Cater is guilty.


READ: 'www.graphicwitness.com/carter/' 'www.crimemagazine.com/hurricane.htm' 'www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2186' 'www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/9962/Carter.html' (Just a few sites with elaborate evidence of Carter's guilt.) Why did this film have to be such a total lie? Wouldn't the truth have sold as well? Heck, let Denzel be as charming as possible, but let the character be as guilty as he really is: THAT would explain why so many people believe the lies Carter's been telling all these years.

reply

Thanks Lazur-2 for the recommendation. I suspect Carter did it, given his thug past, the shaky but not impersuasive evidence, and Carter and Artis' refusal to take a polygraph in 1976 before 2nd trial that would free them if they passed with no penalty for failing. But who knows?

Sadly, most sources on this case are incredibly biased. As was the movie. And it wasn't necessary. Just tell the story fairly and let the audience decide.

reply

[deleted]

He is indeed guilty.

reply

It'd be a pretty interesting movie had it just put it out there in the script that he is guilty and went on with the story without trying to paint him as a victim or a hero or anything other than some guy doing his time in prison...you know...reality. Especially if they went through the whole revisitation of his case and the kid and the other people did all they did to help him out, without ever realizing that he's guilty. Anyways, it'd be a pretty unique story...I think...

reply

Believing all things you read would be just as dumb as believing the movie.

We can't possibly know if he did or didn't do it. We weren't there. He knows.

reply

That's true, so they could make his guilt/innocence ambiguous in the script...and leave it up for interpretation...has that been done before? I can't think of anything like that.

reply

I don't believe all things I read,but the Cal Deal website www.graphicwitness.com/carter gives evidence of guilt that is overwhelming.Hazel Tanis,one of the victims gave a description to a police artist.The picture was so much like John Artis he could have posed for it.Mrs.Tanis died before the trial so it could not be used as hearsay evidence.Please check out that website.

reply

BS! that could be anyone.. the drawing was very bad.. Cal Deal, also states that the police officer told a reporter that he wasnt a racist and therefor arrested Carter rightfully.. Yeah that makes him guilty... pfff, please..

reply

Carter says he's innocent,so that means he is.Pff,please!The only thing off about that drawing was the nose was smaller.It was a police sketch,which generally is rather mediocre at best.

reply

What are you talking about? When has a polygraph alone ever prompted a dismissal of prosecution, especially when the prosecution is of a case that was initially won and then appealed? There's a damn good reason polygraph evidence isn't admissible in court - it's simply unreliable. If you don't believe me, go ask Aldrich Ames.

reply

The prosecutor for Carter's second trial, Burrell Ives Humphreys, made an offer to Carter: pass the lie detector test, and you'll go free. Fail it, and the results will not be used against you. Carter refused.

reply

There's a reason one would refuse, why should he trust anyone?
Even if it will not be used against you.
And also, polygraph isn't reliable.

reply

I believe that the bias and bigotry within the justice system (which continues today) is to blame here.

That is not to say that Rubin Carter isn't guilty. In reality, only he (and any accomplaces) knows if he is. What I'm saying is that if he is indeed guilty the history of racial bigotry has eroded the ability for us to believe the police.

This is why the police must always perform their duties without any corruption of any sort coming into play - even if it means guilty parties getting off. You can't 'fabricate evidence' or 'beat confessions out of people' just because you 'know they are guilty'. Those sorts of actions have meant that the Rubin Carter (and many other) cases are left up in the air and conspiracy theorists have their way.

SpiltPersonality

reply

Sorry, but a POLYGRAPH is not admitted in a court of law as evidence of anything. It is not an indicator of guilt, and it can be easily faked. Thank you for showing your extreme ignorance.

reply

Heck, let Denzel be as charming as possible, but let the character be as guilty as he really is: THAT would explain why so many people believe the lies Carter's been telling all these years.

With the story having Carter guilty and with how black people are portrayed in this movie,would Denzel Washington still accept the role to portray the man?

I doubt he would. Besides,let's just remember this famous cliche,"It is just a movie"

Anyway,let me share you top ten myths about Rubin Carter.

Myth #1
Hurricane Carter was "wrongfully convicted of a crime he didn't commit," and he's been "exonerated."


Hurricane Carter and his co-accused, John Artis, have never been found "not guilty" of the Lafayette Grill Murders. They were twice convicted, and twice the convictions were set aside on the grounds that they didn't get a fair trial. The State of New Jersey decided not to re-try them a third time because so much time had passed, and withdrew the indictments against them.

