ARCHIVE - APRIL 2016 - Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America by Gilbert King

[Samanta]

Teri wrote: "Samanta wrote: "Response to Week 2 Questions"

Reply to Samanta - Week 2 Questions

This is a very sad situation to read about. It is important for us to read about the historical atrocities (Holoc..."

Response to Teri on Norma

(view spoiler)[Yes, but for what exactly? She had to eyes and a brain. I know I might be to harsh on her and that it is not this day and age, but neither was it the Middle ages. What bugs me the most was how King described her in the courtroom. She was cold (for lack of a better word). I would like to think that, if you were coerced to do something, you would at least show some kind of an emotion that might tell the others that you are not exactly telling the truth, but she was either a very good actress, or she just didn't care. (hide spoiler)]

[Samanta]

Teri wrote: "Marc wrote: "Florida leading the nation in lynching and bull conner reply.."

Reply to Marc - Florida Lynching stats

[spoilers removed]"

Response to Teri on McCall

(view spoiler)[I was shocked when I read year 1972. I honestly thought something would happen to him in the course of this trial (in a way that he would answer for his crimes legally), but I am also, when I think better about it, not surprised. He was a God in the eyes of his community, and the deaths of a few "niggars" (detestable word!!!) could only be seen as heroic acts in their eyes. I have to admit, that, at the beginning of the book, I was a bit confused about McCall. I honestly thought he was actually a decent person, so the confusion and shock were even greater when the book picked up speed. (hide spoiler)]

[Teri]

Chapter 12 Discussion Questions

(view spoiler)[1. What did Charles Greenlee have to gain/lose by joining in the appeal with Irvin and Shepherd? What do you think he should have done?

2. What was significant about the segregation case at the University of Texas? How did it help Marshall in his career? (hide spoiler)]

[Robyn]

Teri wrote: "Chapter 12 Discussion Questions

1. What did Charles Greenlee have to gain/lose by joining in the appeal with Irvin and Shepherd? What do you think he should have done?

2. What was significant abo..."

(view spoiler)[I think that given the political and legal climate, he made the right call. It's tragic that he felt that staying in prison was the better choice. I'm very glad that law has been changed.
I had to smile a little about the ridiculousness of a stack of law books in a basement being called a law school. I'm glad they won the case (would have been embarrassing otherwise), and I believed this paved the way for Brown - challenging the "separate but equal" philosophy. I'm glad the world had changed by the time I started school. However, my parents left Nebraska when they started bussing students around to level the playing field. They felt that they'd spent more to buy a house in a "good" school district and didn't want me sent elsewhere. My teachers in Nebraska really made us try to see the person inside instead of the external appearance and as a result, I think differently than my parents did at that time. However, there were only a couple of black families in our school. I don't recall any of us treating kids differently because of the color of their skin, so I feel fortunate. I'm still appalled that the KKK took their kids to lynchings. I guess that's how you breed the behavior. My son's peers focus even less on ethnic groups than mine did, so I think that at least in some areas of the country we're getting better.
For those of you down south - what do you think? Are we getting to be more open-minded where you are? (hide spoiler)]

[Teri]

Reply to Samanta - Norma and McCall

(view spoiler)[I think Norma was basically brainwashed. I think that if she had the chance to think on her own, she might have liked the four boys, and I get the impression she knew them and may have even socialized with them a bit. I also think that Willie, her dad, and other men/people in her community had drilled in her head that they were lesser people. She may have felt bad for setting up the boys, but in the end, I think that Willie, et. al. had her believing that it didn't matter if they actually did it or not, they didn't deserve to be a part of their community, or anywhere else but jail or dead. I just believe that she was taught to believe that what she did was for the greater good of the community or.....she was under intense pressure to finger the boys, to allow Willie to save face and was threatened if she said otherwise. Likely a little of both. If not for the men around her (and probably some women too), she might have been friends with those boys.

