The Charlotte News
Saturday, January 21, 1956
FOUR EDITORIALS
Site Ed. Note: The front page reports that the U.S. had accused Communist China this date of demanding U.S. abandonment of Formosa as the price for joining in a real renunciation of the use of force, as the State Department had issued a summary of four months of discussions in Geneva, saying: "The Communists so far seem willing to renounce force only if they are first conceded the goals for which they would use force." State Department officials said that Communist China's goals were to get the U.S. to withdraw its small defense force from the Formosa area, abandon its base rights there and cancel the mutual defense treaty with Nationalist China, indicating that the U.S. would never do those things, that the American position in defense of Formosa was not negotiable with the Communists. It thus appeared that the Geneva talks, which had begun on August 1, and had produced on September 10 an agreement for exchange of civilian prisoners held in China, were now deadlocked on the question of renouncing the use of force. The State Department had charged again this date that the Communists had failed to live up to the agreement to release imprisoned Americans. Thirteen American civilians were still being held in Communist prisons despite the September 10 agreement, and State Department informants contended that the Communists were using them as pawns for bargaining to obtain American concessions. Negotiations on additional questions, especially the Communist desire to end the U.S. trade embargo and to set up a meeting between Secretary of State Dulles and Chinese Premier and Foreign Minister Chou En-lai, appeared stymied by the deadlock. The extent of the deadlock, according to U.S. officials, probably would depend on whether the present propaganda exchanges between the U.S. and Communist China would bring a reaction of world opinion which would persuade the Communists to make substantial concessions.
The President, in addressing directly a fund-raising dinner for Republicans in Washington, had promised that either as a "worker in the ranks" or as a candidate, he would battle with all of his strength for the policies of the Administration, his promise having cheered the previous night 60,000 cheering Republicans at 53 "Salute to Eisenhower" dinners across the country, charging up to $100 per plate, raising an estimated five million dollars for national, state and local Republican campaigns. The President had smiled and appeared outwardly hearty, returning the salute by attendees of the dinners but tears had clouded his eyes as he acknowledged the tribute, saying, "The heart is so full that it is indeed dangerous to say more than 'thank you.'" He said that his future role remained undetermined, but that he would help the party in either case. He directly addressed 1,700 diners in Washington and about 60,000 more across the country via closed-circuit television, saying that when he decided whether or not to run again, it would not be a selfish decision. The event marked the third anniversary since his inauguration in 1953.
In Los Angeles, New York Governor Averell Harriman said that the President was a "buck passer" and "the biggest dodger of any President we've ever had" in his memory, going back to the McKinley Administration at the turn-of-the-century, for the Administration's "lukewarm, reluctant or nonexistent policies."
In Montgomery, Ala., State legislators this date sought legal advice on what to do about their special session of the Legislature, adjourned, despite angry protests, by the Speaker of the State House the previous day in the midst of an outcry of "no". He had then departed from the chamber, whereupon a majority of 61 House members had refused to accept the adjournment and remained to reorganize and elect a temporary presiding officer. Governor James Folsom had announced a plan to call another special session beginning the following Tuesday to consider the needs of education. After a majority of both the House and Senate had refused via resolution to be bound by the Speaker's ruling on the adjournment, however, the Governor issued a statement saying that he would delay the proposed new special session. The special session had been called by the Governor on January 3 to consider machinery for initiating a constitutional convention, a resolution defeated in the Senate by a vote of 18 to 15 the prior Thursday and by the House on a vote of 63 to 23 the previous day. The Speaker, as Administration leader, said that inasmuch as both houses had acted in rejecting the resolution for a convention, for which the special session had been called, there was no reason to continue the session. Several legislators, including one who was a recognized expert on constitutional law, predicted that the issue would wind up in court regarding the speedy adjournment. The committee had met with Attorney General John Patterson and sought his advice on whether the House could proceed to transact business without the duly elected Speaker or Speaker pro-tem present.
