Ray Killen is out of jail. For him and his supporters, out of jail is like saying he's free. Out of jail means, "I win, you lose." I can see it now: Killen, his family and his Klan buddies sitting around the woodshed thumbing their collective noses at America.

We're a laughingstock again. The excuse is following the letter of the law. Circuit Judge Marcus Gordon ruled that Killen, who was convicted in July for his role in planning the lynchings of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner, could go free on an appeal bond because he "posed no threat to society."

Technically speaking, sure, you could make a compelling case of it. I mean c'mon, the man is 80. He is confined to a wheelchair and probably is in some level of pain everyday. But if history serves us correctly, it would show that you don't have to actually commit violence to be a danger to your community.

You can rummage through years of transcripts from interviews and see that Killen is a spiteful man. A few things are painfully certain, Killen is a racist. He had something (if not everything) to do with the murders of three civil rights workers in 1964. He went to jail for threatening a woman in 19xx. Most tragically, he doesn't feel he's done anything wrong. He's the worst kind of killer: the one with no conscience. That amoral thinking is why his appeal bond should have been denied.

Even more telling is the fact that Killen's brother, who is 64, seems poised to be a threat where his older brother can't. While Edgar Ray was on trial, good ole J.D. was outside putting on a show of his own—running into reporters and holding up his cane as a "mock" rifle. Now, the uninitiated might see these acts as empty threats made by old men or a circus sideshow that makes for intriguing print. But as an African American male, this bravado is no "show" at all. This is serious business. The lives of three men have been cheapened because their killer walks amongst the free.

A mentor of mine once told me to beware of a man who has nothing to lose. Killen is in the twilight of his life. His health is failing, and he's staring at a death sentence in jail. He has nothing to lose. It is my opinion that Killen plans on sticking it to the system one more time. Thanks to the "law," he and his Klan cohorts are going to make sure he doesn't serve another day in jail. I personally don't think his current injury was an accident at all, and pride won't let Killen die in jail.

You do the math. Mississippi hasn't learned from its past, so now we're repeating it. The racists have won yet again!

And that's the truth. ... sho-nuff!

Previous Commentsshow

KAMIKAZE: "I personally donít think his current injury was an accident at all, and pride wonít let Killen die in jail." Errr, let me get this straight: The author here thinks that Killen let a tree fall onto his body, breaking both of his legs, ON PURPOSE??? /lack of credibility

This user is on probation for trolling.

Aug 24 2005

I'm not saying it's credible, but a lot of people share Kamikaze's belief that Killen somehow "let" himself be injured to stay out of jail. It's extreme, but so is prison for the rest of your life. I, however, believe it was bad karma, much like Cecil falling off the cherry-picker (which many people believe was murder so he wouldn't testify.) I tend to believe conspiracy theories are always possible, but do not believe specific ones until they're proven to me. I call it the open-minded, pragmatic approach. However, I do think Killen might have overplayed his frailty a bit in and around the courtroom. For instance, he would doze vociferously like a tired old man when the jury was in, but sit up sprightly, confer with attorneys and make notes on a legal pad when they were out. And his timing on needing to go to the hospital during Rita Schwerner testimony's was certain suspect. Of course, if I was on trial for a murder I helped planned 40 years ago, my blood pressure would go up, too. Personally, I don't give a damn about his age or his frailty. He oughta be in jail. They have doctors and nurses for all these kids who are serving for life and getting old and frail; they can care for this old coot just as well.