McCall not getting his due is very disheartening. I am hoping that if nothing else, this book and maybe new focus on this trial will teach his descendants the errors in his judgement and that his way of thinking is not perpetuated through future generations. (hide spoiler)]

[Samanta]

Perhaps you are right. You give her the benefit of a doubt, which I can't (probably because human rights are a sore spot for me and I am becoming too emotionally invested in this story). You are a better person than I am, Teri.

[Teri]

Samanta wrote: "Perhaps you are right. You give her the benefit of a doubt, which I can't (probably because human rights are a sore spot for me and I am becoming too emotionally invested in this story). You are a ..."

Response to Samanta - Norma

(view spoiler)[I doubt I am a better person that you, Samanta. :-) I am just trying to wrap my head around a person that would condemn four innocent young men the way she did. There was a scene that King depicted in Chapter 3 page 37/38 of the boys helping Willie with the car and they were all hot and sweaty. Norma offers her bottle of the whiskey to the boys. Both of the boys drank from it, then she offered it to Willie who, of course, belligerently said he would not drink after them. So at some point, she had some compassion toward them. At some point, she thought they were good enough to share a bottle of booze with her and likely she did drink after them, even if Willie did not. Either she had been friendly with them at some point (King indicates somewhere in the book, and I'm not sure I can find where, that they all might have known each other - small town living), or she saw them as her equal.

Sometime between that moment when she offered them the whiskey and the next morning, she lost that compassion. I think Willie got into her head.

What do others think? I may be overthinking this or reading too much into that scene. (hide spoiler)]

[Matthew]

Response to Robyn's "For those of you down south - what do you think? Are we getting to be more open-minded where you are? "
In the small rural counties of Florida (which is over half of the 67 counties) I think there are large pockets still stuck in the past and occasionally you see some of the ugliness come out in how minorities are treated, even by officials. BUT, I am quite sure it's immensely better than it was even a generation ago. I think eventually, maybe in another generation, the rest of the South will catch up with its more progressive parts. But, then again, ugliness can happen anywhere at anytime and, I think, from anyone, so life is a constant struggle to be on your guard to do the right thing.

I think the big turning point came in the eighties when it suddenly became unpopular to throw around racist terms, as in the PC-movement. Words are powerful. Words, both positive and negative, can change the heart from the inside out. Being truly PC isn't about white-washing problems superficially. It's about changing a culture of bad language and the thoughts and actions that go along with bad language. God help us.

[Robyn]

Matthew wrote: "Response to Robyn's "For those of you down south - what do you think? Are we getting to be more open-minded where you are? "
In the small rural counties of Florida (which is over half of the 67 cou..."

Thank you Matthew! I've been trying really hard to not use labels like "black", "latino", "white" etc. We've been in such a habit of including that in a description of a person and when you don't include it, people have trouble identifying who you're talking about. I agree that we need culture change.

[Teri]

Very well said Matthew.

[Tomi]

One thing that just struck me is how in several instances (pgs. 187 and 188) it was college students who saw the wrong in segregation and supported the efforts of the NAACP. When I read today about all the college kids whining about needing "safe spaces" because of something written -in chalk! - on the sidewalk, I am amazed at how different young people have become...
I agree that this book is getting harder and harder to read. I have to put it down pretty often because I am so upset. Many of these things happened during my lifetime; and, while I am horrified by the prejudice and evil, I can only say (not defending any of it!) that these were normal procedures. That's the way things were. If you were raised to believe the color of your skin made you superior/inferior, it would be hard to act differently.

[Tomi]

(view spoiler)[
I have no sympathy or understanding whatsoever for Norma. I think she lied out of pure-dee meanness! (hide spoiler)]

[Helga]

Tomi wrote: "
I have no sympathy or understanding whatsoever for Norma. I think she lied out of pure-dee meanness!"

You are so right. I agree with you. It is so disturbing to read about this because it happened.

[Teri]

Response to Tomi and Helga - Norma

(view spoiler)[You ladies may be right. I think I just always want to see the good in people and that one gesture of hers made me wonder.

Do you think that her allegation is purely her own or do you think Willie talked her into it? (hide spoiler)]

[Samanta]

Tomi wrote: "
I have no sympathy or understanding whatsoever for Norma. I think she lied out of pure-dee meanness!"