In Fort Lauderdale, Fla., it was reported that six persons had been killed this date six miles south of Andytown, when, according to a State trooper, their automobile crashed into the rear of a truck loaded with lumber, the truck having been parked with the wheel off but without its emergency reflectors operating and the truck driver motioning traffic around the parked vehicle. The car had hit the truck going between 60 and 65 mph.
In Raleigh, a request for insurance rate increases totaling more than five million dollars in annual premiums had been rejected the previous day by the Insurance commissioner, Charles Gold.
Ann Sawyer of The News tells of the jury in Charlotte rendering a verdict of conviction for second-degree murder of the defendant who had killed another man, suspected of having an affair with his wife, emerging from the trunk of her car while she and the other man were in the front seat, parked in the parking lot of a drive-in restaurant the prior January 3, shooting the man with a combination rifle and shotgun, which the defendant claimed had discharged while the two men had struggled over it, a claim disputed by an eyewitness who testified that there was never a struggle and that the men had never gotten closer than eight feet from one another. The defendant was sentenced to 30 years in prison. The all-white, all-male jury had deliberated for six hours and 47 minutes before returning the verdict. The defendant had been charged with first-degree murder and the prosecutor had sought the death penalty. The defendant would be eligible for parole after serving 7 1/2 years, a fourth of his sentence. His attorneys immediately gave notice of appeal to the State Supreme Court—there having been at the time no intermediate appellate court in North Carolina, and the judge had set an appellate bond of $15,000. The judge said of the defendant's young wife, who had also testified, that she was "the most brazen witness I have ever seen in my experience in court," that his only regret was that he could not pronounce judgment on the defendant's wife instead of on her husband, but added that no one had the right to take the life of another because of unfaithfulness of the spouse or because the spouse "goes bad". He said that the wife had made "a joke out of it", and that she had been the "moving power" behind the slaying. She had admitted during her testimony that she had an affair with the homicide victim for between three and four months prior to the slaying, that she had seen him every day during that period, meeting him at various drive-in restaurants. As indicated, the conviction of the defendant would be overturned on appeal by the State Supreme Court the following March, and there would be a retrial the following summer, and so don't count short "Shorty", as the defendant was nicknamed, as there will be a surprise ending, as we have promised, even if not one worthy of the more principled surprises of Alfred Hitchcock.
In nearby Huntersville, three convicts, practically unclothed, had escaped from a prison camp at about noon this date, with camp officials saying that they had been wearing only their undershorts, having obtained blankets in which to cloak themselves before dashing into the chilly afternoon weather. A search was immediately instigated for them and Mecklenburg County Police had broadcast an alarm to all cars to be on the lookout for them. If you happen to see three men wrapped in blankets or less and barefooted, contact the police.
In Henderson, Ky., located in the county in which there had been three vicious slayings connected to the "mad dog killer" who had escaped from jail in Indiana, where he was scheduled to die in the electric chair the following June, as reported the previous day on the front page, an unidentified route man for the municipal power plant had made his rounds the previous day with a placard pinned to his back which read: "Meter man. Don't shoot."
Snow covered most sections of the country east of the Rockies this date, including Texas, where three youthful hunters armed with bows and arrows and slingshots, as pictured on the page, had enjoyed a school holiday the previous day in the wilderness of a Dallas park, and, in Ohio, as also pictured, snow got into the hair of Governor Frank Lausche, a candidate for the Senate seat formerly held by the late Robert Taft. In Bemidji, Minn., the low temperature the previous day was 28 below zero. In the Dakotas, Iowa and Wisconsin, almost all points reported below zero readings, and in Tallahassee, Fla., lakes were frozen. In Charlotte, it was sunny at noon. But don't mess around with Shorty's wife.
On the editorial page, "Charlotte's Goose: More, More, More?" counsels the City Council to allot sufficient funding for projects in its initial bond issues on which the voters would pass or not, rather than not allowing for sufficient funding and having to go back to the well to have voters approve sequential bond issues, as had been the case with the Coliseum-Auditorium project, which had required three different votes on bonds.
