Emmett Till

by Devery S. Anderson

  Wright spoke clearly and loudly, his voice reaching the far end of the courtroom. He maintained a serious expression as he detailed for the jury his now familiar story of the abduction of his nephew, Emmett Till. He had told it to police on the morning after the kidnapping, and again to reporters three weeks later. But here, in front of the jury, was where it mattered.

  About 2:00 A.M. on August 28, someone knocked on his door. A man outside identified himself as “Mr. Bryant.” When Wright opened the door, he saw another man standing with him, holding a pistol and a flashlight. A third man, whom Wright assumed was black, stayed on the porch. The man with the gun said he wanted “that boy that done the talking down at Money.” Wright led the two men through the house, going room to room until they found Emmett Till asleep in bed. Till was awakened, made to dress, and the men led him out the front door. Wright heard them ask someone in the car if this was the right boy, and a voice that “seemed like it was a lighter voice than a man’s” said he was. After they loaded Till into the car, they drove off toward Money. Wright expressed himself vividly on the stand, often cupping his hands to his mouth, waving them in the air, and sometimes pounding his fist for emphasis on a table in front of him.101

  The most dramatic moment of Wright’s testimony came early. The darkness had prevented him from getting a good look at Bryant, but he did see the face of the other man and could identify him as J. W. Milam. Chatham asked Wright “to point out Mr. Milam if you see him here.”

  Wright stood and pointed directly at Milam. “There he is,” he said, while spectators sat fixated.102

  Chatham next asked Wright if he could see Bryant. The witness pointed at that defendant quietly. Bryant showed no emotion at all, but Milam shifted nervously in his chair and puffed away at a cigarette as Wright singled them out as the men who had kidnapped Emmett Till.103 Not long after the trial, Wright said that he “could feel the blood boil in hundreds of white people as they sat glaring in the courtroom. It was the first time in my life that I had the courage to accuse a white man of a crime.”104

  Ernest Withers defied Judge Swango’s orders and managed to secretly photograph Wright at the moment he stood and pointed at Milam. Before Withers even had his film out of the camera, however, a representative from Black Star Publishing Company walked to the black press table and paid him $10 for the entire roll. Withers never retained the rights to the iconic photo, but the widely recognized image has remained an important testament to a rare moment in a Mississippi courtroom.105

  Fifty years later, some of those present that day vividly recalled that scene, and despite the passage of time, it remains the most dramatic moment of the trial. John Herbers, who immediately ran downstairs to the press room to call in his story, said Wright’s testimony was “a shock. It was so graphic.” Dan Wakefield recalled the “great sense of dignity and courage” Wright demonstrated. “And he didn’t shrink from it. He stood tall in the witness box and said very clearly what had happened and clearly pointed out the two men who came and took the boy.” Trial spectator Betty Pearson also remembered the image of Wright standing and pointing accusingly at Milam and Bryant as “just unbelievable. It almost brought tears to your eyes. It was just an amazingly brave thing for a black man of that generation to do.”106

  There was also a moment of unintended humor during Wright’s exchange with Chatham. Wright said that after his wife, Elizabeth, got up, Milam told her to “get back in that bed, and I mean, I want to hear the springs.”

  “What did she do?” asked Chatham.

  “Well, she got back in bed.” Laughter erupted throughout the room, and Swango pounded his gavel to restore order to the court.107

  Chatham next questioned Wright about the events of August 31, three days after the kidnapping. Deputies went to see Wright, told him of the discovery of a body, and took him to the Tallahatchie River to identify it. Wright told the court that after looking at the corpse, which was lying in a boat, he identified it as Emmett Till. He also testified that he saw the undertaker, Chester Miller, remove a ring from its finger. Miller later gave the ring to Wright, but Wright gave it to Leflore County deputy John Cothran after Cothran took him home. Chatham now had the ring and handed it to Wright.