Oh, good! I'm not the only one. :)

[Marc]

Teri wrote: "Marc wrote: "Florida leading the nation in lynching and bull conner reply.."

Reply to Marc - Florida Lynching stats

[spoilers removed]"

(view spoiler)[
I think it was a combo, but mostly folks liked how he operated. I sounds like he was fair to white folks, and possibly others too, unless blacks were accused of a crime or being too uppity, and also those who supported them (reporters and lawyers), then he could put them in their places. I know he did save the accused's lives (he could have just let them be lynched, so that's a positive, but yet he allow the mob to possibly lynch the lawyers (severe beating was a given, murder a distinct possibility if/when the mob got too bloodthirsty). I don't think saving the lives of the accused was too much a positive, being he was a bit narcissistic, and being aware that letting a lynching happen while they were under police custody would be a black eye against him.

I'm sure there were a few who were afraid, and not knowing if he had anyone run against him, so he could have won some of his reelections by default, but I don't know, that's pure speculation.
(hide spoiler)]

[Teri]

Marc wrote: "Teri wrote: "Marc wrote: "Florida leading the nation in lynching and bull conner reply.."

Response to Marc - Willis McCall background information

(view spoiler)[I came across this article on him. I'll post it in the glossary:

http://www.sptimes.com/News/112899/Fl... (hide spoiler)]

[Teri]

Chapter 13 Discussion Questions

(view spoiler)[1. What was the purpose of using undercover agent L. B. De Forest? Do you think she could help the Groveland case?

2. What significance did Communism have on Marshall? What did he mean by the statement "...there's no difference between a white snake and a black snake. They'll both bite." (hide spoiler)]

[Pamela]

Response to Tomi and Helga

(view spoiler)[I have to agree about Norma. I imagine initially she was driven by fear of her husband. I'm sure if she hadn't gone along with all this he'd have beaten the living tar out of her at some point and she would have known that. Also, if she had tried to help them at the trial or later she would have gotten the same treatment from her family and the klan and been ostracized by the whole community in addition. She would have been well aware of all of these things. However, she has had years, decades even, to put the record straight and has refused to do so. I personally think she enjoyed the attention of being a local "heroine". I doubt if she once gave a thought to the consequences for those boys and, if she did, had probably by that time convinced herself that they "deserved" it. Remember that even the lawyers knew the boys would be convicted and were just trying to save their lives and set up an appeal. Back then, once an accusation like that was made, it only ended one way. Even when everyone might know it wasn't true. (hide spoiler)]

[Samanta]

Response to Chapter 12 questions

(view spoiler)[1. What did Charles Greenlee have to gain/lose by joining in the appeal with Irvin and Shepherd? What do you think he should have done?

I don't think he could have gained much. NAACP wanted to pursue the appeal to save Shepherd and Irvin's lives, but they didn't think they would be able to set them completely free, just keep them alive. Thus, if Charles joined the appeal, he wouldn't gain much from it, because he already managed to stay alive. On the other hand, if the Supreme court ruled against the Groveland boys, he could have ended up on the death sentence again.
The second question doesn't really have an easy answer. Life-time imprisonment is not really a happy situation, but it is better than be dead for something you didn't do (but then again, I do not know the conditions he had to face).

2. What was significant about the segregation case at the University of Texas? How did it help Marshall in his career?
What I found significant was the response of the white students of the University, which resulted in opening the first all-white NAACP. I was pleasantly surprised and very happy when I read that. History was indeed being made in that courtroom. As for Marshall, maybe his work there made an impression of the powers that be because he did become the Associate Justice at the Supreme Court and the first black person to hold the position. (hide spoiler)]

[Teri]

Pamela wrote: "Response to Tomi and Helga."

Don't forget your spoiler tags on this one, since it does talk about events related to Norma in the book. Thank you. ;-)

[Teri]

Samanta wrote: "Response to Chapter 12 questions."