Presently, there was discussion that the $500,000 in bonds approved for a health center and the $190,000 approved for the spastics hospital had not been enough and the Council was expected to have to ask soon for additional funding. It indicates that it had been less than nine months since the previous bond election and the voters were growing tired of repeatedly having to approve bonds.
It warns that unless the advice were heeded, there was a danger that the Council would "kill the goose that so generously keeps laying the golden eggs."
"No Plane Saplings for Charlotte" tells of a neighborhood in New York, along West 87th Street, having formed a block association which had imported from England 17 London plane trees to provide shade on West 87th, figuring that if those trees could survive London's fog and smog, they would survive in New York. The association had set up a tree patrol team, including their children, and given the youngsters membership buttons and put their names on the trees, all for the sake of preserving the 17 saplings.
It says that members of Charlotte's tree commission had not yet been named, but that it was sure that the new smog control engineer would postpone interminably the day when Charlotte would need to send to London for plane trees.
"The Big Surprise" tells of having read an article by a sportswriter who had observed, following UNC's basketball victory over N.C. State during the week: "One surprising feature of the game was its clean play…"
It says that maybe it was incredibly naïve, but that it thought that sportsmanship was expected in collegiate athletics, without needing special stress by sportswriters, that it was dirty play which shocked and surprised. It indicates that it was equally jolted by gambling fixes, bribed officials, faked injuries and ruthless college coaches who wanted to win at any cost. It questions whether it meant that its capacity for indignation was warped or merely infected with a lot of old-fashioned ideas about ethical standards.
"Mr. Hoover on How To Call a Cop" tells of J. Edgar Hoover and Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek of Formosa wanting to have people watch what they said, the latter wanting Washington officials to refer to Formosa as Taiwan, the Pescadores islands as Penghu, and the offshore island of Quemoy as Kinmen, being, according to Chiang, the new proper Chinese names.
It indicates that regardless of what the areas were called, the Communists still coveted Formosa and were just as apt to attack the Pescadores, regardless of names.
Meanwhile, Mr. Hoover wanted people to refer to law enforcement officers as policemen, patrolmen or officers, not as "cops", which he said was the equivalent of calling a doctor a quack or referring to a journalist as a hack.
It begs to differ, saying that quacks were quacks and that there were good hacks and bad hacks among journalists, the same as with cops. While "officer" or "patrolman" were proper terms for use in addressing individual officers, "cop" was a perfectly good word for referring to law enforcement in the aggregate, as people knew what it meant, that it was "brisk, quick, and efficient, as good cops are." If the word had been tarnished by usage by the underworld, it had been worn clean by regular usage in the everyday world and did not have the connotations of "flatfoot", "bull" or "dick", which law-abiding citizens had properly left to the criminals.
"We like 'cop' and cops."
What about "copper"?
A piece from the Daily Tar Heel, UNC student newspaper, titled "Bring on the TNT", regards a previous editorial in The News which had asserted that it was folly to suggest that the presidency of the University at Chapel Hill would be a small job, should the State Board of Higher Education resolve to deconsolidate the University and make each campus a separate unit.
The piece agrees that the president of the Chapel Hill campus would continue to have great influence, even if not claiming the headlines formerly claimed by presidents of the Consolidated University, which included the campuses at N.C. State in Raleigh and Woman's College in Greensboro. It suggests that the autonomy of the Chapel Hill campus would grow and that the power of the new Board of Higher Education should limit itself to matters mechanical and financial, that to go beyond those areas would usurp its stated purpose and that it should not attempt to set local policy for the Chapel Hill campus, the job of the new president, whoever it turned out to be.
It indicates that the president of Harvard University, Nathan Pusey, had said that there was an "exploding world of education", and the piece asserts that the committee screening candidates for the new president of the Chapel Hill campus should bring on the TNT, that "Chapel Hill will be untrue to its tradition if it fails to add volume to new explosions."
We have never regarded it as either a particularly quiescent or particularly explosive campus environment, even during the explosive latter 1960's and early 1970's.
