Kent state shootings trial

William A. He successfully defended three of the shooters during the criminal trial, as well as Sergeant Myron Pryor. Pryor was not indicted after a book by Peter Davies accused him of launching a murderous conspiracy at Kent State.

Now, Lambros's granddaughter's husband, John Fitzgerald O'Hara, an associate professor with the American Studies and Writing Program at Stockton University in Galloway, New Jersey, has written the first thoughtful, independent analysis of the evidence since my own book was published in Which is understandable.

After all, how would you like to go down in history as the man who started the killings at Kent State? O'Hara believes the Guardsmen were not innocent, but also says that Davies and Pryor's other accusers are overlooking exculpatory evidence.

O'Hara particularly takes to task Davies and wounded survivor Alan Canfora, who once described Pryor as a beady-eyed, bald barbarian who now resides in Hell. As O'Hara points out, the evidence against Pryor "was never airtight or beyond a reasonable doubt. Second, pinning the shootings exclusively on Pryor may oversimplify the historical event.

This may lessen our ability to find a different culprit, or to recognize degrees and responsibilities spread among many individuals and groups, guardsmen and protestors, military and political leaders. Truth and justice with respect to Kent State remain important; however, neither is served by passing judgments unqualified by contradictory accounts and evidence. In making his case, O'Hara concedes that a famous photograph depicting Pryor standing several feet in front of the firing squad, intently pointing his pistol, may implicate Pryor as a shooter "despite his own assertion that the weapon was neither loaded or fired.

ESL concluded Pryor's weapon was not fired and "that the slide was in fact in the locked position. Eventually, tear gas was again employed but was ineffectual in the afternoon breeze. As the crowd grew more agitated, it was herded by guardsmen toward an athletic practice field surrounded by fence. After being pelted with rocks, the guardsmen receded but were followed by.

Students approach one of the four classmates slain when National Guard troops opened fire on protesters during the May riots at Kent State University. Guardsmen turned and fired several shots toward the demonstrators, felling several of them.

Within seconds, four persons lay dying and nine more were wounded; all 13 were students. A University ambulance moved through the crowd, announcing over a public address system that demonstrators were to pack their things and leave the campus immediately.

Shock and disbelief of the tragic events spread worldwide within hours. By the following morning, James A. NIXON , president of the United States, invited six Kent student representatives to meet with him after their meeting with a state congressman. Governor Rhodes and two Ohio National Guard commanders were named as defendants. A few days later, the White House announced the naming of a special commission to investigate campus unrest at Kent, as well as the deaths of two black students at Jackson State University in Mississippi.

In September , the President's Commission on Campus Unrest released its general report, which found the National Guard shootings "unwarranted. According to Kent State University Library archives, the report concluded that "The Kent State tragedy must surely mark the last time that loaded rifles are issued as a matter of course to guardsmen confronting student demonstrators.

A special state GRAND JURY issued indictments against 25 persons in October , but found, in its page report, that the guardsmen were not subject to criminal prosecution because they "fired their weapons in the honest and sincere belief … that they would suffer serious bodily injury had they not done so. Ohio's Eighth District Court of Appeals then ordered a lower court to consider on the merits any suits in which liability was based on the actions of individual Ohio state agents.

It also upheld the federal grand jury's 25 indictments and the district court's order to destroy the grand jury's report as prejudicial. Going all the way to the U. The legal aftermath of the May 4 shootings ended in January of with an out-of-court settlement involving a statement signed by 28 defendants 3 as well as a monetary settlement, and the Guardsmen and their supporters view this as a final vindication of their position.

This money was paid by the State of Ohio rather than by any Guardsmen, and the amount equaled what the State estimated it would cost to go to trial again. Perhaps most importantly, the statement signed by members of the Ohio National Guard was viewed by them to be a declaration of regret, not an apology or an admission of wrongdoing:. In retrospect, the tragedy of May 4, should not have occurred.

The students may have believed that they were right in continuing their mass protest in response to the Cambodian invasion, even though this protest followed the posting and reading by the university of an order to ban rallies and an order to disperse. These orders have since been determined by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to have been lawful.

Some of the Guardsmen on Blanket Hill, fearful and anxious from prior events, may have believed in their own minds that their lives were in danger. Hindsight suggests that another method would have resolved the confrontation. Better ways must be found to deal with such a confrontation. We devoutly wish that a means had been found to avoid the May 4th events culminating in the Guard shootings and the irreversible deaths and injuries.

We deeply regret those events and are profoundly saddened by the deaths of four students and the wounding of nine others which resulted. We hope that the agreement to end the litigation will help to assuage the tragic memories regarding that sad day. A starkly different interpretation to that of the Guards' has been offered in numerous other studies of the shootings, with all of these analyses sharing the common viewpoint that primary responsibility for the shootings lies with the Guardsmen.

Instead, these authors argue that the evidence shows that certain members of the Guard conspired on the practice football field to fire when they reached the top of Blanket Hill. Other authors e. Experts who find the Guard primarily responsible find themselves in agreement with the conclusion of the Scranton Commission Report , , p. While debate still remains about the extent to which the Guardsmen's lives were in danger at the moment they opened fire, little doubt can exist that their lives were indeed at stake in the immediate aftermath of the shootings.

The second shooting that resulted in four deaths and nine wounded could have been followed by an even more tragic and bloody confrontation. The nervous and fearful Guardsmen retreated back to the Commons, facing a large and hostile crowd which realized that the Guard had live ammunition and had used it to kill and wound a large number of people.