Response to Samanta - Chapter 12

(view spoiler)[I had not considered how the appeal would work and affect Charles Greenlee until it was mentioned in the book. What an awful predicament. You know you have a chance, albeit slight, that you could be completely vindicated, but if it didn't work out, it could be your death. That really strikes me as how horrible it was at that time. His destiny was not in his hands at all. The feeling had to be indescribable. (hide spoiler)]

[Teri]

Chapter 14 Discussion Questions

(view spoiler)[1. The author points to Curtis Howard, the gas station attendant who spots Norma Padgett on the side of the road on the morning of the alleged rape. Yet Howard doesn’t mention his observation until later that morning. What are your thoughts about Curtis Howard’s role in this case?

2. In Shepherd v. Florida Marshall had Robert Carter, not Franklin Williams argue the jury exclusion portion of the case. Why do you think Marshall made this decision? (hide spoiler)]

[Samanta]

Teri wrote: "Samanta wrote: "Response to Chapter 12 questions."

Response to Samanta - Chapter 12

[spoilers removed]"

I think I would have a claustrophobic attack.

[Rachel]

What did Charles Greenlee have to gain/lose by joining in the appeal with Irvin and Shepherd? What do you think he should have done?
(view spoiler)[
I don't think he had much to gain. It was double edge sword, because if he joined the appeal then he was taking the chance of getting re-sentence the death penalty. But if he didn't join the appeal he was risking the other being acquitted and he still in incarcerated. I would have just probably sat the appeal out. I don't think I would want to take my chances on getting the death penalty again. Especially, when stakes are high in losing the appeal. (hide spoiler)]

[Rachel]

I was just looking up Norma Padget: I am sure if anyone posted this or saw this or not. But here is her testimony. found it interesting

(view spoiler)[

http://www.pbs.org/harrymoore/terror/... (hide spoiler)]

[Jim]

Chapter 15
(view spoiler)[
I was really surprised that McCall shot the two young men. To me it indicated how much power he had in his county. I think if this had happened without the FBI and the press being there he might have gotten away with killing his prisoners.

I base my opinion on two things. First, the the deputy that went with him to get the prisoners followed McCall's directions to not follow him as he returned to the jail. Also, the deputy Yates also shot Irvin or at least was there when the last shot was fired.

Secondly, he knew it would be his friends and supporters who would be investigating his actions. It made me wonder how many crimes he had committed involving African Americans in his county.

On page 237, this entire situation becomes even worse. The ambulance could not be used to transport African Americans. So the racist laws or rules stay in place even if it meant Irvin might die.

Lastly, was McCall thinking that in a new trial the truth would come out and the two mean would not only be released, but also the McCall would be shown to have lied and had broken laws. In my opinion one or both of these came into play. He was guilty and the new trial would set the men free.
(hide spoiler)]

[Jovita]

Week 3 Discussion Questions
(view spoiler)[1. Willis McCall held a tight reign on Lake County. In the beginning of the book, he prevents the men of Bay Lake from storming the jail and possibly preventing lynching the Groveland suspects. But clearly, he was capable of violence against those same men. What do you think Sheriff McCall's motivations were throughout the story, and why do you think he was able to remain sheriff for twenty-eight years?

I think it would be a mistake to interpret McCall’s prevention of the lynching of the suspects as anything other than an effort to preserve his public image, and to divert any national attention from Bay Lake. He, as well as the other men engaged in ruthless behavior towards blacks, were smart enough to know that they could not openly violate the law and the civil rights of those they abused under the glaring stare of the national media. To do so would force the hand of the FBI to investigate and prosecute such egregious actions, and make it easier for the NAACP/LDF to win their appeals. McCall knew that his power over blacks was the power of intimidation, and it was wielded in dark basements and dusty old country roads, where the eye of the nation could not see.

2. The book focuses tightly on this one case, but occasionally the lens widens. There’s the portrait of black Harlem centered on 409 Edgecombe Ave (25-29). There’s the way Florida’s economy depended on citrus labor (76-81) and the way the state’s demography and economy were changing. There’s the local politics of the bolita lottery game (78-79, 114). Which of these asides – or others – helped you understand the Groveland case better? Which did you find useful for thinking about mid-20th Century American history?

