In his closing statements yesterday, Mississippi AG Jim Hood revealed his overt insensitivity to the Chaney, Schwerner and Goodman families.
Some of you have asked why I am here. . . Because this is where justice is done.
I wish some of my predecessors had done their duty. I wouldn't have to be here, to have missed my daughter’s second birthday.
It would be extremely unprofessional for Jim Hood to complain about missing his daughter's second birthday during his closing statements in any court case. But does he hear himself?! There's been 41 missed birthdays for the families of the victims.
Jim Hood also went so far as to desecrate what Chaney, Schwerner and Goodman stood for, by comparing the Southern Freedom Movement to Bush's war in Iraq:
They came down here doing God's work. They were here in peace. They weren’t troublemakers. They were doing the same things that we are doing in Iraq — fighting for people's freedoms. They showed a lot of courage. They were heroes for being here to grant people the freedom to vote.
Jim Hood had the chutzpah to claim that another reason he showed up to make closing arguments (and not just leave it to DA Mark Duncan) was that
I wanted to be here myself, I didn't want to have any regrets. That I did my duty to the victims and their families.
What a lying, insensitive boor. I'm pretty much ready to believe he was being insulting on purpose. But I guess when you've got an ego that big you probably manage to insult people all the time while you tell them how important you are to them.
BLOG POSTS
COMMENTS
PODCASTS
Please try to remember that Jim Hood finally brought this case back to the courtroom. I know many of us would have loved a “guilty of murder”, but with 41 years between the murders and the trial that would have been very difficult. And on a personal note-who does want to miss their childs 2nd birthday?
Alison
Alison,
I myself have a two year old and would be very upset to miss his birthday.
Jim Hood did not bring this case back into the courtroom. He brought Killen back into the courtroom. Pursuing this case would have involved pursuing all of the evidence and indicting all of the living suspects.
Hood could not make a solid commitment to pursuing this case. Therefore his statments about his efforts and his sacrifices are about him and not about his finding the truth and pursuing justice.
Hood’s personal moment about his daughter rings false to me b/c he was airing his loss to family members who have lost much, much more than a toddler’s birthday. Hood’s compensation for his sacrifice will be public accolades and fantastic publicity for his further pursuits of public office. What compensation do the victims’ families get? They certainly don’t walk away with the satisfaction that justice was served. The state of Mississippi hasn’t awarded them any damages for its role in the murders, nor has the state made any commitment to investigate any of the other murders in which there were no white victims to galvanize the press and horrify the nation. The victims’ families speak about the broader issues in public, anytime they have the chance. On the other suspects in this case and on the many other victims of civil rights era racial crimes, the state is silent.
I unexpectedly spent the past weekend watching this trial and I agree that Hood’s reference to missing his daughter’s birthday was probably self serving and that the case itself was brought in part to further Hood’s political career. If you remember before the recess on Saturday the judge admonished Hood for “not thinking about the jury.” I think Hood’s motive was to show that he had ‘suffered’ on par with the jury and the other members of the court rather than on par with the victim’s families. And, while I also cringed at the metaphor equating the civil rights movement with the war in Iraq I took into account where the members of the jury are from. They may be supporters of the war, I hear Bush has alot of support for his activities in the south. Perhaps that’s news to you. And given where they are from they may not all have the fondest memories of the civil rights movement. Each side got to choose half the jury, remember? Which goes a long way toward explaining the 6/6 split at the end of the first day of deliberation. What I enjoyed most about your comments was the rabidity with which you denigrate Hood’s character. I am assuming by the decorations in your site that you fall into the liberal camp. Perhaps I’m incorrect. And the way I see it with liberals like you who needs the neocons? I’m sure you will be able to single handedly torpedo anyone who is pursuing a liberal agenda for political gain and ensure a future full of rednecks and christian conservatives running the country indefinitely. Thanks for that, as an outsider I am enjoying watching America devour itself from the inside. Also while I am sure that you are perfect in every way, for me it would have been a little difficult to absorb the comments fully if I were typing as fast as I could during them and only had my own rendition of what was said as a reference. How very Fox News of you.
Hugs
Christine,
I’m sorry that it makes you uncomfortable when people express strong emotions about injustice. You are right: I was very angry when I wrote this post. The qualitative difference between my political anger and that of the neocons is that I was expressing anger about the facts; they distort facts in order to cultivate misdirected anger and fear among others. Same goes for Fox News. If you read around in the neshoba murders section of this blog you will find steady discussions of the facts that would lead one to be angry about Hood’s behavior in the courtroom.
The points you raise about Hood’s audience are valid and good to bring up. An attorney who was involved in the Civil Rights Movement said something pretty similar to me. He said:
His point and yours are taken, but let me repeat here what I said in conversation with the person quoted, above:
If Hood had pursued the case properly and used all the available evidence he would not have had to pander to the latest in American racist imperialism to get a conviction on reduced charges.
Where in my comments did you glean the fact that expression of strong emotions about injustice makes me uncomfortable? I made no such comment. You basically distorted the facts of my comment to give yourself an argumentative edge. Basically using the hysterical woman putdown. Hmmmm… not very feminist of you. You render your opinions into facts. It is my opinion that you observed the trial with a preconceived notion about how you thought it should be handled and an attitude about the integrity and character of Jim Hood. I watched it objectively. I will grant you that you are much more informed about the events etc. than I. I had no prior knowledge of Jim Hood before the trial and there were moments where I found him disappointing. As I said above I am certain that political advancement is part of the motivation here. I found the DA to be much more effective in his closing than Hood. Likely I found Moran to be much more effective than his counterpart. But don’t continue to delude yourself that you are not twisting facts to support your own opinions. You strike me as a true believer just on a different side. You have an opinion that equating the Civil Rights movement with the war in Iraq is a desecration to that movement’s memory(which I agree with by they way, before you start labelling me). Evidently if Hood had called you, you would have been able to get him a jury of enlightened academics instead of working people from rural Mississippi. It is spin, but maybe for one person who supports the war, who perhaps has a son/daughter in the war, who maybe lost that child to the violence of the war, but who also has lived a life resenting the civil rights movement maybe in a that mind that was just the right spin to make. In health care we call it meeting people where they are. That would be the opposite of insisting they be like us. My guess is that that particular equation came from Democratic party handlers of Hood’s. Which come to think of it I actually don’t know which party Hood is from but looking at his case file not alot of Republicans engage in so much consumer advocacy law.
“Evidently if Hood had called you, you would have been able to get him a jury of enlightened academics instead of working people from rural Mississippi.”
I have been following the coverage of this story on this blog (no surprise, I’m related to the blogger!) I’ve been wondering all along: why try this case in Philadelphia? As Ben pointed out, Killen officiated at the judge’s parents’ funeral. Many of the people in the courtroom had relatives who had been involved in KKK–in Philadelphia! Wasn’t there a better place to try this case in the whole state? Even somewhere else that was equally working-class and rural?
(As an enlightened academic I don’t have automatic bias against rural, working class people!)