Rubin Carter was falsely tried and spent almost 20 years in jail for a crime he did not commit. When this mistake was corrected, did the Police go on the capture the real killers? Or did they get away with it?
shareThe real killers were never caught.
Xbox Live Gamertag: Magical Pro
www.arresteddevelopment2009.com
Carter & Artis are the real killers
shareNever mind that they bore no physical resemblance (apart from colour) to the offenders describes, the sole survivor of the shooting said they were not the offenders in a dying deposition, the supposed exhibits were not entered into evidence until weeks after the event, the sole physical witnesses were two criminals who later retracted their statements and a woman who had been drinking for six hours.
shareI considered that Carter may have been framed to cover up a mob hit, hence none of the real killers were found. The film sort of suggests this.
"For dark is the suede that mows like a harvest"
One of the victims,Hazel Tanis,gave a description of the man who shot her to a police artist.The picture drawn has a very strong resemblance to John Artis.Mrs.Tanis died suddenly before the trial,so it was unusable as hearsay evidence.That is not conclusive,but still if she had lived it would have been damaging to Artis.See Cal Deal's website,it shows this movie to be very slanted & dishonest.I believed Carter until I saw the website.
share*Insert witty The Police pun here*
His legs flail about about as if independent from his body!
They let him go because the prosecution fudged up, and so they had to let him go because it was an "unfair" trial. Of course, he was found guilty twice before, failed a polygraph, and had a long history of criminal behavior, but whatever...
shareAlso, it is convieniently left out of the movie, that at his second trial, multiple witnesses who testified to his alibi in the first trail, admitted in the second they perjured themselves and lied about his whereabouts.
They did catch the real killer. It was Carter.
Carter and Artis may have done it.
Several sources report that Police found a shotgun and pistol shell in the car after stopping them, and it was later discovered that the shell and casing were the same caliber as the murder weapons. Maybe that evidence was planted or there's another explanation, but it's a stretch to call Carter innocent. Also, in 1976, before their 2nd trial, both Carter and Artis refused a polygraph that would have freed them they passed it (with no penalty if they failed it).
Carter robbed and beat a man in a street muggings as a juvenile (sent to reformatory), the army kicked him out after four court-martials on minor charges, then he mugged a woman on the street, pled guilty, and served four years. Carter was NOT some innocent locked up for fighting off a molester - as the movie falsely states.
We can't say for sure if Carter did it or not, but Norman Jewison and the movie are outright liars.
And you've conveniently left out of your post that at least 5 witnesses continued to corroborate Carter's alibi, even after others recanted.
As someone who's apparently done some reading on the case, are you really willing to state, on the basis of 2 shells, a white car, and the ID of the shooters as two black males, that Rubin Carter is undoubtedly guilty? What was his motive?
And you've conveniently left out of your post that at least 5 witnesses continued to corroborate Carter's alibi, even after others recanted.
What was his motive?
"and had a long history of criminal behavior"
not that I'm vouching for his innocence .. but this is the type of statement that irks me when it comes to criminal cases .. his 'long history of criminal behavior" has no relevance to the case at hand .. what he did in the past should not be considered with regards to the alleged current crime .. EVIDENCE related to the case should be the only thing considered ..
that's like saying at a molester's trial: 'well he molested that kid 5 yrs back so surely he must've molested this latest child'
Um, actually they do say that at molestation trials.
You're right that it is not evidence in the current case. However, any....well anyone, in general, period, will tell you that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. So it makes MORE sense that Carter would be CAPABLE of said offense. Or, in you example of a molester, it means he is more CAPABLE of said molestation. So therefore it does have relevence.
Does that mean that, say, someone with no criminal record or history of violence can lash out and, say, murder their wife, or kill 3 people in a drive by or molest a child? No, of course they can. However, it is more out of character,and therefore, less likely to end in conviction based on circumstantial evidence.
However, if, say, OJ had a history of beating his wife, Carter had history of crime and violence, and Richard Allen Davis had a history of sexual crimes, that, along with circumstantial evidence, DOES point to them being MORE likely to commit those types of offenses they were accused of, and in those cases, did.
Circumstantial evidence (hearsay, contradictory evidence, past indescretions, etc) are necessary and important to a case. Certainly physical evidence is more important, but the two are not mutual exclusive. It's like a house. You need a foundation of course (physical evidence) but bricks, doors, a roof, windows, etc (circumstantial evidence) is just as important. So, you can have witness ID and fingerprints up the wazoo, but if there is no history of violence, it's hard to prove mens rea and motive. You can have all the circumstantial evidence in the world, but without physical evidence, it's hard to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. So, in Carters case, if they had physical evidence that was conclusively solid nailing him, his past history would be significant still because it would show that he was the KIND of person who could commit the crime the evidence said he did
No that is called characterization and therefore an objection in the court of law. Characterization is when previous crimes in which the defendant is put on trial is brought up in the new case. This is not allowed in any courtroom, therefore someone can't say that he molested a kid five years ago unless, he is a psychiatrist or that crime is the one the defendant is up against.
shareActually, no, that isn't entirely true. In certain cases, yes, that is called predujicial evidence. But that isn't what I said. You CAN mention past convictions of crimes. So, in your example, if the person was convicted of molesting the child 5 years prior, it can be introduced in evidence if it is relevant to the charges.