I am grateful to the author for including these asides, as it gave me a greater sense of all the other factors that were at play in this case. The contrast between the lives of blacks on 409 Edgecombe vs those in Groveland Florida helped me to understand better understand how different things were in the South vs other parts of the country (though, certainly, the blacks in the North by no means lived a life of perfect equality and racial harmony either), and also how difficult it must have been for the Northern attorneys, stepping into the foreign world of the Jim Crow South. The information on the citrus industry/local economy of Bay Lake shed a lot of light on the economic motivations behind the actions of the citizens of the area, and how a lot of the racial attitudes were motivated by the economic structure at the time. The information on the Bolita game brought into focus the reasoning behind some of the false testimony by black witnesses in the trial. (hide spoiler)]

[Jovita]

Chapter 12 Discussion Questions

(view spoiler)[1. What did Charles Greenlee have to gain/lose by joining in the appeal with Irvin and Shepherd? What do you think he should have done?

I don’t think there was much for Greenlee to gain legally through the appeal, but I have to imagine that this young boy felt strongly the injustice that was carried out against him, as his entire future had been robbed from him simply for being the wrong color, in the wrong place at the wrong time. I sense that his decision to join the appeal was based on the strength of his convictions rather than the potential legal outcomes for his case.

2. What was significant about the segregation case at the University of Texas? How did it help Marshall in his career?

The UT case was significant in that it set the precedent that the very act of exclusion, regardless of the quality of the separate accommodations, created a psychological deficit, such that no education, no matter how ‘equal’ the building or learning materials, would truly be ‘equal’, since the psychological effects would always be sub-standard. This argument would pave the way for his victory in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka and the overturning of Plessy v. Ferguson. (hide spoiler)]

[Teri]

Rachel wrote: "What did Charles Greenlee "

Response to Rachel - Charles Greenlee

(view spoiler)[I agree, I don't think he had any other choice. And it's very sad that was the case. Do you think that today, it would be different? More chance at a fair trial? (hide spoiler)]

[Teri]

Rachel wrote: "I was just looking up Norma Padget: I am sure if anyone posted this or saw this or not. But here is her testimony. found it interesting "

Norma Padgett Testimony

(view spoiler)[Thanks for adding it here. Catbird did have it in a post on the Glossary thread and I had not gotten to that webpage yet to read through it in its entirety, so thanks for posting here. I really think it's obvious that she's making things up and I think the attorney questioning her was giving her some leading questions. I'd love to read the entire transcript. Did you think it felt like she was making it all up? (hide spoiler)]

[Teri]

Jim wrote: "Chapter 15."

Response to Jim - Chapter 15

(view spoiler)[I think McCall knew he'd get away with it. He had everyone in his pockets. He was a local hero even to his death. My guess is that he thought he was taking care of a situation and making it all go away and saving everyone time and money. He also had no real regard for any of those boys. He seemed to think that as sheriff, he was above the law.

You said that if the FBI wasn't involved he might have gotten away with it. Do you think that he didn't get away with it? He was never convicted. (hide spoiler)]

[Teri]

Jovita wrote: "Week 3 Discussion Questions."

Response to Jovita - Week 3 Discussion Questions

(view spoiler)[I agree with you on McCall. He did rule by intimidation and was the epitome of a southern lawman.

I like your comment on contrasting 409 Edgecomb and southern life in Florida. Do you think that Marshall's northern background made him naive at all about how justice would work in the south? He did seem concerned and scared for his own well-being at times during the trial, but he kept going back and fighting. (hide spoiler)]

[Teri]

Jovita wrote: "Chapter 12 Discussion Questions."

