The Blood of Emmett Till

The trial resumes. The first witness is Moses Wright, who recounts the night Bryant and Milam came and took Emmett Till away from his house. Defense attorney J. J. Breland tries to discredit Wright’s recollections of the night in question by suggesting it was too dark to recognize anyone. Next, a sheriff’s deputy testifies about finding Till’s body, and the undertaker shares what he saw. The defense attorney tries to make it appear the body might not have been Emmett Till and that his wounds may not have been the result of violence. Emmett’s mother next testifies and identifies the body from a photograph as her son’s. The defense uses her to portray Till as a Northerner who did not know how to behave in the South. Defense attorney Breland associates Mrs. Till with the national press that white Mississippians have come to loath for its critical stories about their state and the South in general. He also asks her about where she lives in Chicago and emphasizes that no whites live there. He implies that because Till’s mother did not caution Till to be respectful of whites, he got into trouble of his own accord. Breland tries to emphasize a theory advanced by Sheriff Strider: that the whole episode was invented by the NAACP as a stunt to make white Mississippi look bad.

The next witness is Willie Reed, a young man who was present when Emmett Till was murdered. He stood outside the barn where the fatal beating occurred. Reed reports seeing Emmett being brought into the barn and then hearing sounds of physical violence and someone saying “oh” out of pain. Shortly after, Big Milam came out of the barn to get some water. Willie Reed’s testimony places Big Milam at the scene of the murder. The prosecution then rests, having established that Milam and Bryant came to get Till before he was killed and that Milam was present when Till was beaten to death.

The defense takes its turn and seeks to cast doubt on the idea that there even was a murder. They contend that Till is still alive and in Chicago, adding that no one can identify a body as badly beaten and disfigured as Till’s was, not even Till’s own mother. The defense next seeks to have Carolyn Bryant testify, but the judge disallows it. However, he allows her to testify without the jury in the room, so she gets to tell her false account of what happened. The author suggests this is a deliberate ploy on the part of the defense, as the defense knows that word of her testimony will reach the jury. As each side presents their final arguments, the defense refers to Carolyn’s testimony anyway, ensuring the jury knows that Till was killed because he assaulted a white woman. In their final arguments to the jury, the defense plays to Southern sentiments and asks that the jury preserve the honor of the South; the district attorneys argue that the jury should defend the idea that all people have equal rights in the South, regardless of race.

The jury’s not-guilty verdict, which is later disavowed by nine of the jurors, all of whom admit they felt Bryant and Milam did indeed commit the murder, provokes a variety of reactions. Moderate Southerners like Hodding Carter, the editor of a major newspaper, are critical of the verdict, but Carter argues that the NAACP is to blame for drawing such negative attention to Mississippi and making law enforcement fail in its efforts to prove the case. Another Mississippi native, writer William Faulkner, initially condemns the murder of a child but later adds that he thinks Till may have gotten what he deserved. Internationally, as the Cold War between Russia and the United States continues, Russia sides with those who believe the defendants murdered Till. The Till verdict is seen as damaging the image of the United States as a defender of democracy and human rights.