DonnaLadd

Aug 24 2005

I think this exemplifies why I gave up posting on the ERK gets bond thread. Just to repeat my personal feelings, I think ERK is about as low as a person can get, my dad was a prominent target of the KKK in the 60's and 70's, and it wouldn't bother me one iota if ERK was put in jail today and lived to be 100. Taking some quotes from Kamikaze (and I not trying to start an argument with Kamikaze): "We're a civilized society (sometimes), so we have laws and rules. Sometimes, however, our predilection to interpret and follow rules overrides basic common sense." "Weíre a laughingstock again. The excuse is following the letter of the law." "Technically speaking, sure, you could make a compelling case of it. I mean c'mon, the man is 80. He is confined to a wheelchair and probably is in some level of pain everyday." I know I'm picking and choosing my quotes here but it sounds like even Kamikaze agrees that a compelling case could be made that the judge was following the law and that JEK isn't a physical threat. There are times in our legal system when following the law results in a distasteful result so do we want to make a provision that the judge be allowed to break the law and go with common sense? If that's the case then the law is just a guideline that is subject to the whims of each individual judge. People have been saying JEK is a threat because he committed crimes 30-40 years ago. Does that make him an threat to the community today? People say that he is a threat because he in known to meet with other racist and he might order them to go out and kill people--has this sort of thing been happening in the last 10-20 years in Philadelphia? Why would he suddenly have the power to order such things if he hasn't had such powers over the last couple of decades? I think it says a lot about how emotions have overwhelmed logic here if there are people who really believe that ERK intentionally broke both of his legs just to avoid jail time. Nobody can honestly believe that. I've lived in Mississippi for 53 years. I know how bad we were and I know how far we have come. I know we still have a ways to go. I know that we still do enough things wrong that we can't afford to take criticism that is undue. We can't afford to have Mississippi people telling the world that we have a racist justice system when the judge was simply following the law. We can't afford to have Jessie Jackson tell the world that a young black man was lynched in Kokomo because he was dating a white girl when it was clearly a suicide. We can't afford to have Charles Tisdale blame the burning of the Jackson Advocate office on whites because that got him more political mileage than blaming it on the black political rival that was ultimately found guilty. When racism occurs, shine a bright light on it and lets improve this state by getting rid of the true racism. When a judge follows the law and you don't like the results, don't bend over backwards to tell the world that Mississippi has reverted back to the 60's--that hurts all Mississippians of all races. And I believe that I've said just about all that I can say on this subject. As I have said in the past, my feelings would be the same on the bond issue if this was an 80-year old Black Panther member who had killed three policemen 40 years ago. I have a feeling that many of you would change your point of view if that were the case and you would be incensed if the former Black Panther was denied bond because he was deemed a threat to the community.

FrankEzelle

Aug 25 2005

Frank, while you have repeatedly stated that you are not a Killen sympathizer, your believing that judges (specifically Gordon) rulings are not in some instances based upon their ideologies or political partisanship is naÔve at best!

K RHODES

Aug 25 2005

Let's be honest: It was damned convenient for Killen that he just happened to break both legs right before the trial. If he hadn't, odds are good he would not be eating his wife's butterbeans right now. (For some reason that sounds like a sexual metaphor to me, but never mind. Oh, and you're welcome for the image.) So I can't blame Kamikaze for being a little suspicious. If you're not, bully for you. But forgive me if I don't really give a crap--I clicked on this link to read Kamikaze's op-ed, not your marginalia. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Aug 25 2005

CF, you really should look up the word "marginalia." Seriously. It doesn't mean what you think it means. Kamikaze is under no obligation to respond to the endless, self-sustaining marginalia (look it up, sweet cheeks) of anonymous online critics. It's time-consuming and usually pointless. And yes, I would rather see another column from the man than tireless rebuttals of Captain Freedom. Call me selfish. I don't personally believe that Killen's injury was intentional, but it was so convenient that I certainly would not characterize Kamikaze's speculation as "asinine." I do want to mention (as I meant to say in the next post), vis-a-vis other posts in the thread, that I am not offended by Gordon's handling of the bail question. I am offended by the attorney general's handling of the bail question. Gordon, near as I can tell, did what the law required him to do; but Hood should have been present, cameras or no cameras. This case is about 1964, not 2007. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Aug 26 2005

Well at least Tom said the is isn't offended by Gordon's handling of the bail question. That's not exactly the same as being in my corner but that the most support that I've gotten on my side of the argument. K Rhodes, let me say that I love the subtle accusation of your post. It's a great tactic that if you can't attack the argument, then find a way to attack the person making the argument. Now if you had said, "Frank, your believing that judges (specifically Gordon) rulings are not in some instances based upon their ideologies or political partisanship is naÔve!", then that would have been okay. But what I like is the subtle little question about my motives and possible racism implied by your actual statement which was, "Frank, while you have repeatedly stated that you are not a Killen sympathizer, your believing that judges (specifically Gordon) rulings are not in some instances based upon their ideologies or political partisanship is naÔve at best!" You are saying that I'm naive at best but suggesting or at least leaving open the possiblity that at worst maybe I'm posting because I truely am a Killen sympathizer. An excellent job of casting aspersions. I know I'm fighting an unwinnable battle here with most of you. I thought the arguments about ERK being a threat were a stretch but when I hear that some people truly believe that he intentionally broke his legs to avoid jail time--well if a person is willing to believe that then there is no reason for discussion. I will bring up one thing for the third time and I think everyone will ignore it for the third time: Let's say this was a Black Seperatist advocate who had killed 3 policemen in 1964. He had another run in with the law 30 years ago. He had openly maintained a hatred of white society for all his life. He's now 80, in relatively poor health and he is appealing his conviction for the murders of 1964. Would you feel like granting this man a $600,000 bond was an outrage and a horrible sign to the community that would encourage others to go out and kill policemen? If your honest, then I think you'll admit that there would be an outcry of racism if bail was denied for the Black Seperatist or even if it was set as high as $600,000. It all gets back to should the law be applied as it is written or should it be applied differently based on social pressures (which incidently sounds a lot like the Mississippi courts of the past which was a time of injustice).