Drew Pearson says that the big question precipitated by the interview in Life with Secretary of State Dulles, in which he had indicated that the Administration had come to the brink of war on three occasions and had averted it each time, should not devolve into a row between Democrats and Republicans over what the Secretary had said or had not said or what he had meant or how near the brink of war he had taken the nation. Rather the big questions should be whether the Administration was efficient and competent in handling foreign affairs and whether Secretary Dulles was qualified to be Secretary of State. It was of little importance whether he had been quoted correctly in the magazine article, that what was important to everyone's children was the vital question of peace or war.
He indicates that unquestionably, Mr. Dulles had been correct that one of the best ways to prevent war was to give a potential enemy a clear-cut and emphatic warning that, if the enemy went too far, the U.S. was prepared to fight, regarding it as one of the great mistakes which the Allies had made with Hitler in the lead-up to World War II, when the Allies had been divided and vacillating. France and England had debated all day on March 7, 1936, when Hitler had moved into the Ruhr, but could not decide whether to mobilize, and Mr. Pearson posits that if they had, Hitler would have retreated, for he had given his troops an order to retreat in case of French resistance.
The Administration's warnings to Indo-China had occurred on August 4, 1953, when the President, fearing a Chinese attack on Indo-China, had given the Governors' Conference in Seattle an indirect warning aimed at China, plus a note of preparation to the American people. At that time, the Communist Chinese nevertheless had continued their preparations to take Indo-China from the French and six months had passed before the President got tougher, saying at a press conference on April 7, 1954, that the country could not afford to lose Indo-China. At that point, the Communist Chinese should have realized that it meant that the U.S. was ready for possible war, but instead, had read, in the New York Times and other American newspapers two months earlier, of another statement by the President, that no one could be more bitterly opposed to getting the U.S. involved in a hot war in the Far East than he was, that every move he made was calculated to make certain that such a hot war did not occur. In response to the earlier statement, the Communist Chinese believed that the Administration was vacillating somewhat, as the French and British had regarding Hitler in 1936, and so did not heed the warning, resulting in the debacle at Dien Bien Phu in spring, 1954, and the eventual capitulation the following summer by the French.
Walter Lippmann tells of the Soviets now having addressed their foreign policy toward Latin America, using the same formula they had with the Middle East and South Asia, offering to trade their manufactured goods for raw materials and agricultural products. They had already agreed to trade arms and ammunition for cotton in Egypt, arms and other manufactured goods for sugar in Cuba, for rice in Burma, and for livestock from the Argentine, and so forth. In that way, they were able to challenge the influence of the Western nations, who thus far were only offering foreign aid, which proud nations did not like to accept, especially as it entailed inspections from members of Congress as to how the aid was being used. Moreover, Senator William Knowland advocated demanding agreements for military alliances as the price for receiving U.S. aid.
In contrast, the Soviets proclaimed that they were not demanding any such agreements, dealing directly with the foreign states on an exchange basis, much more appealing to those countries than receiving monitored aid.
The Soviet formula had three principal elements, the first being their ability to absorb and use surplus food and raw materials, of which there appeared to be no limit within the Communist orbit, the second being their capacity to export arms and manufactured goods, not only to China but to the other countries beyond the Communist sphere, a capacity still quite limited, but if the sixth five-year plan, which had recently been announced, was fulfilled as it was expected to be, the Soviet capacity to export would become considerable. The third element was not to make allies of the Arabs and Hindus but rather to neutralize them as allies of the West.
With regard to that third aspect, the West could gain advantage by de-emphasizing military pacts, even though displeasing to Senator Knowland. Mr. Lippmann regards it as the better part of wisdom, however, given that the U.S. had unquestioned capacity to export manufactured products and capital goods in exchange for a surplus of agricultural products and raw materials which the underdeveloped countries were seeking to sell.
But to the extent that the Soviets would be willing to receive the surplus from underdeveloped countries, it would be able to play an important role in the industrial development of those countries, enabling political influence in the process.