Myth #2
Carter was framed because he "was well-known for his incendiary voice in the civil rights movement."


It's amazing how many journalists have repeated Carter's claim that he was "well known for his views on black self-defense," or "known to the Paterson police for his civil rights activities," or that "he held a reputation as a black militant in racially tense Paterson," when there is zero evidence that Hurricane Carter was an activist, or that he even lifted a finger for the civil rights movement. This bogus claim is central to Carter's accusation that he was framed by the police, but it's gone unchecked and unchallenged for thirty years.

Myth # 3
Carter was framed by racist, corrupt police and prosecutors. "His temperament, his background, and the color of his skin made him the perfect scapegoat."
This claim is frequently made, but is not proven. Carter and his defenders present a one-sided view of events and haven't told you about the evidence against Carter and Artis. This website, on the other hand, demonstrates that the evidence Carter provides to "prove" he was harassed and framed, is bogus. He changes dates and makes false and misleading statements but his paranoid version of events has been taken at face value. The movie The Hurricane shows Carter being railroaded by one racist cop -- this is pure Hollywood hokum. The Canadians did not "uncover... evidence that he had been framed by corrupt officials," and neither did anyone else.


Myth: #4
"The case against Carter was thick with racism and thin on evidence." Carter and Artis were railroaded by an all-white jury.


During the jury selection phase of the first trial, the prosecution and the defense examined a staggering 377 jurors. The defense used up all of their challenges (exercising the right to refuse someone for jury duty.). The prosecution only used eight of their challenges. The first jury included one black man, although his name was not drawn for the final deliberations. "All-white" doesn't necessarily mean "all-racist." The second jury, drawn from a jury pool of 250, included two blacks. The defense gave all the potential jurors a list of over 40 questions to test them on their racial attitudes. Anyone who expressed prejudice during the jury selection process was instantly excluded from the jury by the judge. Even so, Carter and Artis were still re-convicted.

Myth #5
Carter and Artis passed lie detector tests.

In his book, The Sixteenth Round, Carter quotes Sgt. McGuire (the officer who gave the tests), as saying, "Both of them are clean. They had nothing to do with the crime." In the book Hurricane, by James Hirsch, McGuire is quoted as saying, "he didn't participate in these crimes, but he may know who was involved." The actual report states, "This subject was attempting deception to all the pertinent questions. And was involved in this crime."

Myth #6
Like the Bob Dylan song explains, Carter and Artis were convicted on the word of Bello and Bradley, who were thieves and liars. And the surviving shooting victim, the one with "one dyin' eye," said "[Carter] ain't the guy."


Al Bello, the eyewitness who says he saw Carter and Artis fleeing the scene of the crime, was indeed a lookout man for a burglary. But his eyewitness testimony helped police track down Carter's car minutes after the crime. There was other evidence linking Carter to the crime. Even Carter and Artis's lawyers admitted there was a "mountain of incriminating evidence" against them. At trial, Willie Marins, the surviving shooting victim in the Dylan song, said he did not know if Carter and Artis were the killers.

Myth #7
Carter and Artis had "rock solid" alibis for the time of the murders.


Actually, they've got several -- take your pick. When Carter and Artis were first questioned, they gave conflicting versions of their activities that night. When Carter wrote his autobiography, The Sixteenth Round, he gave another version. James S. Hirsch reports a different alibi for Carter in the book Hurricane. At the second trial, four of Carter's alibi witnesses from the first trial testified that Carter asked them to lie.

Myth #8
Carter was stopped by the police only because he was DWB -- Driving While Black.


Carter claims that when Sgt. Capter stopped him, Capter said, "Awww, *beep* Hurricane, I didn't know it was you" (as shown in the movie). This is false. Sgt. Capter and his partner were looking specifically for Carter and his car because it matched the description of the getaway car given by two eyewitnesses. But Bob Dylan and Hollywood fell for Carter's version.

Myth #9
John Artis was about to go to college on an athletic scholarship
when he was arrested for the murders.


As the 1987 prosecutor's brief states: "John Artis had been out of high school for two years at the time of the murders in June 1966. He was not arrested until October 1966 and he had not begun college at that point. There was no evidence that he ever had submitted any papers towards college enrollment. There was no evidence to show that, at the time of the murders, John Artis had a college scholarship..." In fact, John Artis had been drafted into the Army. This is not pertinent to the murders, but just like Myth #10, it's something the defense keeps insisting upon.