  “I ask you to tell the Court and Jury if that is the ring that Chester Miller took off of Emmett’s finger and gave to you that morning.”

  “Yes, Sir, it is,” answered Wright.

  Moments later, Chatham turned the witness over to the defense for cross-examination.108

  Sidney Carlton rose and approached the witness and began his interrogation. Wright admitted that there were no lights on in the house when Till was taken, that they were never turned on, and that he had never seen either of the defendants before. The only light came from the flashlight held by one of the men.

  “Did you ever see this man you pointed out as Mr. Bryant, did you ever see the light shining on his face that night?” asked Carlton.

  “I did not,” responded Wright.

  Carlton asked about Milam. “Did you ever see the lights flashing on his face that night?”

  “He had it up to his face. That is the way I know him.”109

  Carlton then reminded Wright of a meeting Wright attended with four of the defense attorneys the week before.

  “And isn’t it a fact, Mose, that you on that day told each one of those gentlemen and me that the only reason you thought it was Mr. Milam in your house that night was due to the fact that he was a big man and had a bald head? Isn’t that true?”

  “That’s right,” admitted Wright.

  When asked again a few moments later, however, Wright said that he “noticed his face and his stature. And I knowed his face just like I see him there now.”

  “Then you have changed your story from what you told us the other day, haven’t you?”

  “They was at my house,” answered Wright.

  “And the only thing you saw at your house, the only man you saw, was a bald headed man, is that right?”

  “That’s right.”

  “Mose, isn’t it a fact that before you saw Mr. Milam up here, you saw Mr. Milam’s picture in the newspapers, that is, before he came in here and you saw him up here? Isn’t that true?”

  “I don’t know whether I have or not. I can’t remember.”

  “Now isn’t it a fact that you told me and these other gentlemen here last week that you saw him in the newspaper before you saw him here in the courtroom?”

  “I don’t remember saying that.”

  “Do you deny that?”

  “I don’t remember,” Wright repeated.110

  After discussing other items briefly, Carlton returned to the identity of the kidnappers. “Now, Mose, you say that the only reason you identified that man there that night as being Mr. Bryant is that he said he was Mr. Bryant, is that right?”

  “That’s right.”

  “And you also say that, the only reason you identified Mr. Milam as being there that night is the fact that he is a big man and bald headed, is that right?”

  “That’s right.”111

  These were the answers Carlton wanted, and he left it at that. Next, it was crucial to the defense to weaken Wright’s identification of the battered corpse. Wright was the first family member to see the body and identify it as Emmett Till. Carlton again tried to demonstrate that Wright’s testimony on the stand conflicted with something he said earlier at the law office, but this time, Wright held firm. Now it was Carlton’s word against the witness’s.

  “Now, Mose, isn’t it a fact that you told these same four gentlemen that I have pointed out previously—those three gentlemen over there and myself—that you told them that the only reason that you could identify that body in the boat as being Emmett Till was because he was smooth faced?” Carlton repeated himself. “Isn’t it a fact that you said because the body didn’t have any whiskers and was smooth faced, and because Emmett was missing, then you identified that body there in the boat as being Emmett Till? Isn�
�t that correct?”

  “I didn’t mention no missing.”

  “Mose, do you deny that you made this statement to Mr. Breland, Mr. Henderson, Mr. Kellum and me that the only reason you could identify that body in the boat as being Emmett Till was because he was clean faced or smooth faced, and because Emmett Till was missing?”

  “I did not say it.”

  “You did not make that statement?”