Mr. Lippmann concludes that the problem for the U.S. and other Western industrial nations was how to play an adequate part in that industrial development of the undeveloped countries, with the U.S. now in competition with the Soviets for supplying capital goods. Those countries would want to include the Soviets in their trading to exploit the possibilities in a condition of competitive coexistence.
Robert C. Ruark, still in Sydney, Australia, tells of having been shocked recently by the arrest of a friend who was a doctor on charges of beating his fourth wife to death after drugging her, with the doctor having been incoherent from both drugs and alcohol. He had been a confirmed narcotics addict, had previously committed himself to an institution to try to break the habit, which had obviously failed.
Mr. Ruark says that he not only knew the doctor, but that he had been his family doctor, in whom he had placed great trust, at least until he had contracted a serious illness, during which the doctor had commanded him not to move and then called early the next morning to say that he had a plane ready to take him to Florida—which, Mr. Ruark quips, it turned out the doctor did not need as he could fly there on his own without a plane. An earlier wife had called shortly after the advice to countermand the doctor's order.
He says that he was all for physicians but believed that there was still too much emphasis placed on the expertise of doctors, who were flawed human beings, as everyone else. He says that he had known personally two doctors who had been narcotics addicts, several who had been drunks and quite a few who suffered from personal prejudices which they had directed against their patients in their diagnoses and treatment. Some doctors followed fads in their prescriptions, regardless of what a patient complained of, such as the administration of antibiotics for virtually everything, until that turned to revulsion, at which point they returned to pink pills and dieting as the panacea.
He cites as example a slight skin disease which he had contracted in Spain the prior summer, which was a fungus, with one doctor saying it was a fungus, while another said it was eczema, a third calling it a manifestation of liver upset, a fourth ascribing it to poor circulation, and a fifth, an Italian ship's doctor, having finally cleared it up with a tube of salve. The others had prescribed burning, diet and other things. He says that everyone he knew in Spain had picked up hoof-and-mouth during the previous summer, consisting of symptoms of a swollen tongue and sore throat, in retrospect, probably the result of an insecticide they had been spraying on the grapes, that when they stopped eating the grapes, the malady had gone away, despite various doctors ascribing it to a liver condition, to which virtually every health problem in Europe was ascribed.
It is worth a reminder, however, that Mr. Ruark would die at a relatively young age in 1965 of cirrhosis of the liver, ascribed to his abuse of alcohol. Thus, the doctors who attributed some of his conditions to liver ailments may not have been completely in error.
A letter writer comments on News music critic Edwin Bergamini's review of a recent symphony concert, part of which had apparently been deleted, of which the writer complains, as Mr. Bergamini had a thorough knowledge of music, which he eagerly read and which was respected both by performing musicians and music lovers of the area.
The editors respond that,
unfortunately, there had been space limitations when the review of
the Charlotte Symphony concert was being placed in the paper, (the paper having to fit that large steel ad in there to keep the presses rolling), and
that the layout editor had a choice of either deleting the review
entirely or printing a portion of it, and that in the deadline rush,
the story was cut after it was already in type. It therefore
dutifully provides the remainder of the review which had not
originally been printed, Mr. Bergamini having given praise in the
omitted portion to the conductor's concept of Mozart's Overture
Perhaps soon, Mr. Bergamini will have opportunity to review a performance
A letter writer from Lancaster,
S.C., comments on a previous letter writer's condemnation of capital
punishment as barbaric and only encouraging of murder, not a
deterrent, this writer indicating that the prior writer had not
considered the suffering of the victims of the executed defendant,
who had murdered a woman with an axe in the presence of her invalid
husband, finding that if he had been sentenced to a life term in
prison, he would have been "turned loose on society by a parole
board to commit the same kind of outrage again." (The writer mistakenly assumes that the man had raped the woman, not reported in the story of his execution appearing January 13 or in the reports of the trial, itself, in May, 1955, or on appeal.) He says that he
had read in the News about the same type of killer who had
escaped and killed a woman, age 65, on the very day of his escape,
believed that such a crime deserved the death penalty to eliminate