Myth #10
Hurricane Carter was "at the peak" of his career, "slated to contend" or "about to challenge" for the world middleweight boxing title when he was arrested.


Carter might have been hoping to re-challenge for the championship, but his career was on a downhill slide. Then-world champion, Dick Tiger, beat him like a gong the year before the murders. After that, Carter had nine more boxing matches and he lost five of them.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/

RON PAUL 2012

reply

Tiger was no longer champion.
Why exactly would Carter and Artis have committed the killings?

reply

Are you kidding me... I been to the sites you posted and some of them aren't no longer in service. 2nd, the 1st posted link is utterly ignorant and clearly depicts Racism %100.. Ppl like you make me sick...Just twisting it over and over and over...

reply

I been to the sites you posted and some of them aren't no longer [sic] in service

They were when the OP posted them. Please check the date of the original post.

the 1st posted link is utterly ignorant...

I wonder how much of the site you actually read. Did you open the pages that contained documents, testimonials of witnesses, police records, photos, and so much more evidence that all point to Carter's guilt?

... and clearly depicts Racism %100

Why do you say this? Because the site has a white guy accusing a black guy? Is this the same old "white man oppressor, black man oppressed" mentality at work here?

You probably didn't go as far as http://graphicwitness.com/carter/humphreysa.html, which tells us that Burrell Ives Humphreys, the prosecutor at Carter's second trial, was a member of the NAACP.

And you probably also didn't go as far as http://graphicwitness.com/carter/racism.html, where Cal Deal states his position on racism in relation to the Carter case. In case you're not inclined to visit said page, I'll provide an excerpt which I believe capsulizes Deal's stand on the issue:

I believe he is guilty, and I am not going to be dissuaded from saying so because people who don't know me find it easier to call me a racist than to consider the weight of the evidence. In all the work I've done on this case, I've seen nothing credible to support the argument that Carter was framed by racist police and prosecutors. Nothing.

Ppl like you make me sick...Just twisting it over and over and over...

I have to wonder, who is really doing the twisting?

reply

[deleted]

Thanks for the information, hate those movies that made angels from filthy criminals.

I bet that in some years, they'll made a movie about the poor innocent O.J Simpson, too...
Political correctness work indeed very well with this kind of lies...

reply

What is it!!! maybe it's the low cost of phones with internet that all the racist's seem to have internet access and they seem to be commenting on every film that features a non-white story. I bet either Fox News/Kock Brothers or some other right wing nazi organisation is funding these stupid people to go on the net & spread their hate. This was the strategy of the right wing after Barack Obama got elected The President of the United States, Karl Rove said on Faux News that the right wing have to get more computer literate & I think these comments are due to that...pathetic.

reply

Hummanity2869 Wow! Running out of tinfoil for your pointy hat?

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

There actually was no evidence found that proved Carter's innocence. The reason his conviction was overturned was because the prosecution mishandled much of the evidence it had that Carter did commit the murders. When all the evidence from the real case is looked at, it seems more than likely that Carter was guilty of the murders, but got off on a technicality during his second trial.

reply

https://www.quora.com/Was-Hurricane-Carter-guilty/answer/Jon-Mixon-1

His alibi was almost laughable - Carter claimed to have been out look for “lost firearms” (at 2:30am) that he being a convicted felon should not have had in his possession anyway. He didn’t provide an alternate alibi and that was even decades after the events in question.

He was relatively close to the crime scene - Carter’s presence was later stated to have been at a nearby nightspot. However even though he was a regular at the location, no one stepped forward immediately to vouch for him.

Ammunition consistent to what was used in the robbery was found in Carter’s vehicle - The exact caliber of bullet and a 12 gauge shotgun shell, although from a different manufacturer were discovered in the vehicle Carter was driving, although he never provided the weapons that would have fired them, nor proof that he had sold them.

Carter had a history of violence - It wasn’t as if Carter lacked the mens rea to commit such crimes. Frankly it’s a virtual certainty that Carter committed numerous violent offenses, but had gotten away with the majority of them.

Two juries thought that the evidence supported his guilt - It wasn’t as if Carter was ever exonerated. He was not tried for a three time after serving almost 18 years in prison. It’s very likely that had the State of New Jersey had retried, he would have again been convicted.

reply