FrankEzelle

Aug 26 2005

It is very difficult to understand how people see things any differently than what Kamikaze has illustrated in his article. Maybe if you are not an African American, maybe you are just amp to be in denial about racial factors. I mean how many of you think OJ got away with murder. In that case, how many of you that think he got away with murder consider the fact that he is black when defending your arguement that he did it. It is just unrealistic to think that racism doesn't play a major role in this case. And I am in agreement that Killen being let out of jail is a SMACK in the face of African American Mississippians who are hoping to one day be treated equally in this state. But, not just African Americans but also those Caucasians and any other nationality who believes that we are all equal and should be treated that way. I wish one, logically thinking white person can one day look me in my eye and tell me why he or she believes that they are any better than anyone else breathing on this earth. I would love to know the answer to that question. Killen, a man filled with hatred and pride. Why wouldn't he purposely harm himself to keep from spending time in jail for an act that he doesn't even consider a crime. I'm sure he feels the crime is that he's been tried for participating in a contribution to rid this state of black folk. He is a sick individual and he is indeed a threat to society. Because he can still speak and he can still pass on hatred and ignorance to people of this world . He doesn't deserve freedom nor does he deserve an opportunity to sprew hate and ignorance. Anyone who lives in any part of righteousness should reevaluate their ideals if they think that this is right. That Killen is right. Please consider that you too are a racist if you think Killen deserves to be free. I don't care how old he is. I don't care that he has broken legs. He has taken (or participated) in hate crimes that have plaqued our community for 20 years plus. Why not start by making an example of this man. Do you understand what hopelessness and worthlessness feels like? Ask any black man in the state of Mississippi.

Queen601

Aug 26 2005

Queen601, I appreciate your honesty in expressing your feelings. I remember the time in Mississippi when the ultimate trump card in winning a debate was to label a person a "_____-lover", and I'm sure you can fill in the blank. Now we've shifted 180 degrees and the trump card is to label them a racist. That represents progress in an odd sort of way. Have you noticed how few lawyers and judges have weighed in on this subject? There have been a few including Jim Hood who tried to avoid it but now is forced to deal with it. We know where the C-L stands on this issue as a social issue but have you noticed that they haven't tried to back their position with any legal experts? Sometimes what you don't read tells you as much as what you do read. Is the legal issue irrelevent in this case and should law be thrown out the window? I have said that my viewpoint would be the same if this was a Black Panther member or a Black Seperatist--the law is the law and I say bond should be allowed in either case. So far I seem to be the only one willing to state my view on what I would say if this was about a black individual who was on the opposite end of the extremest scale from ERK. Again, sometimes what you don't read tells you as much as what you do read.

FrankEzelle

Aug 26 2005

Frank, Queen -- Let me be clear about my position on Gordon: - I agree with Kamikaze that it's a sign of hopelessness. The racists have won again. It's entirely possible that Killen may live the rest of his life as a free man, which is horrible, unjust, and defeats the whole purpose of sentencing him for anything. Yes, this is a slap in the face of African-American Mississippians--and anyone who gives a damn about African-American Mississippians, for that matter. Yes, this is a despicable outcome. HOWEVER... - It isn't Gordon's fault. His job is not to prevent despicable outcomes. His job is to interpret the law objectively, without any concern for despicable outcomes. He is clearly no fan of Killen; if memory serves, he has successfully prosecuted the man in the past on other crimes. He knows that this will not be a popular decision, nor is it even a just decision. But he does not have the luxury of always being popular and just. He is a judge. That means he has to look objectively at the facts of the case, look objectively at the law, and make an objective decision. I have no doubt that he did this. - Jim Hood might have been able to prevent this unjust decision by providing the judge with the evidence he's providing during the appeals process. The fact that the attorney general was not present at sentencing bothers me tremendously. That indicates, to me, that this case was a priority only while the cameras were rolling. - Sometimes the law favors unjust decisions. An old friend of mine was recently sent to prison for the rest of his life for a crime that I firmly believe he did not commit--but I can't be angry at the prosecutors, judge, or jury. They all did their jobs. He is working through the appeals process. Unlike Killen, he will probably not be released on bail during appeal--because he would probably be considered a flight risk. I can be angry at the judge for enforcing this decision, calling him all kinds of names. Some of my other friends have done that. But I have to respect the rule of law, even when it leads to an unjust outcome. Even when it creates victims. And I say this with full knowledge that one day it could be me who can't keep a family member's killer in prison, or me who stares down a false conviction. The law is NOT God; it is not morality incarnate; it is just the law. It stumbles, and sometimes it falls. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Aug 26 2005