the risk that it would happen again, finds that in England, if a
person took a human life, they were almost certain to be hung and
that England had fewer murders each year than Charlotte. He thinks
that it would be better if all executions were public
He does not consider the
fact, however, that under circumstances where defendants are
sentenced to death for crimes based solely on either circumstantial
evidence or eyewitness testimony, notoriously flawed, that the death
penalty takes away any possibility of further appeal
In the specific case referenced by the letter writer, that of the South Carolina man executed for the axe murder of a woman, it might be noted from the above-cited newspaper account of the trial, the prosecutor, during summation, said to the jury: "We have brought honest witnesses. You have heard them and I feel they have given convincing evidence." Assuming the accuracy of the statement without the availability of an actual trial transcript, the statement comes very close to, if not fully accomplishing, an expression of personal opinion on the veracity of witnesses, which prosecutors are prohibited from asserting because of the special role the prosecutor plays in a trial and the special trust placed in that role by the jurors, as explained, for instance, in a 1935 Supreme Court case, Berger v. U.S. While it is doubtful that, standing alone, this particular assertion would have resulted in a reversal of the conviction, especially given the written confession of the defendant, after he had allegedly been given the right to have counsel present and had waived that right, it is also not known what other errors in the trial record might have occurred, as the bumbling counsel for the accused failed to file a timely notice of appeal, limiting the normal direct appeal to a pro forma cursory review of the available record by the State Supreme Court, finding summarily that "there was no error in the trial", limiting the appeal to the denial of a motion for new trial on the ground of "newly discovered evidence", regarding the sanity of defendant at the time of the crime, that claim having been rejected by the Court on the basis that the "new evidence" was not evidence unavailable to the defense at the time of trial provided due diligence had been shown in discovering it, as well as other deficiencies.
Thus, it can never be truly known whether there was demonstrable reversible error at the trial, as the defendant never actually received a proper direct appeal from the conviction and sentence, just the cursory review afforded by the court when there is a failure in the appellate process, virtually never resulting in reversal absent glaring deficiencies such as denial of counsel at a critical stage of the proceedings or the like. A court under those circumstances might routinely review the objections and motions of counsel in the transcript for potential trial court error, but without defense argument and proper citation of cases to support claimed errors, the chances of having a reasonable hearing on appeal are practically nil.
One, of course, might rationalize the matter on the basis that the defendant confessed to the crime, but the question remains whether, especially in this time of accepted, even encouraged, racial prejudice, especially prevalent in the South, though certainly not absent from any area of the country, the confession was truly voluntary and had not been coerced in some manner, perhaps by a qualified, implicit promise of lenience or some special favor, later dismissed as so much hokum dreamed up by the defendant when there is no tape recorded confession, or had come only after several hours of relentless interrogation by more than one officer, deliberately seeking to break down the defendant, especially problematic when the defendant is young or mentally deficient—though the Court in the South Carolina case noted that the defendant, 20 with a sixth-grade education, had not been subjected to prolonged questioning and that there was "clear and convincing evidence" that the confession was given freely and voluntarily, once for local police and repeated for State investigatory officers. But was the defendant in the case informed of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, not to say anything at all, in addition to his right to have counsel present? Was he told that if he cooperated, he would likely not get the death penalty, while also being told that they could not promise him anything? Confessions are not always what they might, at first blush, seem.
The defense counsel in the instant case who failed to adhere to the deadline in filing notice of appeal in a capital case should have been disbarred. It would be bad enough to do so even in a misdemeanor case where the defendant wanted to appeal, but to do so in a felony case and especially in a capital case, is so grossly inexcusable as to warrant the ultimate penalty for the negligent lawyer. Most defense counsel under such circumstances would give notice of appeal immediately in open court, as had the defense counsel in the case in Charlotte after the verdict of guilty of second-degree murder against "Shorty".
