Bryant did not answer, but simply shook her head.
“In other words, it is an unprintable word?”
“Yes.”
Carlton next wanted to know, “Did he say anything after that one unprintable word?”
“Yes.”
“And what was that?”
“Well,” Bryant continued, avoiding any further description, but clearly intimating something sexual. “He said, well—‘With white women before.’”
“When you were able to free yourself from him,” Carlton asked next, “what did you do then?”
“Then this other nigger came in the store and got him by the arm.”
“And what happened then?”
“And then he told him to come on and let’s go.”59
The man left with the unidentified male who came into the store, but did so unwillingly, Bryant said. They went outside, where several others were still gathered. As the man left the store, he said “Good-bye.” Bryant then said she called to Juanita Milam to watch her as she ran outside to Milam’s car to get a pistol hidden under the seat. When she went outside, she saw the man again, now standing on the front porch. He then whistled. Carlton asked Bryant to imitate the whistle; she puckered her lips but could not make a sound. Carlton then gave a very “amateurish” version of a wolf whistle, as Clark Porteous described it (which, the reporter noted, was not as good as the one that twelve-year-old Simeon Wright had demonstrated for him back on August 31). Bryant said that sounded right. After she retrieved the pistol, she saw the man get into a car. She then rushed back into the store.60
Bryant said she had never seen this man before or since that evening. She described him as about five feet six inches tall and 150 pounds. He spoke without any speech defect, and she could understand him well.
“What sort of impression did this occurrence make on you?” Carlton asked.
“I was just scared to death,” Bryant replied.
Bryant said that she knew all of the blacks in the community and that this man, who spoke with a “northern brogue,” was not one of them. Her husband, Roy, had gone to New Orleans to drive a load of shrimp to Brownsville, Texas, she explained, and Juanita Milam was there so that Carolyn would not be alone.61
Carlton had no further questions, but argued again that the jury be allowed to hear Bryant’s testimony in order “to remove from the minds of the jury the impression that nothing but talk had occurred there.” Again, Swango refused. The prosecution had no questions, and Bryant was excused from the stand.62
Besides her husband, there was one person in the audience who was especially anxious over Carolyn Bryant’s testimony. Her mother, Frances Holloway, a nurse at Sunflower County Hospital, sat inconspicuously with other spectators or sometimes stood in the hall listening. Holloway had secured a leave of absence from her job in order to attend her son-in-law’s highly publicized trial. She spoke freely to reporter W. C. Shoemaker about her family and Carolyn’s high school beauty contests.63
Carolyn Bryant’s testimony, although given apart from the jury, clearly provided a motive for the kidnapping (and circumstantially, the murder) of Emmett Till, even though the defense argued at the same time that the defendants were innocent. It was no accident that Carlton failed to have Carolyn Bryant identify Emmett Till through photographs so that the identity of the “Negro man” could be verified. That the defense wanted this testimony as part of the record for appeal purposes is also telling. From its perspective, Carolyn Bryant’s account of the store incident would help overturn a conviction should there be one. Was the backup plan for the defense one that would justify its clients’ actions?64
Carolyn Bryant’s dramatic testimony was followed by that of Juanita Milam, who served strictly as a character witness for her husband. Carlton never asked her to provide an alibi for J. W., nor did he address the murder at all. She was asked nothing about Roy Bryant, other than to clarify his relationship to her husband. She strictly answered questions about her family and J. W.’s military service. The jury learned that J. W. was once awarded a Purple Heart and achieved the rank of lieutenant in the US Army.65
The state had only two questions for the witness. After she confirmed that her husband was, in fact, J. W. Milam, Chatham asked, “And what relation is he to Leslie Milam?”
“A brother,” answered Juanita.66
This brief exchange served as a reminder that there was a connection between the brothers and the plantation in Drew.
After the conclusion of their testimonies, Carolyn Bryant and Juanita Milam took seats next to their husbands for the first time since Tuesday afternoon, when they were called as witnesses and quarantined in another room. The four sons of Milam and Bryant had not returned to the trial since Tuesday, nor would they.67 Unaware of this, the Westheimer’s Employment Service sent Gerald Chatham a telegram Thursday with a kindly offer: “Would like to provide two baby sitters for both Roy Bryant and J. W. Milam’s children so that they could be able to be free to concentrate and devote all their thoughts to their trial. Can fly baby sitters to Sumner immediately upon your permission. This service and all expenses will be provided by us.”68 There is no evidence that Chatham passed the telegram on to the defense team, as it remained in his papers. However, he probably found it mildly amusing.