  “No, Sir, I did not make it.”112

  Reporters noted that the defense scored points during cross-examination, but that Wright remained strong. Murray Kempton wrote that “Moses Wright’s story was shaken; yet he still clutched its foundations.” Dan Wakefield said that the witness “fumbled several times under cross-examination but he never lost his straightforward attitude or lowered his head.” Arthur Everett noticed that Wright “became slightly hesitant in his answers but he lounged back in apparent relaxation and often rested his head on the back of the witness chair.” John Popham reported that Wright “stuck doggedly by his identification of the accused men,” yet acknowledged that Carlton “elicited a number of answers that were conflicting.” James Desmond of the New York Daily News, wrote that “it was impossible, sitting in the courtroom, to doubt that Mose was telling the truth as he believed he knew it.” However, “the defense shook him badly on cross-examination, drawing from him conflicting statements that seriously weakened the validity of his identification of the two men.” The defendants seemed to enjoy the exchange between their attorney and their accuser. “Sidney Carlton roared at Moses Wright,” noted Kempton, “and every time Carlton raised his voice like the lash of a whip, J. W. Milam would permit himself a cold smile.”113

  Wright also admitted that it was so dark outside that he could not identify the vehicle, did not know whether it was a car or a truck, did not actually see Emmett Till or anyone else get into it, and never saw any of its lights on. The vehicle never did pull up to the house, Wright said, but was parked “in the space between the road and my house,” which was possibly fifty feet away. When it left, however, he noticed it pass the trees, and was sure it drove in the direction of Money.114

  Carlton also asked Wright about the morning he viewed the body at the river. Wright said he identified it as Emmett Till once it was turned face up. He acknowledged that this was also the first time that he had ever seen the ring.

  “Do you mean to say that he [Emmett Till] was there in your home all week and you didn’t see that ring?” asked Carlton in disbelief.

  “I sure didn’t,” answered Wright. Yet he knew it was Till’s ring because his sons Robert and Simeon identified it after he took it home. However, because Wright did not know firsthand that the ring was Till’s, Carlton asked that his statement be disregarded by the jury, a motion Swango sustained.115

  Several reporters noted an act of defiance from Wright, because he stopped answering “Yes sir” to Carlton and simply responded to questions by uttering “That’s right.” Although the trial transcript reveals that Wright alternated his response similarly when answering the prosecution or the defense, when responding to Carlton, it seemed more deliberate, Wright’s way of striking back against Carlton’s assaults upon his integrity. Murray Kempton said it was “the bravest thing a Delta Negro can do. . . . The absence of the ‘sir’ was almost like a spit in the eye.”116

  Wright was excused from the stand at 10:25 A.M.117

  After a twenty-five-minute recess, the state called, as its next witness, Chester Miller, the black mortician from Greenwood. Robert Smith questioned Miller about the events of August 31, when Miller and a helper were called to the Tallahatchie River to pick up a body. Miller said that after they had turned the body over on its back, law officers told them to remove a ring from a finger, which they did. Smith next handed Miller a ring and asked if “that is the ring you removed off the finger of that dead body?” Miller said it was. He then detailed how he and his helper had placed the body into a casket and loaded it into the ambulance. When Smith asked him about the cotton gin fan, Miller said that when he first saw it, it was in the boat and was attached to the body by barbed wire wrapped around the neck. Mose Wright, who was at the scene, identified the body for Miller just as he had for Sheriff Strider.118

  Smith then asked a question that he certainly knew would prompt an objection. “In your opinion, was the body that was there in the boat that you took out of the boat and put in your ambulance, was it possible for someone who had known the person well in their lifetime to have identified that body?”

  “Yes, Sir,” replied Miller.

  Breland protested, and Swango sustained the objection. The judge instructed the jury to disregard Miller’s answer.119

  After Miller took the body to his funeral home, Charles A. Strickland, of the Greenwood police department, came to photograph it. After that, Miller took the body to Money for burial, as he had been instructed, but learned that there had been a change in plans. He returned to Greenwood, after which he delivered the body to an undertaker at Tutwiler. Miller finished his testimony under direct examination by affirming that he had given the ring to Mose Wright and had not seen it since.120

  Sidney Carlton had only one question on cross-examination. “Chester, this body that you had there, did you carry it to Tutwiler yourself?”

