Quote:

 

THEY WERE NO ANGELS
Scottsboro boys do not deserve our sympathy
by John Ashley Sill
The Scottsboro Observer
(no URL)

(snip)

They were caught riding the rails. Decent people buy a ticket when they want to go somewhere. To do otherwise is theft.

Consider Haywood Patterson. He dropped out of third grade. He had ridden the rails since he was fourteen. He had already been arrested once for this previously, in 1931. Obviously he hadn't learned his lesson.

The Scottsboro incident began when a carfull of blacks and whites got into a brawl, which began when someone stepped on Patterson's hand as he was clinging to the car. Now, maybe Patterson could have overlooked this incident, but his past (and future) history shows he had a combative and aggressive nature. A fight ensued--which resulted in the blacks throwing the whites out of the car. (The white women remained behind.)

Does this sort of brawl happen in ordinary passenger cars?

The white youths then reported their thrashing to the police. The police, investigating, found the white women--who, to avoid being charged with associating lewdly with black men, then claimed to have been raped.

Again, had the Scottsboro boys been riding as they should, with proper tickets, they would never have associated with such low-lifes as those who accused them. Nor would there have been a fight.

That Patterson was indeed a brawler can be shown by what happened after he got out of prison and resided in Michigan. There, he got into another brawl, this time in a bar, and killed a man. For this he was sentenced to prison again, for manslaughter.

The Scottsboro boys may not have been guilty of rape; but who can deny that they brought their troubles on themselves, or that overmuch sympathy for them is misplaced?

As yet they have not apologized for any of their misbehavior. They have not offered to recompense the train company for their unbought tickets. They have not so much as admitted any responsibility for the original fight, nor apologized--as gentlemen would have--for fighting at all. They acted as rowdy misbehaving toughs who thought they were entitled to exploit the railroad--the fruit of other men's toil--and use it for their own.

In short, they were bullies. In can hardly be doubted that they may at least have bullied the two girls with them afterward in the car. They were black and the women were white and after a fight with whites it would have been almost natural for them to disrespect the women. Something happened in that car; perhaps not a rape, but something nearly as threatening.

Picture the two women--having seen a vicious fight, and all the whites expelled, they must have been fearful for their own safety. Did the Scottsboro boys do anything to reassure them?

Perhaps the two women were not angels, either. They led hard lives, as working poor. If they took friendships where they would find them, are they to be condemned forever for this, or made the objects of disrespect? Are they not the victims of a cruel situtation, and are they to be criticized because they were not born into wealth? Were they fair game on this account to be terrorized?

All in all, if the Scottsboro boys did not commit the rape, they must have done nearly everything else. And they ought not to be the objects of sympathy, nor turned into martyrs.

Quote:

 

The Parable of the Good Neighbor (found on a fragment of manuscript from Cave 7 at Qumran; translation to be published in Feb. 2008 in the Journal of the Chicago School of Oriental Archaeology)

"... and lo, there was an attorney in good standing with the bar, and as he was passing along the road between Raleigh and Durham, he came upon three students being harassed by the police. And he, being in good standing, and not wanting to associate with outsiders, nor have his name and reputation besmirched in his own community, immediately put his foot to the gas pedal and sped past on the other side of the road.

"And lo, there came after him a member of the Faculty of Duke Law School, who, when he had reached that same place, observed the same. And now the students were not only being harassed, there was a mob assembled against them, crying out, and there was none to defend them. And he, being a member of the Faculty, and not wishing to damage his own reputation as a professor, likewise put his foot to the gas pedal and passed by on the other side of the road.

"And lo, there next came a member of the North Carolina Center for Actual Innocence, being a fine person and well-regarded by all, with a great reputation for truth and honesty. And seeing the same, and the students now about to be convicted by lying witnesses, considered how his own reputation might be damaged by association with such unpopular defendants, how much subsequent good he might not be able to do if this were to be the case; and so concluding, he too sped by on the other side of the road.

"At length, by which time the students were nearly convicted, a politician came along. And he, averting his eyes, proclaimed loudly to all and sundry, that "It is not my job!", therefore thinking to avoid offending anyone at all. And he passed by.

"And finally, there came along a Durham resident, the daughter of a family of Brewers, not a lawyer, who, observing the plight of the defendants, spoke out on their behalf, and confronted the crowd and the authorities, and never ceased to cry out for justice, notwithstanding that no one else was willing to do so. And not being content with this, did also raise funds for their defense, and initiate legal motions to set aside the injustice.

"And now, asked the rabbi of his students, which of these acted rightly, and was worthy to be called neighbor? Go, and do thou likewise..." [text ends]

Quote:

 

Zumbo Studios
11 Hollywood Blvd.
Hollywood, CA

Dear Mr.Smith,

We are writing to let you know that your synopsis for a proposed film, to be called "Walk on the Wildest
Side", does not meet our criteria for production at the present time. A storyline must first and foremost
present a credible drama, which we feel is lacking in the outline you presented to us.

For example, how is an average theatergoer expected to accept the following as possible:



a transvestite drag queen appearing as a witness for the prosecution;

the step-son of a West African police minister being covered-up for by the press and the police department;

a police chief who is so afraid of the truth that he hides out for months under the pretext of "caring for his sick mother" (really, you ought to have been able to come up with something more original than that);

death threats being issued by a racially-oriented hate group, whose uniformed members threatened the defendants even inside a courtroom, with complete impunity and absolutely no response at all from the ever-vigilant FBI;

a university president hoping the double-secret probation he imposes will make an athletic team go away;

a university president, who was a former classmate of the President of the USA for eight straight years (high school and college), having an inside track on how to influence the feds if he so chooses;

a BOT chairman who is also a federal undersecretary of the Treasury, and who thus also has an inside track on how to influence the AG, if he so chooses;

(you missed a fine opportunity to throw in a few scenes at the White House; but really, the audience will get confused; how will the audience grasp what kind of film this is--a political thriller, or a crime mystery, or a saga of the love-life of Durham's underworld?)

three guys who have been acclaimed guilty by the entire mass media, Newsweek, the NAACP; and cold-shouldered by the politicians, Innocence Projects, law professors, and everyone else except perhaps the embassy of Namibia (not included only because they did not respond to the poll), end up actually being declared INNOCENT!

(We are long past the days when all Hollywood movies have to end with happy endings. This ending
is just not credible, after all that has happened before.)

an attorney who confounds the corrupt prosecutor with a Perry Mason moment over undisclosed DNA evidence,
which proves the innocence of the accused

(Perry Mason moments happen only in fiction; and not more than once per episode. Again, the audience will
be confused--is this now to be a legal drama?)

This kind of stuff would never happen in real life; frankly, it's too ridiculous. Maybe in a spoof, which would be panned by the critics as too over-the-top. At any rate, it really is not the sort of production Zumbo pictures
would like to be associated with.

However, feel free to submit the storyline elsewhere; or to Zumbo once again after you have tried several
rewrites.

And thank you for considering Zumbo.

Sincerely,

F. F. Zanucci,
Chief of Production

Quasimodo

Jul 24 2013, 09:29 PM

A few highlights of yesteryear...
Remember:

Cash–“shake”!

RighteousThug

Jul 25 2013, 07:37 PM

Quasimodo

Jul 24 2013, 09:29 PM

A few highlights of yesteryear...
Remember:

Cash–“shake”!

That was classic, I still chuckle over that one.

That was all right on the eve of the Dec, 2006 hearing where Meehan gave it up on the stand, wasn't it?