Response to Jovita - Chapter 12

(view spoiler)[I can only imagine what Greenlee had to be thinking during this whole process. But he had strength to go on and I think he had to have some hope that by just staying alive he would one day be exonerated. I think he made the right choice. I agree that it was more for his convictions than the legalities. (hide spoiler)]

[Teri]

Chapter 15 Discussion Questions

(view spoiler)[1. What does the book’s portrait of Willis McCall tell us about this period? At times he defends law and order in the face of vigilante violence (as when we first meet him in chapter 5) and at others he becomes a vigilante himself (as when he shoots Shepherd and Irvin in chapter 15)? What sense can be made of the balance of order and fear in an age of white supremacy by considering this man who was elected Sheriff seven consecutive times?

2. Are you surprised that the KKK will punish their own? (hide spoiler)]

[Rachel]

Do you think that today, it would be different? More chance at a fair trial?

(view spoiler)[

I think that in some respects that you get a more fair trial. The trial of the grove land boys was ridiculous. Because one they would have had to prove that she was even rape? Plus, today they would have needed evidence that she was rape they wouldn't have just relied on her word. (hide spoiler)]

[Jovita]

Response to Teri RE: Week 3 Discussion questions

(view spoiler)[I am sure there had to be a culture shock when Marshall first began traveling to the south. Even though there was some degree of racial inequality in every region of the US at that time, I don't think he could have truly imagined just how bad it was in the South until he experienced it himself. The book doesn't give as in-depth a look into what Marshall's initial experiences in the South were like, but the author certainly painted a clear picture of the fear and awe that Frank Williams experienced in his first ventures down to Groveland. It must have been quite a hostile environment for him not to have even ventured to meeting the prosecutor in the case until he was urged to do so by Akerman. (hide spoiler)]

[Jovita]

Chapter 13 Discussion Questions

(view spoiler)[1. What was the purpose of using undercover agent L. B. De Forest? Do you think she could help the Groveland case?


I think the reasoning behind the utilization of an undercover agent was that Marshall and his team knew they would not get the white residents of Lake County to open up to the LDF team, or even the FBI, either due to cronyism, or fear of retribution, or both. The only way that would get the honest, unguarded retellings and opinions of the white community in that area at that time would have been to infiltrate Lake County’s white society with someone whom the locals would view as ‘one of their own’.

2. What significance did Communism have on Marshall? What did he mean by the statement "...there's no difference between a white snake and a black snake. They'll both bite."


As the book quotes the NAACP’s own publication, The Crisis, on pg. 206, “[t]he irony…was not lost on the NAACP itself [that]…‘the nation’s oldest civil rights organization[,] discriminated against individuals on the basis of their political beliefs and affiliation’”. It seems clear to me that Marshall was not against the rights of the Communist arm of the NAACP to exercise their individual freedom, but that he understood that the LDF would never have a chance at successfully overturning Plessy v. Ferguson and making the legal strides towards civil rights and racial equality it did if it were labeled a communist organization at a time when communism was so negatively viewed and feared in America. I believe that what made Marshall so successful was his ability to delineate the difference between what should be and what is. I am sure he respected the fact that, in a perfect world, it should not matter whether there were communist leanings within the NAACP, if the facts of these cases proved that Plessy v. Ferguson was a violation of civil rights, it should be overturned. However, he knew that being brandished ‘Communist’ would skew public opinion of the NAACP, and would have a negative affect on their ability to successfully litigate its civil rights cases, as no judge or jury would want to be seen as aiding a communist cause.

Marshall’s statement about white and black snakes refers to his belief in only trying the cases were the defendants were actually innocent and whose convictions had only come about due to racial injustices.

This statement made me think a lot about Marshall’s success, and how much this attitude had to do with it. Having such a strong belief in the protection of constitutional rights for all people, I would assume that he would believe strongly in any defendant’s right to a fair trial, regardless of guilt or innocence. Yet he knew the necessity of having truly ‘blameless’ defendants when working to set new precedent for civil rights through the Supreme Court. I wonder what his opinion would be of some of the cases of today, such as those of Freddie Gray or Walter Scott, where the deceased may have committed an initial crime or infraction, but where the police response or use of force was not necessarily warranted. Would he find these cases of alleged police brutality or murder to warrant national attention and litigation to the highest extent of the law? Or would he find these victims' previous records and the circumstances of their cases to be detrimental to any success in seeking significant social and legal changes? I really don't know what he would feel, but I'm curious about what everyone's thoughts are. (hide spoiler)]

[Robyn]

Teri wrote: "Chapter 15 Discussion Questions

1. What does the book’s portrait of Willis McCall tell us about this period? At times he defends law and order in the face of vigilante violence (as when we first m..."

