innocent or guilty?


after i watched the hurricane i saw a lot of information claiming that rubin carter really was guilty and the movie straight up lied. people display all facts of the case as described in court transcripts and apparently see that as convincing enough, but really its not...

1966 was long before forensic science was ever around. those were the days where a cop could shoot someone, plant a gun on him and nobody would ever be able to say that he wasn't being shot at. im not saying that all cops were corrupt or planted evidence, but in 1966 they could easily do it and nobody could prove otherwise. all the facts could (and i stress "could") have been distorted and witnesses manipulated and nobody could ever prove that the police tampered w/ the evidence. did this happen, i dont know but it certainly seems likely in hurricane's case.

theres also been a lot of buisness about carter not passing a polygraph but polygraphs in the 60s are not quite the machines we have today and a polygraph test today is still a very unreliable piece of evidence in court because they can be beaten and they can be inaccurate and if i believe, a lie detector is rarely presented as evidence in court b/c of its fallibilty. apparently when his case was retried in the 70s, the prosecuter offered carter the deal that if he passed a polygraph he would drop all charges. well if he failed his first one years before, why would he think the outcome would be any different? plus, im sure he was skeptical of anything that would be in the hands of the "white man", especially after he failed the 1st one.

finally, if rubin carter were truly guilty of those murders, would he really fight for 20 years to prove his innocence? as i have posted before, name me guilty man has fought to prove his innocence for even 1 year let alone 20. a person who is guilty will give up almost immediately, conceding defeat after the guilty verdict. but an innocent man may not give up so easily. i have no idea of the # of innocent people in prison at the moment but im sure theres a few and i bet each one has fought their conviction strongly, but i doubt that many of them have fought for 20 years or even had the will to fight for 20 years. i doubt an wrongly convicted person would even try after the first 10 years.

is rubin carter guilty or innocent, we will never truly know...but i believe in his innocence because he fought so strongly. he was convicted twice of those murders but aquited 3 times after and including his release. most importantly, THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, the highest legal body in this country, upheld his release and thus, he his innocent in the eyes of the law and nothing or no one can change that ever again.

reply

[deleted]

After reading this thread I find it interesting how the crypt keeper, who so far appears to be the biggest supporter of Carter's guilt, has yet to attempt to refute mdana's lengthy and well supported case supporting Carter's innocence(sure as heck convinced me the man's innocent). I suppose he knows better than to try and tangle with someone who will beat him in this argument. Oh and attacking me for saying this doesn't prove mdana wrong. Just proves I'm right.

"We're actors, we're the opposite of people!" -The Player

reply

this ain't a ball game 'true_sorcerer' neither am i here to convince you or anyone else of my opinions... i just state mine and that's it

if you think 'mdana' suits your 'beliefs' more, then go for it... but i suggest you shouldn't uphold movies or 'other peoples opinions' (even mine) at face value

you do your own research, and make your own conclusions
then maybe you'll have an argument (instead of user names) you can use too...

reply

Lol I cant believe the tunnel vision ppl are havin in this case. Its obvious somethings not right with both sides of the story. The film made carter look holier than holy but there is also fair to say he had a bad past as well. The police are also shown to be corrupt- I dunno the wholle car thing bothers me, and why was he hiding on the baCK seat, just doesnt seem like the actions of an innocent man

reply

I'm pretty sure there have been alot of guilty people who have claimed their innocence for a very long time while they were in prison.......

reply

The only thing I can tell you is treat this movie as a movie and not a documentary.

Let me share you top ten myths about Rubin Carter for FACTS' sake.

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

Innocent.

reply

Guilty, obviously.

reply

[deleted]

Guilty. The trial transcripts are a little more reliable than your youtube video.

reply

There were so many falsehoods in the movie it makes Bugs Bunny cartoons look like true life documentaries.Della Pesca is first & foremost among them.The actual detective who is slandered by that character was Vincent DeSimone.He never had any contact with Carter before this case.He died six years before Carter's release by Sarokin.Believing the authenticity of this film is like believing in the tooth fairy.

reply

[deleted]