In their intense anger, many demonstrators were willing to risk their own lives to attack the Guardsmen, and there can be little doubt that the Guard would have opened fire again, this time killing a much larger number of students. Further tragedy was prevented by the actions of a number of Kent State University faculty marshals, who had organized hastily when trouble began several days earlier.

Led by Professor Glenn Frank, the faculty members pleaded with National Guard leaders to allow them to talk with the demonstrators, and then they begged the students not to risk their lives by confronting the Guardsmen. After about 20 minutes of emotional pleading, the marshals convinced the students to leave the Commons. Back at the site of the shootings, ambulances had arrived and emergency medical attention had been given to the students who had not died immediately.

The ambulances formed a screaming procession as they rushed the victims of the shootings to the local hospital. Classes did not resume until the Summer of , and faculty members engaged in a wide variety of activities through the mail and off-campus meetings that enabled Kent State students to finish the semester. A photograph of Mary Vecchio, a year-old runaway, screaming over the body of Jeffery Miller appeared on the front pages of newspapers and magazines throughout the country, and the photographer, John Filo, was to win a Pulitzer Prize for the picture.

The photo has taken on a life and importance of its own. This analysis looks at the photo, the photographer, and the impact of the photo. The Mary Vecchio picture shows her on one knee screaming over Jeffrey Miller's body. Miller is lying on the tarmac of the Prentice Hall parking lot. One student is standing near the Miller body closer than Vecchio. Four students are seen in the immediate background. John Filo, a Kent State photography major in , continues to work as a professional newspaper photographer and editor.

He was near the Prentice Hall parking lot when the Guard fired. He saw bullets hitting the ground, but he did not take cover because he thought the bullets were blanks. Of course, blanks cannot hit the ground. Three hours after the shootings Kent State closed and was not to open for six weeks as a viable university. When it resumed classes in the Summer of , its faculty was charged with three new responsibilities, their residues remaining today.

First, we as a University faculty had to bring aid and comfort to our own. This began earlier on with faculty trying to finish the academic quarter with a reasonable amount of academic integrity. It had ended about at mid-term examinations.

However, the faculty voted before the week was out to help students complete the quarter in any way possible. Students were advised to study independently until they were contacted by individual professors. Most of the professors organized their completion of courses around papers, but many gave lectures in churches and in homes in the community of Kent and surrounding communities.

For example, Norman Duffy, an award-winning teacher, gave off-campus chemistry lectures and tutorial sessions in Kent and Cleveland. His graduate students made films of laboratory sessions and mailed them to students. Beyond helping thousands of students finish their courses, there were 1, students as well who needed help with gradation. Talking to students about courses allowed the faculty to do some counseling about the shootings, which helped the faculty as much in healing as it did students.

Second, the University faculty was called upon to conduct research about May 4 communicating the results of this research through teaching and traditional writing about the tragedy. Many responded and created a solid body of scholarship as well as an extremely useful archive contributing to a wide range of activities in Summer of including press interviews and the Scranton Commission.

Third, many saw as one of the faculty's challenges to develop alternative forms of protest and conflict resolution to help prevent tragedies such as the May 4 shootings and the killings at Jackson State 10 days after Kent State.

Although we have attempted in this article to answer many of the most important and frequently asked questions about the May 4 shootings, our responses have sometimes been tentative because many important questions remain unanswered. It thus seems important to ask what are the most significant questions which yet remain unanswered about the May 4 events.

These questions could serve as the basis for research projects by students who are interested in studying the shootings in greater detail. As an important part of this question, were "outside agitators" primarily responsible?

Who was responsible for setting fire to the ROTC building? Could local law enforcement personnel have handled any situations? Were the Guard properly trained for this type of assignment? Did the banning of the rally violate First Amendment rights? If not, why did they fire? Were they justified in firing? In it he says that United States policy towards Vietnam was " The May 4 shootings at Kent State need to be remembered for several reasons.

First, the shootings have come to symbolize a great American tragedy which occurred at the height of the Vietnam War era, a period in which the nation found itself deeply divided both politically and culturally.

The poignant picture of Mary Vecchio kneeling in agony over Jeffrey Miller's body, for example, will remain forever as a reminder of the day when the Vietnam War came home to America. If the Kent State shootings will continue to be such a powerful symbol, then it is certainly important that Americans have a realistic view of the facts associated with this event.

Second, May 4 at Kent State and the Vietnam War era remain controversial even today, and the need for healing continues to exist. Healing will not occur if events are either forgotten or distorted, and hence it is important to continue to search for the truth behind the events of May 4 at Kent State. Third, and most importantly, May 4 at Kent State should be remembered in order that we can learn from the mistakes of the past.

The Guardsmen in their signed statement at the end of the civil trials recognized that better ways have to be found to deal with these types of confrontations. This has probably already occurred in numerous situations where law enforcement officials have issued a caution to their troops to be careful because "we don't want another Kent State. Bills, Scott. This book provides town and gown reactions to May 4.

It has the best annotated bibliography available on the literature on the shootings and is the basis for the annotations that follow. Casale, Ottavio M. The Kent Affair: Documents and Interpretations. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. This is an early, useful volume which reproduces local and national newspaper articles on the shootings as well as radio and television broadcasts.

Davies, Peter. This is a detailed narrative and analysis of the events of May 4 and their aftermath. He argues that the Guard conspired to fire upon the students.