Maybe Rubin Hurricane Carter isn't as innocent as believed

About the movie, we should never take movies as truthful narrative, I mean, Cinderella Man when they made Baer look like an ass, look at this last Tarantino movie where Bruce Lee is made out to be this ****ing jerkoff, they do that.

The worse part is that regular people, that are too emotional beyond reason, believing everything that sounds sad and unfair to be true.

Giardello sued them and won btw, the fight is out there, he clearly beat Carter since he was the better fighter out of the two.

 

Yeah, but a lot of it is ‘judge says he wasn’t unfair’ after his rulings were overturned, ‘Prosecutors convinced the man they charged was guilty.’ Well, duh.

Also a hidden gem that this guy (whose site it is) was kicked out of court as a reporter — his boss semi-defended him but said it’s a gray area because he writing ‘advocacy’ stuff on the case: basically he has long had a point of view (that Carter is guilty) and even when he was employed as a newspaper journalist he was beating that drum. So the website is definitely driven by a guy with an ax to grind. I’d take it with a grain of salt.

 

Thats Hollywood for you..when its based on a real story, that means that 99 percent of is is made up. I believed that Ritchie Valens went to Mexico with brother Bob and saw a shaman....then, when I was 14, I believed movies based on true stories were 100 percent true to the story.

I have serious doubts about Rubyn Carter being innocent.

 

It was made by some canadians though. It's not only Hollywood, it is like that everywhere, even documentaries have their bias and milk stuff to make it dramatic and ****.

 

A key point of forensics.

The firearms used during the attack, were a 12 bore shotgun, and a 32 caliber pistol.

Cartridges of both calibers were found in Carters car, after he was arrested.

That was obviously not a coincidence.

That leaves us with two reasonable conclusions.

Either he did it, or the Police planted those cartridges.

Given that the murder had just been announced over the radio, is it realistic to thing that the officers would have planted those cartridges?

I lean towards no.

 

Hollywood is fake it's just a shame ppl fall for the fallacies in cinema that's supposed to depict non-fiction. Hurricane n X I just grown to despise bcuz of the inaccuracies they're the top 2 Denzel movies I quit watching.

 

About that:

1) The cartridge and shell were reported by police to have been found like 5 days after the car was impounded after having been previously searched. I find it fairly difficult to believe that a police officer (or officers) searching a car that was impounded because police associated it with a murder, containing two murder suspects, completely overlooks BOTH of these during the initial search.

2) Police produced these and when it was pointed out there was no report mentioning these finds from the initial search, they — after the fact — managed to produce one.

3) This ‘evidence’ wasn’t bagged or recorded after the initial search. We (and the jury) are left to believe (according to the police version) that the two items were actually found the night of the murder but police never bothered to collect the evidence and just left it in the car to be discovered later. And also didn’t mention it in the report of the search.

4) The cartridge had a copper casing. The ones used in the murder had bronze casings.

5) The shell wasn’t the same brand as found at the murder scene.

So the facts are:

* There is no custody chain of this ‘evidence’ to be able to trace it back to the original crime or crime scene. As such, it shouldn’t be admissible.

* Even if you accept that these items were found in the rental car, they don’t match the ammunition found at the murder scene, so they in no way can be connected to the murder. It’s like finding a broadsword and trying to connect it to a murder that was committed with a small, one-sided blade.

 

OK, you clearly know more about this than I do, and this lends credibility to the idea of evidence being planted.

 

I thought Carter was a dangerous psychopath who in my opinion was guilty. I read his book which was filled with nothing but lies. The only time in that book he actually comes clean about something, was when he mugged a woman, (I guess he had no choice and couldn't lie his way out of that one).
He managed somehow to get the Hollywood types on his side to rally for him. and people like Ali...

What I never understood, and what always bothered me, (whether you think he was guilty or not), was that he got so many people to rally for him and come to his defense. Also how the media portrayed him as some sort of "Buddha" like character when he was nothing like that.
Rubin must have had a good laugh at all that.

My family is from the area. I know plenty of people that either knew him, went to school with him, worked with him, or knew of him at the time those murders occured and they all said the same, he was dead guilty.

Fun fact: Rubin had a horse. The owner of the horse stable had my dad, (who was a sign painter), make him a sign that read something like: NO GUNS, NO KNIVES, NO ALCOHOL, NO PROFANITY....
That was because of Carter.

 

I haven’t watched the documentaries or really followed the cases to have an opinion on their guilt/innocence, but I know Making a Murderer (Steven Avery) and Serial podcast/The Case against Adnan Syed have been accused of being biased in favor of those who were convicted.

 

Good calls! Making a Murderer did that for sure (with Avery but not Dassey). I’ve heard something similar about Serial too, but nothing as egregious as MaM. I’ve also heard that about Capturing the Friedmans.

A shame because I thought they were an excellent series, podcast and movie.

 

Making a murderer

 

He definitely is not. He was as guilty as can be. Thank God for technicalities is what he would have though.