(view spoiler)[ I think he rationalized that he wasn't a vigilante - he was the law. I'm not sure how he rationalized the lack of following the full legal process. Like others, I was disappointed that karma didn't happen for the sheriff. I don't know how he could sleep at night after hunting down and killing others - but I do think he was covering his prior bad acts in doing so. You have to wonder if the local folks knew the truth about him and voted for him anyway?
(hide spoiler)]

[Rachel]

What was the purpose of using undercover agent L. B. De Forest? Do you think she could help the Groveland case?

(view spoiler)[
Her purpose was to infiltrate Lake county and befriend Norma Padgett so she could learn what really happened that night. though she hasn't befriended Norma imparticular she is getting info from other folks in town about what happened that night. I think this is extremely helpful to the defense. this can give them a light on how they want work their case, (hide spoiler)]

[Teri]

Rachel wrote: "Do you think that today, it would be different? More chance at a fair trial?

Response to Rachel - Norma

(view spoiler)[These days, with DNA and the technology we have, I want to think that the boys would have a much better trial. But playing devil's advocate - I see a lot of true crime TV shows where people get convicted who are innocent. The truth does generally come out, eventually. I also think that there are a lot of projects across the country where lawyers/law enforcement are opening up old cases, not just cold ones, where the verdict in trials have been a bit sketchy and reviewing them.

See: http://www.innocenceproject.org/ (hide spoiler)]

[Teri]

Response to Jovita - on Marshall

(view spoiler)[Great there there, wondering what Marshall would think of some of these recent cases. I want to say that he would be against the police brutality. That doesn't mean he would be behind the perpetrators 100%. I think he would stand up for their rights to fair treatment and their day in court, but ultimately, he'd know that their initial behavior was wrong as well.

Hoping others will chime in.

So let me repeat Jovita's questions for all:

I wonder what his opinion would be of some of the cases of today, such as those of Freddie Gray or Walter Scott, where the deceased may have committed an initial crime or infraction, but where the police response or use of force was not necessarily warranted. Would he find these cases of alleged police brutality or murder to warrant national attention and litigation to the highest extent of the law? Or would he find these victims' previous records and the circumstances of their cases to be detrimental to any success in seeking significant social and legal changes? (hide spoiler)]

[Teri]

Robyn wrote: "Teri wrote: "Chapter 15 Discussion Questions"

Response to Robyn - Willis McCall

(view spoiler)[I don't believe that McCall ever thought he did wrong. I think he felt justified in everything he did until the day he died. There was an article in The Floridian that quoted him saying: "I would hate to be remembered like some of them would like me to be remembered," the sheriff told a reporter, several years before his death, "as an old sonofabitch." I'm sure that ultimately he didn't care what others thought, but I took that to mean that he hated that people thought he was bad when he believed he was not.
Source:
http://www.sptimes.com/News/112899/Fl... (hide spoiler)]

[Teri]

Response to Jovita and Rachel - L. B. De Forest

(view spoiler)[Rachel - you made a good point, De Forest didn't just meet Norma, but she got to know a lot of neighbors and relatives. They gave her information and obviously they knew a bit of the real story, I think. Do you think that others knew the whole story or at least believed that Norma was lying? (hide spoiler)]

[Teri]

Chapter 16 Discussion Questions

(view spoiler)[1. Walter Irvin described being shot by both Sheriff McCall and his deputy, James Yates. Yet despite having evidence that supported Irvin’s story rather than McCall’s, the FBI was able to hold onto this evidence for years, and neither McCall nor Yates were ever charged. Discuss the role of the FBI in this case and how it fits with your expectations?