  “No, Sir,” Miller acknowledged.

  Breland next asked that Miller’s earlier statement during direct examination be excluded. Swango disagreed, saying that Miller, as manager of the funeral home, “should know where he sent the body.”121

  Chatham then asked permission to briefly redirect. “Who did you instruct to take the body up there to Tutwiler?”

  “Crosby Smith,” answered Miller.

  When Chatham asked whether the body that Smith took to Tutwiler was the one Miller transported from the river, Miller explained that he went to Tutwiler the next morning to check on the body, and the name “Emmett Till” was tagged on the casket. Swango asked the jury to disregard that statement after Breland objected.122

  Miller finished by providing an important description of the body, which the defense would later try to refute. According to Miller, it was between five feet four or five inches tall and weighed between 150 and 160 pounds. “And it looked to be that of a colored person.” He also believed the victim to be young because of the condition of the flesh on the palm of the hands.123

  The state’s next witness was Charles A. Strickland, identification officer for the Greenwood police department. He had gone to Miller’s funeral home shortly after the body arrived there and photographed both the corpse and the gin fan in a back room. Deputy John Cothran accompanied him. Robert Smith, conducting direct examination, handed Strickland the two photos, which Strickland identified. The state tried to enter both as exhibits to Strickland’s testimony, but the defense objected because they contained writing on the back, probably identifying the corpse as Emmett Till. Swango sustained the objection until the writing could be obliterated. The defense also objected to exhibiting the photo of the gin fan, which had not yet been brought in as evidence. “That is not important anyway at this time,” said Smith, who then ended his examination. Because the witness had not tried to establish the identity of the body, the defense had no questions, and Strickland was excused.124

  Although Strickland was a minor player in the proceedings, the state provided protection to his family throughout the week. Two Mississippi state troopers escorted one of Strickland’s daughters to and from school at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa for the remainder of the trial.125

  Leflore County sheriff George Smith, who next took the stand, was highly important to the state’s case. Chatham began questioning the witness by asking if he recalled any conversation between himself and Roy Bryant around the end of August. Immediately, Breland asked the court “if he [Chatham] is going to bring out any admission or any conversation had with the defendant,” he wanted it qualified without the jury present. Swango then excused the jury, and questio
ning continued.126

  Sheriff Smith told Chatham that he talked with Roy Bryant in Smith’s car on Sunday afternoon, August 28. Chatham asked if Smith had offered Bryant any reward or immunity in exchange for a statement about the death of Emmett Till, or if Bryant was threatened or intimidated in any way. Smith replied that he had not and that Bryant had not been threatened.

  “And was the statement he made to you voluntarily made?”

  “Yes, Sir.”

  Chatham believed those answers qualified the statement for the jury.127

  Before the jury returned, however, Breland got up to cross-examine the witness. Answering Breland’s questions, Smith said that he had known Bryant for about two years, but not well. Nor did he know whether Bryant had supported him in his recent run for the state legislature. When he went to see Bryant at his store on the afternoon in question, the two spoke privately.

  “And you didn’t tell him that you actually came up there for the purpose of arresting him or anything like that, did you?” asked Breland.

  “Well, I didn’t right at that moment,” answered the sheriff.

  “I mean before any statement was made to you?” clarified Breland.

  “No, Sir.”

  “In other words,” Breland pressed, “when he was talking to you, he thought that he was talking to a confidential friend and in a confidential manner, didn’t he?”

  “Well, I couldn’t answer that question.”128

  Breland then moved that Smith be forbidden to testify before the jury because “any statement made to the witness was made as a matter of confidence, and any statement that was made, whatever it was, would not be competent in this case.” Also, because the body had not been established to be that of Emmett Till, “then such admission or admissions that might have been made, as far as any admission of guilt is concerned, that is certainly not competent in this case.” Swango decided to hear what the witness’s actual testimony was before making a ruling. Chatham then began a round of redirect.129