No he did not. The woman fabricated it.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/01/how-author-timothy-tyson-found-the-wo...
She spent a short time alone with Till, during which time she now says nothing happened. After that short time, Till whistled at her, which caused her husband to believe that something had happened. Till did not deserve to be killed for whistling at her, but today it often enough happens that people are killed for similar acts. I was in an elevator with a young lady. A man said "Hello" to that lady and smiled at her. I placed my hand on her shoulder and stared at him expressionlessly and silently. From his reaction I am pretty sure he feared I was going to kill him, even though my expression was totally neutral, blank, and stone faced. Because people do get killed for that sort of thing today. Race has nothing to do with it. That was a murder, not a lynching, and similar murders happen today all the time.
But murders are not lynchings. You are apt to be murdered today regardless of race for hitting on another man's woman even if you do not do so in a crude and offensive way. Emmett Till was killed furtively and secretively, not lynched. Happens today all the time, regardless of race.
For it to be a lynching, has to be done openly with social approval. The accusation is that it was socially acceptable for white people to openly kill blacks for frivolous cause.
Name a black man who was wrongfully lynched - killed openly and publicly for with social approval for frivolous cause.
How about the Tulsa massacre ? I am sure you have some excuse for that.
The Tulsa massacre was the murder of ten white men by racist blacks, followed by whites ethnically cleansing the infestation of dangerous blacks from their town. A black man assaulted a white woman. He was arrested. Believing he was likely to be lynched a group of 75 armed blacks went to the courthouse and politely asked that he be secured to receive a fair trial - the white sheriff told them he would receive a fair trial and politely asked them to go home. These seventy five armed black men confronted a large group of white men in a predominantly white area, some of them armed, who they suspected intended to lynch the black youth who had assaulted a white woman. The blacks opened fire, killing ten of the white men. In short, blacks started it, and whites finished it. If the whites had actually grabbed the youth from the courthouse you would have a point. But the blacks opened fire on suspicion that the whites might grab the youth from the courthouse, which is much the same thing as blacks lynching whites on vague suspicion, and very different from whites lynching blacks on vague suspicion.
And if there was a single case where the evidence was thin or the offense trivial, you would be using that case, not Emmett Till.
You REALLY are a hard core racist.
So produce your example of someone wrongfully lynched.