somewhat of an update on true story...
http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/new-trial-sought-for-sc-teen-execute d-in-1944-1
Ki Ki Ki Ma Ma Ma
George Stinney Jr's conviction was tossed out yesterday.
They're screwing with the wrong people. - R.G. πΊπΈ π΅πΉ π¨π»
I read some posts on another forum that were rather interesting about this case, one person claimed he was the grandson of one of the people who ran the town at the time of the Stinney murders as well as the sawmill portrayed in the movie. He said that most people felt the real George Stinney was not the innocent little kid portrayed as Linus Bragg in this movie. Said he in fact was known to be mean and had made threats against young girls, and that was part of the reason he was convicted and that many people felt he did it.
Just to be clear whether or not this is true I don't know, just reporting what someone else said. It may just be lies to justify the execution and conviction and you ask someone about someone's character you can get ten different answers from ten different people. Even if it wasn't, it doesn't mean Stinney was guilty of these murders. I'd say from everything I've read more than likely he didn't do it, plus supposedly someone made a death bed confession in 2005. But it does paint his conviction in a somewhat different light, and leads one to think its possible Stinney may have been thought to be guilty because of his bad behavior and not necessarily because he was a black kid. Not that I'm justifying it, it was still a grievous miscarriage of justice if in fact he was innocent, even if he wasn't as nice and innocent as Linus Bragg in this movie.
Couldn't find the story at that link, so here's another one:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/17/us/george-stinney-ruling/index.html
Knew all about the case, but didn't know about this movie about it. From what I read, George Stinney's sister said she was with him the entire time they saw the girls walk by, and that he was never out of her sight that day. Also, how does a child---which is exactly what he was a child---being supposedly mean automatically make him a killer? Someone speaking on a forum dosen't make it the absolute truth,anyway. The reality was that in the South of that era, a black person being accused of a crime by a white person might as well consider it a death sentence, because they were never going to get a fair trial under the racist Jim Crow laws back then. Seriously, the Stinney case would have been thrown out today for the simple fact that the boy's lawyer never even tried to help his case,like looking for any witnesses, his parents weren't home when he was accused and taken to the station, plus there was never an eyewitness who actually saw him around the girls, so there was never any actual physical proof that he was ever near them to begin with. I also have no doubt that being a mere kid, he was more than likely bullied/threatened into a confession by the police and forced to sign some so-called "confession". And the fact that they never seem to have looked for any other suspects---talk about sloppy police work. Here's a more detailed account of the case:
http://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2014/mar/22/george-stinney-execution-verdict-innocent
I never said it automatically made him a killer. I simply said that his behavior rather than his color might have played a large role in the suspicion cast his way as well as his conviction. I don't know. Just saying sometimes things are not quite what they are portrayed in movies, in fact all to often they are not.
share