I got this story in the mail today and I’m not too sure I believe it, in fact it seems to be nothing more than loud, conservative propoganda (not pinpointing conservatives, others are just as loud and propogandical).
I’ll summarize it.
1969: A group of Black Panthers decide to kill a man named Alex Rackley, a Panther suspected of disloyalty. One of the methods they used to torture him before killing him was by pouring boiling hot water on him. When they were done torturing Rackley, Black Panther member Warren Kimbro shot him in the head. The body was found in a river 25 miles north of New Haven.
By 1977, only one of the killers was still in jail (member unnamed by the letter). Kimbro got a scholarship to go to Harvard and later became an assistant dean at Eastern Connecticut State College.
Ericka Huggins was the one who boiled the water for Rackley’s torture. She was later elected to a California School Board (unspecified).
The killers were defended by two people. The two shut down Yale University with demonstrations during the trial. One of these people was Bill Lan Lee, the head of the U.S. Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. rnia school board. He is
the head of the U.S. Justice Departments Civil Rights Division, and is serving illegaly in that capacity (another story, they say).
The other Defender was Hillary Clinton, also a radical law student in Yale at the time (time of trial unspecified).
This is kind of long, but I shortened it (and cleaned up the grammar and spelling a bit, too). I also bolded proper names and such to make searching easier, if you feel like it.
I am uncertain as to the truth of this story and think it’s something akin to an Urban Legend. However, it probably gives enough details to allow it to be checked up on, and that’s what I’m asking the TM for, cause I really don’t know where to begin (other than here).
I sold my soul to Satan for a dollar. I got it in the mail.
Snopes seems to be going out of its way to castigate this (which is understandable, given the pure race-baiting tone of the screed), but, as far as I can tell, the facts are this:
several (number not clear, and probably never can be proven now) members of an organization that could easily be called “terrorist” (dedicated to the violent overthrow of the lawful government, engaged in various illegal activities, highly organized) murdered a possible officer of the law (doesn’t anyone know whether Rackley was an informer, a fed, or what?) in what is typically called “gangland style.”
Who their lawyers were is a different question (and not really germane), but I think a little moral outrage would not be out of place against murderers like Kimbro and McLucas. I’m amazed at Kimbro’s plea (get four years in exchange for one murder and some backstabbing of your former revolutionary buddies).
(Hoping I’m not setting myself up for hatemail and this thread for a quick trip to GD…)
…but when you get blue, and you’ve lost all your dreams, there’s nothing like a campfire and a can of beans!
Normally, IMHO, Snopes does a very good job at debunking idiot rumors and legends.
Here, while it would be quick and easy for Snopes to exonerate Hillary and Bill Lee, Snopes spends most of their time trying to exonerate Mr. Kimbro and Ms. Huggins.
Imagine what would happen if Mr. Huggins & Ms. Kimbro were Nazi goons (which essentially they were at the time), had been punished by post-war West Germany in the same manner they were “punished” here, and their victim was a Jewish freedom fighter.
It would appear that Snopes is quite willing to condone lawless torture and murder if the victim represents something they don’t like.
Yeah, Nixon, I noticed that, and what I passed on when debunking the story was solely that Hillary was only marginally involved so be quiet you silly conservatives type of message. I then added that “I’m not going to vote for Hillary, just so you know”.
I sold my soul to Satan for a dollar. I got it in the mail.
I suppose, Nixon, that, technically, neither did Manny or PUNdit. Perhaps I should have said I was debunking the story to the people it was sent to. That probably isn’t grammatically correct, but I meant I was passing the snopes link on to them. The point of the letter was first to villify the panthers, who deserve villification, and then, through association, villify Hillary for defending them and ‘look at how they got off scott free’. Whatever the rest of Hillary’s character, for the action of those Panthers, she does not appear to deserve villification.
Basically, I was calling them silly for slander (which in this case, the letter is, with regard to Hillary).
If I were a troll, I would have just made up proof, rather than sought it, wouldn’t I?
I hope that wasn’t motivated because of the ‘silly conservatives’ comment.
I sold my soul to Satan for a dollar. I got it in the mail.