So, if he is on trial for child endangerment, yes, it can be brought up. If he is on trial for passing bum checks, and it is brought up just to make him look like a jerk, than no, it can't be used
well kyleb .. that shouldn't be allowed in a court case .. that WILL bias the jury against the defendent .. this, in essence, makes it an UNFAIR TRIAL .. that's just not right .. let's deal with the evidence at hand shall we ? .. not a witchhunt to TRY to convict the guy i.e. bringing up his 'past f== ups'
sharebut he really did do it. there isn't any doubt about that. if you google "hurricane - how bob dylan got it wrong" there's some 'eye-witness' website that conclusively contradicts every line in that [great] song
shareI've just read the book "Hurricane, the Miraculous Journey of Rubin Carter" and there are several things in their that make it pretty convincing that he DIDNT do it, he didnt fail a polygraph test, he passed it, but the copper who issued it said that he may have had some knowledge of the crime, he also DEMANDED a parrafin test. The guy that was shot and lived claimed that it wasn't Carter and Artis that did it, all he could say was that it was two Negroes, and Alfred Bello later admitted to purjing himself in court simply because of the reward money, and the promise that his pending crimes would be waived.
shareOooooo so you read "Hurricane, the Miraculous Journey of Rubin Carter"? Did you ever stop to wonder if a book with a title like that might be just a tad biased?
The guy did it, period. Pretty much every single line in that movie is BS. Its insane the amount of evidence they had/have against this guy and he still walks the streets. I guess screeming racism to the public is enough to contradict a whole heap of evidence.
"The guy that was shot and lived claimed that it wasn't Carter and Artis that did it" No he didnt, carter claimed he did...and screemed racism. the court records are open to the public if you have the time... And he did fail the polygraph test. Once or twice and after that he refused to take another one.
Whats that on your face!
I think you're missing the point. The point is is that they can be brought up but by themselves. You can't bring them up just randomly, and only them randomly, to convict someone. However, with other evidence, it is perfectly reasonable to bring up someones past.
sharewhat do you mean 'can be brought up by themselves' ? ..
and how is it 'perfectly reasonable' to bring up someone's past ? what does someone's past have to do with the CURRENT case at hand .. that's going to bias many jurors period ..
let's say for example .. some dude is on trial for killing someone and ultimately he is innocent .. they bring up his past where he had been convicted for manslaughter and/or accused of killing someone else .. you don't think that's going to bias certain jurors and possibly make them falsely believe that 'sh-t this guy must've done it' .. you can't bring up someone's past .. I don't know the laws but that doesn't seem like something fair .. it should only be about the evidence in the case .. his past is NOT evidence .. I mean that is if we're talking about having 'fair trials' ..
Right... so all murders over the last 30 years have been committed by Rubin Carter.
It's simple. He did them all. He has to have done them all. He's got a history of violent crime.
No trial needed.
The poster you replied to is right on the money. They use evidence. They may try to use past behaviour, but it would be objected to (at least if the defence were doing their job).
Now, don't get me wrong - I'm not saying he did or didn't commit the murders, but past behaviour is NOT evidence for him doing it... it just shows a capacity to do it. Just because he has the capacity does not mean that he does it.
SpiltPersonality
[deleted]
In all honesty i think a lot of you have watched the film,maybe googled the name,and suddenly think you're experts.Some of your comments are just daft.Infact i doubt any 1 on here has any serious knowledge of the case.It's hard to imagine some 70 year old being on here talking the way you guys are.Cus unless you have gone and dug up all the case files and read months worth of cataloguing you gotta be that age to have enough evidence in your mind to form a decent opinion of the mans guilt......saddos
share"and how is it 'perfectly reasonable' to bring up someone's past ? what does someone's past have to do with the CURRENT case at hand .. that's going to bias many jurors period .."
This statement is stupid, Why? Because what you say is applicable in a court of law and for good reason, But we arent in a court of law and we arent jurors. Its like knowing your sisters new bf is known for beating up his partners and then u see your sister with a black eye all of a sudden but wont say how she got it. The police couldnt go on the past of the suspect as its not enough to stand up in a court of law, but im pretty sure everyone on this board would immediately know who was responable and would be looking to speak with one person before anyone else.
Know in this hurricane case yes in court you wouldnt be able to disclose his past crimes etc but outside of the court room common sense would dictate that you consider his past as well when forming an opinion on whether he is guilty or not. Why do u think the movie decided not to mention his past in the first place? because they wanted him to look like a stand up guy who had everything goin for him and such violence was completely out of his character. Im guessing if he was in reality the type of man that wouldnt hurt a fly u would be looking to use his past as an indicator of his innocence
Exactly.
Any website or book is going to be biased. They are going to be biased because they have an adgenda.
This is such a well known case that nobody who knows even a little bit about it would be immune to the bias. The only way someone would be able to start to approach this case is by inspecting the evidence step by step, and even then their own prejudices are going to corrupt things.
Nobody but Rubin Carter knows if he did it. Anybody who makes a categorical statement of fact about his guilt or innnocence clearly do not know what they are talking about.
Be convinced of his guilt. Be convinced of his innocence. But never state it as a fact.
SpiltPersonality
[deleted]