Sheriff H. C. Strider was the next witness, and the first of three in succession of vital importance to the defense. Questioned by John Whitten, Strider told the court about the morning of August 31, when he went to examine a body taken from the Tallahatchie River. By the time he arrived, the body had already been brought to shore. He said that he examined it there as “best I could.”69
The skin had slipped all over the corpse, and the fingernails were gone from the left hand. “A ring on the right hand was holding the skin that held the fingernails on that hand.” The head had a small hole about an inch above the right ear. There were also two or three gashes on the head. Strider said he cut a stick about the size of a pencil and put it into the skull to determine if the hole had penetrated it. The tongue was extending out about two-and-a-half to three inches, and the left eyeball was almost ready to fall out. “And the right one was out, I would say, about three-quarters of an inch.” The odor about the body was so bad that he could not get close to it until the undertaker got there and sprayed some deodorizing liquids to neutralize the smell.70
Strider said that he was familiar with the Tallahatchie River, and had been since 1935. In late August, the water would have been about seventy degrees at the top, and cooler as it got deeper. He estimated the depth of the river to be about twenty-five to thirty feet. He had taken other bodies from the water that had been submerged for at least six days.
“What then, Mr. Strider, is your opinion based on your past experience in taking bodies from the river, as to how long this particular body that was removed from the water on August 31st had been in the river?”
Strider did not hesitate. “I would say at least ten days, if not fifteen.”71
If Strider was correct, the body could not have been that of Emmett Till.
Whitten then asked about the race of the victim. “The only way you could tell it was a colored person—and I wouldn’t swear to it then—was just his hair. And I have seen white people that have kinky hair.” Because of heavy decomposition, Strider was only sure of one thing. “All I could tell, it was a human being.”72
Robert Smith cross-examined Strider for the state and showed him one of C. A. Strickland’s photos taken in Greenwood at the Century Burial Association. Strider told Smith that when the body was taken from the river, it “was just as white as I am,” but studying the picture, he acknowledged that some areas on the body had begun to darken.73 He said nothing under cross-examination about the race of the victim.
Smith next asked Strider about the death certificate, which Strider signed. “And that death certificate certified the fact that it was the body of Emmett Till, isn’t that correct?”
“I didn’t certify that
body as Emmett Till,” explained Strider. “I said it was a dead body. I had never seen Emmett Till before, and I couldn’t swear it was Emmett Till because I didn’t know Emmett Till or what he looked like.”
Strider also said that he had Mose Wright brought to the scene to identify the body. When Wright looked it over, Strider asked, “Mose, is this the boy that is missing from your home?” Wright said he thought so, but was not positive. When Strider asked him about the ring, Wright said that he did not recognize it and would have to ask his sons about it. Puzzled, Strider pressed him. “Do you mean to tell me Mose, that he has been staying there at your home for a week with this ring on his finger, and eating there at the same table with you, and you don’t even know this ring, or that you didn’t notice he had a ring on his finger?” Wright insisted that he would have to check with his sons.74
Strider described the condition of the body further. He saw no other wounds besides “a little reddish cast” on the back. Smith then tried to challenge Strider’s opinion about the time the body spent in the river.
“You know as a matter of fact, do you not, that a body that is wounded and beaten up and injured will decompose much quicker than a body that has not been?”
“I would think so, Yes, Sir,” admitted Strider.
“And you also know that conditions will vary in different bodies which will cause one body to decompose much quicker than another?”
“Well, I wouldn’t say too much about that,” the sheriff answered. “But I have taken bodies out of the river that were in there much longer than this.”
Smith pressed him further. “But circumstances can make a difference, and circumstances can vary as far as a body is concerned, which might cause a body to decompose quicker or faster than another body?”
“Well, I thought it depended on the temperature.”
Smith finished by asking Strider about the bullet hole in the head. The sheriff could not say for sure if that wound had been caused by a bullet and could not find where one had actually penetrated the skull.75
After a twenty-five-minute recess, the defense called Dr. Luther B. Otken to the stand. Like Strider, Otken would cast doubt upon the identity of the body. Over the years, Otken, a practicing physician since 1917, had examined numerous bodies that had been submerged in water. On August 31, at the request of the Leflore County sheriff’s office, he went to the Century Burial Association to examine a body taken from the Tallahatchie River.76
Otken’s examination was not a pathological one. In fact, he never touched the body. But from what he could see, the body was badly bloated, causing it to weigh, in his estimation, at least 275 pounds. The skin was slipping, the head was mutilated, and the right eye and tongue were both protruding. There was a “terrific” odor about the body, and the corpse was “in an advanced state of decomposition—or putrefaction.” Because of its condition, he could not see how anyone could have recognized it. No relative, not even a mother or sibling, could have made a positive identification.77
“Doctor,” asked attorney Breland, “from your experience and study and your familiarity with the medical authorities, what, in your opinion, had been the length of time that the body had been dead, if it had been in the open air?”
“I would say eight to ten days.”
Breland wanted to know whether that would still be the case if the body had been submerged in the river, pushed far below the surface by the weight of the gin fan, where the water was cooler.
“I would still say eight to ten days,” replied the doctor. He put the maximum at two weeks.78
Under cross-examination by Robert Smith, Otken admitted that different conditions will cause bodies to decompose at different rates. He also admitted that he did not know what the conditions actually were where the body in question was found. Like Strider, Otken said he did not know if the body was that of a white or black person. He confirmed that there was a hole above and just behind the right ear, and that there was an open wound on the forehead.