CORRECTION: The attorney general was present at sentencing; I meant to say "when the terms of bail were set out." Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Aug 26 2005

Tom--From the very start I have simply said that the judge did his job and it was unfair for him to be called a racist because it was an unpopular decision. I wish I had stated my argument as eloquently as you did above. My personal feeling is that Jim Hood didn't get involved in the bond hearing because he knew there were no solid LEGAL reasons to deny bond and therefore he didn't want to risk being pulled into this racist labeling. He was in a lose/lose situation--appear at the bond hearing and get charged as a member of the conspiracy or don't go to the bond hearing and have to answer questions about that. I think (just my opinion) that he simply took the lesser of two bad choices.

FrankEzelle

Aug 26 2005

Thanks for the kind words. Re Jim Hood: I believe he took the greater of two bad choices. Not appearing at the bail hearing sends the mssage that (a) he probably knew the outcome in advance, and (b) he didn't see any need to be on record as opposing Killen's bail. If anything would suggest a conspiracy, that would. Appearing and losing would make him, in a way, almost a peripheral victim of the decision not to grant bail. I don't see the political liability here. And why save the evidence he's' using to appeal the bail decision for the appeal? Why didn't he bring it up at the original bail hearing? One possible explanation that comes to mind: If he's planning to run for re-election (or for governor) in 2007, rural whites can hear about how he convicted ol' Edgar Ray but at least didn't mount any serious challenge at the bail hearing, and let the old man eat his wife's butterbeans in peace. Politically, this can be seen as the best of both worlds: He gets to be the man who convicted Edgar Ray Killen and the man who let him go. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Aug 26 2005

Queen: "I mean how many of you think OJ got away with murder. In that case, how many of you that think he got away with murder consider the fact that he is black when defending your arguement that he did it. It is just unrealistic to think that racism doesn't play a major role in this case." So you think everyone else (I presume you mean white people) thinks OJ is guilty b/c he is black? Am I reading this wrong? I would say most people (hopefully white and black) say he should have been guilty due to the overwhelming evidence. Concerning Killen, I think he should have been rotting in prison for the past 40 years. It disgusts me it took this long to prosecute him. It disgusts me more that he now gets out on bond!?!

Justinl

Aug 26 2005

CF, I love it when somebody uses a literary term in a way that indicates they have absolutely no idea what it means, then dig up the most spartan definition they can find to "prove" that nobody else knows what it means, either. I love it primarily because it gives English majors something to laugh at, which is never a bad thing given the mountains of depressing stuff English majors have to read. Your posts "to" Kamikaze kind of remind me of that lovable crank Bob Dornan, who during the 1996 Republican primaries promised that if they just stuck him in a debate with Bill Clinton, the world would see what a scumbag they had for a president. I'm sure Kamikaze is every bit as scared of you as Clinton was of Dornan. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Aug 26 2005

(My take on OJ, FWIW: I think he probably did it, but the LAPD's handling of the case ensured that he would never receive a fair trial, and subsequently ensured that he could never be convicted. Cheers, TH)

Tom Head

Aug 26 2005

Frank, subtlety has never been my strong suit, but I was not attacking you or your argument. What I truly wonder is what your reaction would have been had Killen been denied bond, I for one would not have loss any sleep.

K RHODES

Aug 26 2005

I would have preferred that there was a valid reason and he had been denied bond or better yet, I would have preferred that he had been convicted on a murder charge so that bond wasn't allowable. Still better, I would prefer that the jury system in the 1960's hadn't been grossly flawed and that ERK (and his co-defendents of the time) had been in jail for the last 40 years.

