re: Carolyn Bryant Donham, whose accusations led to murder of Emmett Till, dies at 88

quote:

---

Nothing is as solid as a “FBI source” that comes forward 70 years later anonymously right?

---

He's about as reliable as a woman who changed her original story 50 years after that story led to a murder.

Also where did I say he was anonymous? His name is redacted in the report.

Regardless, we have instances of her participating in three separate identification events, changing her story, and key people, such as her SIL, who was supposedly taking care of the kids in the back of the store, not being at the store.

There isn't any evidence that Till did anything to this woman other than whistling, of which there is no agreeance about what caused Till to whistle. Yet we have you insisting upon her morality. No idea why you've taken the positions you have, but they aren't based on evidence.

quote:

---

The crime committed was whistling at such an ugly woman

---

Strange how Democrat women are still ugly, vile liars.

I can promise you the kid did nothing.

quote:

---

This is completely irrelevant. He didn’t deserve anything that happened to him even if he did whistle and flirt with her. Not a single rational soul really cares what Till did, because it’s inconsequential to what those men did to him. It’s just something happened, but who cares really?

---

Huh. Then why did you say this?

quote:

---

Or do you think he did absolutely NOTHING and he was randomly picked for the brutal murder?

---

quote:

---

Im insisting there are a plethora of instances where she wasn’t the one responsible in anyway for his murder and in fact may have withheld info from her husband hoping it wouldn’t happen.

---

The evidence that she withheld information from her husband is not strong. You are holding onto that rather than dealing with the evidence at large.

quote:

---

Fact is we don’t know, so I am not of the opinion to crucify her based on he said she said “evidence”

---

But we have a constellation of evidence that we can absolutely make a judgement on. To say we can't is straight up idiotic, and shows a very weird groundless epistemic worldview. It's also nonsense because we aren't getting the 'he said' in this instance. You are elevating her words, and not what she was reported to have done, above everything. You want to believe her because that is what you want to believe.

quote:

---

But please, continue with your mob. Ironic right?

---

What? Where have I suggested that she be punished specifically? She deserves blame for her part in the murder. Read that closely. You want to absolve her from the repercussions of her original story despite evidence that she participated directly in events that led to Till's murder.

Also, you need some perspective. I'm a dude talking about the nuances of a case to a person who is hellbent on believing what they want to believe. I'm not leading a mob. You might think so because for some reason your tied to a very particular outcome (i.e. the one which absolves Donham of any blame at all). But all I'm suggesting is that she played a much larger role in the murder than she herself admits, because the constellation of her actions (not her words) shows that.

quote:

---

Bexause a poster inferred nothing at all happened. So I asked if he truly though NOTHING happened and the murder was completely random. How is this so difficult for you?

---

What does the preponderance of evidence suggest man? And nicely done not reading anything else I wrote.

quote:

---

Right, the supposed incident between Till and Donham which no one has ever supported other than Donham.

---

this is a lie, outfight, again by you. Tills own friends say he whistled at her….

I have said MULTIPLE times I do not believe Donhams court room testimony of what happened.

You honestly seem to struggle with reading. I said SOMETHING happened at the store, clearly based on testimony from both sides of the case. I never said Donhams testimony of the events is what happened.

quote:

---

No they don't.

---

Sigh. Lie number 4

quote:

---

According to Simeon Wright and Wheeler Parker, Till wolf-whistled at Bryant. Wright said "I think [Emmett] wanted to get a laugh out of us or something," adding, "He was always joking around, and it was hard to tell when he was serious." Wright stated that following the whistle he became immediately alarmed. "Well, it scared us half to death," Wright recalled. "You know, we were almost in shock. We couldn't get out of there fast enough, because we had never heard of anything like that before. A black boy whistling at a white woman? In Mississippi? No." Wright stated "The Ku Klux Klan and night riders were part of our daily lives".

---

Once again, it’s irrelevant to the murder. I just want to clear up your lies

You honestly need to get your shite together in here. You are out of control

Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness....

She broke that commandment.

I hope Jesus kicks her arse.

quote:

---

How do you feel about a report that chooses to leave out the testimony from the cousin of tills who drove him to the store and was with him during the events? Does that tell you anything?

---

Does that witness negate the other witness?

And once again, do you still find Donham's moral compass to be unerring?

quote:

---

Or maybe you were just so ignorant you didn’t even realize Tills cousin Wright gave statements.

---

Wright's statement is one among a constellation of statements you idiot. You don't take one person's word for things and just run with it. You 'trust, but verify.' Again, why does Wright's testimony negate the other witness?

Also, why aren't you answering my question about her unerring moral compass?