2. We start to see the changes in opinion of some characters like Jesse Hunter and Mabel Norris Reese. Do you think they were truly seeing the injustices or merely noting the boys' innocence in the obvious facts of the case? (hide spoiler)]

[Rachel]

We start to see the changes in opinion of some characters like Jesse Hunter and Mabel Norris Reese. Do you think they were truly seeing the injustices or merely noting the boys' innocence in the obvious facts of the case?
(view spoiler)[
I think that they were seeing how corrupt the sheriff department is. I think by seeing this, it would probably make them question the innocence of the Grove land boys. (hide spoiler)]

[Samanta]

Teri wrote: "Chapter 15 Discussion Questions

1. What does the book’s portrait of Willis McCall tell us about this period? At times he defends law and order in the face of vigilante violence (as when we first m..."

Response to chapter 15 questions

(view spoiler)[It says that as a white person and the officer of law you can get away with pretty much anything, especially if it's against a part of the nation that is considered less than human. You called McCall a vigilante. Isn't a vigilante a person who takes justice into his/her own hand (however that notion of justice might be wrong), if the official justice system doesn't do what it should? To me, McCall wasn't a vigilante because he didn't shoot the boys out of some misguided notion of justice, but because e wanted to save his own skin and keep his public image intact. To me, he is plan and simple, a murderer. (hide spoiler)]

[Samanta]

Response to chapter 16 questions

(view spoiler)[1. Walter Irvin described being shot by both Sheriff McCall and his deputy, James Yates. Yet despite having evidence that supported Irvin’s story rather than McCall’s, the FBI was able to hold onto this evidence for years, and neither McCall nor Yates were ever charged. Discuss the role of the FBI in this case and how it fits with your expectations?

I was just about to make a general comment on this week's reading, when I saw the question. That part of the book felt like watching an honest to God telenovela. The sheriff calls his buddies to confirm his story, the lawyers are not permitted to see their client by a measly deputy on some the grounds of God knows what, the leading authorities help the sheriff concoct a story, in comes an FBI forensic, who turns out to be a KKK member and, of course, backs up the sheriff's story, despite the obvious evidence. And then, when a man tells the FBI that one of their own is biased, the FBI does nothing, so as not to ruin the reputation. I mean, come on!!! I literally yelled in frustration a few times while reading.

We start to see the changes in opinion of some characters like Jesse Hunter and Mabel Norris Reese. Do you think they were truly seeing the injustices or merely noting the boys' innocence in the obvious facts of the case?

Might be both. I'm still not sure how the realization will play in te case of Mabel, but we were shown how Jesse Hunter reacted. He was not concerned about the boys, but again, as everybody else, for the reputation (his own AND of the county). Despite everything he found out, he still went on trying to pin the rape on the Groveland boy(s). (hide spoiler)]

There, I think I vented my frustration with this case.

[Marc]

Chapter 15-17
(view spoiler)[
I had a heck of a time reading this chapter, knowing McCall got away with murder, since we all know he stayed sheriff for many years after the case. No, I don't think McCall thought he was a vigilante, I think he was covering up his tracks, with the beatings in jail that could have come out in a re-trial, possible new lynchings of the lawyers and press, and it may be (total speculation, I have not read ahead!!) that he also might of did it on orders from the governor, to prevent further black eyes on the state. Murdering those two boys would have solved all of that, with the other kid (Greenlee) already confessed, and likely he could have been killed in jail down the road, not necessarily from guards/officers, but from inmates who got paid off (we already saw that with that guy who got basically a 1 year extension of his life).

But still, very very hard reading
(hide spoiler)]

[Teri]

Rachel wrote: "We start to see the changes in opinion of some characters like Jesse Hunter and Mabel Norris Reese."

Response to Rachel - Jesse Hunter and Mabel Reese

(view spoiler)[It really is hard to ignore when the evidence is so damning. Yet, they didn't do a lot about it. I was really hoping Jesse Hunter would completely switch sides and help Marshall with the case. (hide spoiler)]