SELMA, Ala. (AP) — Namon O’Neal Hoggle of Selma, Alabama, died Tuesday, according to an obituary released by the funeral home handling arrangements for the family. He was 81. A service was scheduled for Thursday.
Hoggle was among three men acquitted in 1965 in the beating death of the Rev. James Reeb of Boston. Reeb’s killing was investigated as recently as four years ago by federal authorities, but no one was charged after the initial trial.
Reeb was a Unitarian minister who went to Selma in response to a call for help by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. during the civil rights movement. Reeb was white, and he was attacked by a group of white men after eating in a black-owned restaurant on March 9, 1965.
Reeb, 38, died in a hospital two days later, leaving behind a wife and four children. His death, coupled with other civil rights slayings and the Selma-to- Montgomery voting rights march, is often credited with helping build momentum for passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965.
Hoggle, his brother and a third man were acquitted in the killing months later. All three defendants were white, as were all the jurors.
Known around town by the nickname “Duck,” Hoggle remained in Selma and was well known as a car dealer. The FBI closed an investigation of Reeb’s killing in 2011 without filing any charges against Hoggle or anyone else, records show.
Honorary pallbearers at Hoggle’s funeral included the current Dallas County sheriff and a judge. District Attorney Michael Jackson, who didn’t know Hoggle, said his death highlights the difficulty of resolving civil rights death cases that are now decades old.
“These civil rights investigations are going to get more and more difficult to investigate and prosecute as the steady hand of time moves forward at a rapid pace,” Jackson said. “But it is still important for state and federal agencies to try and bring closure to the victims’ families.”
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less