I ordered a transcript of the trial and that's where I discovered their own lawyer portrayed them as hysterical women who didn't know their own minds.
In their defense their
lawyer asked, "How did you feel in the head? How was your brain functioning?"
He badgered a WAC lieutenant who'd witnessed the defendants being read 64th Article with questions, asking if she was crying at the time, and if not outright crying, did she had tears in her eyes. It went on for at least three legal size pages of the
transcript.
This was a black male lawyer funded by the Boston NAACP, which had at first released a statement "deploring" the women's action.
In his closing argument, the lawyer, Julian D. Rainey, asked the panel that would decide the women's fate to be "indulgent," to consider that the
"misguided"
women "in their immature minds each believed they were being persecuted...believed they were making a gesture for their people in a feeble way." Feeble?
At the time of this court martial hundreds of thousands of young men were being hailed as heroes for risking their lives for the the ideals of
freedom and justice for all.
Yet it was unthinkable that four women might have the capacity to demonstrate the same moral courage.