“And behind the left ear, the head was badly crushed in as if by some blunt object.”
Smith wanted to hear more. “Doctor, in your opinion, was the round hole you described over the right ear, was that a bullet hole?”
“I couldn’t say.”
“What is your opinion as to whether it was or not?”
“That would merely be a conjecture on my part,” Otken replied. “It was a round hole that went into the skull.”
“Doctor, in your opinion, did the injuries or wounds about the head look as if they might have been sufficient to cause his death?”
“I would say so.”
Otken admitted that he, like Strider, signed a death certificate, but did so in blank. He never actually identified the body but “stated that this was a body supposed to have been taken from the river and it had a hole above the right ear and the left side of the skull was crushed in.”79
J. J. Breland spent a few moments in redirect. “Doctor, do you know any of the parties involved in this particular controversy?” More specifically, Breland wanted to know if he knew Milam and Bryant.
“I do not,” affirmed Otken. “You would have to point them out to me.”
When asked to elaborate on the wounds, Otken said that he could not say whether the injuries were made to the body before or after death.80
Robert Smith stood and re-cross-examined the witness. “Doctor, is it true or not that a person who . . . has a good deal of weight, fat weight . . . that such a body will decompose faster than a body that is more slender and muscular?”
“That’s right.”
“And that would affect the rate of decomposition?”
“That is right.”
Breland took over the witness for more redirect.
“Doctor, observing that body as you saw it, and with the wounds that you saw on it, would that change your opinion on the length of time that the body had been dead, as you saw it?”
To that, Otken simply stated, “No.”81
In other words, despite his admission that the conditions described by Smith could have affected the speed at which the body decomposed, Otken saw the probability as unlikely. With that, he was excused.
Sheriff Strider returned to the stand, where Robert Smith briefly queried him for the state. Because Strider did not believe that the body was or even could be Emmett Till, Smith wanted to know “what efforts have you been making to find out whose body that was?”
“Well,” answered Strider, “I have had several reports about a negro who disappeared over there at Lambert. And I went out there and investigated that.” That yielded no information, because “one man would tell you that he saw him, or that he said somebody told him they saw him, and then someone else would tell me that someone else had told them something about it. And it would just carry you right around to where you started from.”
“But you got no information whatsoever to indicate whose body that was?” Smith pressed. “You have not gotten any information about that as yet?”
“No, I have not.”82
This, of course, begs the question—with the body buried in Chicago, just how would Strider make a determination as to who the victim was, even if he could confirm that a black male from Tallahatchie County was missing? That issue had not been, nor would it ever be, addressed.
The last witness of the day was Harry D. Malone, the embalmer who worked in Chester Nelson’s funeral home in Tutwiler. It was Malone who embalmed the body after it came to the mortuary on August 31.83 He had been an embalmer for three years, and had handled several hundred bodies, some that had been dead up to fifteen days, others perhaps longer. Malone, questioned by Breland, stated that it was he who prepared the body and also examined it.
“The body was bloated, and it was so bloated that the features were not recognizable,” Malone explained. “There was a prevalent skin slip all over the body.”
He described, as did many of the witnesses before him, that the skin was slipping, the fingernail
s were loose, the tongue was protruding, and the “eyes were bulged up.” He also said that the hair was loose, that he saw “multiple lacerations about the head. The left eye was hanging from its socket. And the entire body was a bluish-green discoloration.” In Malone’s opinion, this meant that the victim had been dead for at least ten days. Malone called the condition “advanced putrefaction.” The protruding tongue was caused by tissue gas, which also meant that the corpse was in an advanced stage of decomposition.84
Malone explained to the court how decomposition follows the process of rigor mortis. Putrefaction would occur faster in a body left in the open air than one placed in water.
“Being in the water would retard putrefaction,” he said. Decomposition would take longer in the conditions in which this body found itself. The seventy-degree water, the depth of up to thirty feet, and the weight of the gin fan would all have played a role in that. He reaffirmed that the minimum time span the body could have been in the river was ten days.
“And what would be the probabilities of the length of time that it might have been dead? That is, as to the longest length of time it might have been dead?” Breland asked.
“Somewhere between ten and twenty, or maybe ten and twenty-five days, perhaps.”85
Malone said that the casket he provided was six feet three inches in length, and that the body, which came close to filling it, was about five feet ten inches. If this was correct, the body would be too tall to be Emmett Till. He could not say, however, how old he thought the victim might have been. He thought it possible for a mortician to repair the body to more resemble itself prior to death and the injuries that so disfigured it.86
On cross-examination, Smith asked about the conditions that would speed up the rate of decomposition.
“And isn’t it true that a body that is wounded and beaten, and so forth, that such a body will decompose faster than one that is not?”
“Under normal conditions, yes, sir.”
“But of course, you have no knowledge of the conditions where this body had been, do you?”
Emmett Till Page 22