In any event, the defendant in the axe-murder case was executed without ever receiving the benefit, to which he was entitled by right, of a true direct appeal in the case, remindful of the case out of Charlotte a few years earlier when a man, a former domestic employee of a couple, was convicted of killing a woman in a Myers Park area home in August, 1949 after being caught in the midst of an attempted burglary, utilizing a gun found on the premises belonging to the victim. He also was executed without benefit of a regular direct appeal after his counsel had expressly failed to take action on the appeal after giving notice of appeal, forcing the State Supreme Court to undertake a search on its own of the record for any reversible error, of which it found none.
Apparently, this sort of reprehensible dereliction of defense duties was not considered so unusual or egregious in the South in those days, at least when the defendant was poor and black.
It should also be noted, while on the subject of crime and punishment, that during this week in 1956, Look magazine published, in its January 24 issue, an article by William Bradford Huie, in which the killers of 14-year old Emmett Till, half-brothers Roy Bryant and J. W. Milam, admitted the murder committed the previous August 28, for which they had been acquitted by an all-white, all-male jury in Sumner, Miss., the prior September. In the interim, on November 9, the 20-member all-white grand jury of LeFlore County, where Emmett had been kidnaped, declined to return an indictment for kidnaping, the murder charge having been tried in neighboring Tallahatchie County where the body had been discovered in the river. An apparent agreement had been reached between the prosecutors in each county that the kidnaping charge, brought initially in Tallahatchie but not tried with the murder charge and dismissed at the instance of the Tallahatchie prosecutor after the trial in deference to LeFlore County, would be prosecuted only in the latter county to ensure the best chance of indictment and conviction. As grand jury proceedings are conducted in secret, no reasons were given for the failure to indict, only a terse statement by a judge announcing the grand jury's decision. Because no jeopardy attached at any point on the kidnaping charge, nothing prevented presentation of the case to the grand jury again after the admissions of the half-brothers in Look, but there was no reported attempt ever to do so. While the two had, according to the trial testimony of the LeFlore County sheriff and deputy, admitted the kidnaping in interviews conducted on the afternoon of August 28, claiming they had released Emmett after a time, the defense at trial had sought to discredit the sheriff and his deputy as having a political bias against the half-brothers for supposedly not supporting the sheriff previously in the sheriff's race and lending support to his opponent, and the jury foreman, after the trial, had told reporters that they had not placed much credence in the testimony of the sheriff and his deputy regarding the admissions of the kidnaping because they were not committed to writing, the jury having convinced themselves that the body found in the Tallahatchie River was not that of Emmett Till, following the defense line based on trial testimony of a doctor who said the body had appeared in a state suggestive of it having been in the river for a couple of weeks, not just three days when discovered during the morning of August 31, notwithstanding the fact that the body bore a ring with the initials of Emmett's father, "L.T", and that the body was identified both by Emmett's uncle, at the time of its discovery, and a few days later by his mother in Chicago. The Justice Department, called upon by the NAACP to investigate and prosecute, declined to prosecute under the Federal civil rights statutes because it found no action in furtherance of the kidnaping or murder under color of state law, such as by a law enforcement officer, or action by private citizens interfering with a Federal Constitutional right, such as the right to vote.
Also during the interim, as previously indicated, the Montgomery, Alabama, bus boycott had been initiated in early December as a result of the civil disobedience of Rosa Parks, the impetus for which having come from her quiet outrage at the unpunished murder of Emmett, the organization of the boycott subsequently being led by the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., to continue for another year, until victory was achieved finally through elimination of segregated seating on the Montgomery municipal buses.
The ultimate tribute to Emmett would be the gathering on the Mall in front of the Lincoln Memorial on the eighth anniversary of Emmett's death, August 28, 1963, when Dr. King would deliver one of the most memorable and impactful speeches in U.S. history.
As with Life and most other weekly news magazines of the time, Look was circulated a couple or three days before the ostensible issue date, and so would have likely hit newsstands by this date.
Framed Edition
Links-Date — Links-Subj.