FrankEzelle

Aug 26 2005

No, Cap'n, a troll comes under an article, is the first one to post and declares that the whole thing has a "lack of credibility" and then proceed to hijack the entire thread with juvenile attacks and twisting of other people's every word to try to get attention, I guess, considering that they found the article to useless in the first place. I trust you understand and will refrain from being such a troll here in the future. You're not adding anything to a discussion when you do that, but it distract. Thus, the need for troll watchers. Editor's note: The troll comments in the thread above have now been deleted.

DonnaLadd

Aug 27 2005

Hmmm, well, like Ladd, I tend to believe conspiracy theories are always possible, but do not believe specific ones until they're proven to me. However, this whole Killen-let-a-tree-fall-onto-his-head-so-the-jury-will-feel-sorry-for-him theory is, well, extremely implausible. Is there some proof regarding this, errrr, story that has not yet been reported?

grinder

Aug 28 2005

You might re-read everything, Prof, now that I've swept out all the troll droppings. That particular troll was trying to derail this discussion by putting a lot of words in a lot of folks' mouths. Kamikaze is not stating as fact that Killen broke his own legs. He's saying he doesn't think it's an accidentóhis opinionóand I said that is something a lot of people say. As in, kind of an urban legend. Kamikaze didn't come up with this suspicion; in fact, you likely will hear more about that particular rumor in an upcoming documentary that I'm aware of. But I have no proof in those particular legends, and no is trying to prove that's true here. It's not the point. And I even said that I believe Killen's problem is more bad karma than such a scheme. And, yes, I believe in karma. Now, I will point out that the point of this column is the justice system letting Killen out on bond. As your moderator here, I suggest that further comments on this thread address that issue. I've had to close one of Kamikaze's threads below because people insisted on trying to deflect from the topic of the column. Funny, I believe that one was about racism, too. Go figure.

DonnaLadd

Aug 28 2005

BTW, I should add that the people who believe that the tree thing wan't an accident somehow believe he was trying to keep from standing trial. Just to make sure you understand the urban legend you're dissin'. Now, back on topic from this point forward.

DonnaLadd

Aug 28 2005

Allow me to back up the the OJ thing....no I am not saying that people think he is guilty because he is black. I am merely trying to point out that race is a factor. I mean that most of the people black or white, when referencing this case, considers the fact that he is black. Saying whenever there is a crime be it murder, rape, what ever race ALWAYS comes into play. Now, with Killen this is a known racist. He's not denying his hatred for people who are non-white. I was trying to point out that we as a society still have not grabbed that one nation under God concept. We have not as a state accepted the fact that we are all equal. And it is just not a good look for us, as Mississippians for Killen to be freed. And yes, I am considering the fact that he can't walk and uses oxygen to breathe and that he's almost a century old. The fact is he is not remorseful of the dead which means that if he could do it again, he probably would. That means that the man has not paid any debt to society at all. He has not been punished at all. As to say that although he were responsible for three lives being taken away you are so old that you can go home and die as you wish in the luxuries of life never having to deal with what you've done. It doesn't matter the lives you took were just young people trying to make this society better than what it was then....who cares about their lives, we're concerned with you and your comfortability. SMACK IN THE FACE....It saddens me as a Mississippian because I don't think we'll ever get pass this shameful display of the past haunting us.

Queen601

Aug 29 2005

I has been utterly hilarious to read this article as well as all the replies, especially that last person's attempt to clean up her comments. *sigh*...still in the end...Justice has been served...cold...LOL

Jocelyn

Aug 30 2005

And, yes, I believe in karma. I do too, this is why Killen is free on bond. Chances are he'll try to give up the ghost before he has to go back to prison so in reality, He won. hands down. This state has spent a large amount of tax $$ to re-open and prosecute this guy and all we got was a heap of more debt and free roaming racist passing gas and throwing the bird with bloody fingers at our justice system all while calling blacks the N-word with no shame until he croaks sportin' his "Long Live the Klan" t-shirt.. Gotta love Mis-steppin-sippi justice

Jocelyn

Aug 30 2005

Sweet Jocelyn, this is a vessel for communication. There is no reason for me to attempt to CLEAN UP anything. My opinion is and always has been that Killen is guilty and should die in jail. You've said nothing in your post (and neither has anyone else here) that has altered my opinion so much so that I would need to CLEAN UP anything. Now, I will not continue this banter with you because you clearly have some issues that you should deal with in relation to equality and fairness and I won't waste my time trying to convince you of what your Creator will one day make shockingly clear to you. PEACE....

Queen601

Sep 5 2005