Maybe Rubin Hurricane Carter isn't as innocent as believed

You just reminded me f my third favorite mafia movie of all time: (behind the Godfather series and Goodfeallas) Casino.

Frank Rosenthal and Geri McGee had a son who did not want to be mentioned in the movie so they left him out and made it look like they only had a daughter.

Talking about Goodfellas, Henry Hill's children recently came out saying in real life he was much more horrible. Sad because I kind of liked Henry Hill and Frank Lucas. Before all this came to light. Not entirely given their profession, but kind of.

The Hurricane kind of gets in with these movies in that way, I guess.

 

Thanks for sharing, he sounded a lovely fella.. RIP Terry. Top man & an excellent career. His family should be proud.

 

As far as Carters guilt impossible to know for sure but you can guarantee if the Left got behind it as they did they made all the assumptions that fit their social justice agenda. Hard look at facts and reality is never their strong point.

 

Really? To me he comes off as quite a ***** in Goodfellas. Not an actively sadistic psychopath like Tommy, but certainly a callous *******.

 

Sloppy police work based on technicalities I can see why he was released. The movie is a sham and he was most likely guilty of the crime. Not a good human.

 

Police planted evidence and the prosecutors hid evidence favorable to Rubin.

I think if we’re going to condemn Carter as ‘not a good human’ then those corrupt New Jersey lawmen and officials who betrayed the public trust deserve the same tag, but you rarely see anyone mention their misdeeds.

Maybe he did the crime. Mayhap he did not, but if you have to frame someone to convince them (and every single conviction was overturned due to police and prosecutorial misconduct), then perhaps it’s time to say ‘if we have to cook up evidence that did not exist and hide evidence that it was’t him … maybe we have the wrong guy?’

Officers of the court (prosecutors and police included) should be held to some standard of honesty. For every day Rubin spent behind bars, those who framed him should also have been locked up.

 

Maybe they knew he was guilty and wanted to get a murderer off the streets before he could kill again. I can't lump the prosection in with someone like Carter. It's like the cop on the OJ case that used foul language Mark Furman and he was portrayed as the real criminal. Sorry but again the guy that cut the head off his ex wife and her friend is the real POS in this case. This is not to exonerate all police, and not to say that bad things may have happened to get the initial conviction. From what i know of the case I believe Carter is guilty. And as I said he got his conviction overturned but the movie is garbage.

 

Well as long as they ‘knew’ he was guilty even though they didn’t have evidence to support it, let’s plant evidence and hide testimony that is favorable to him to get him off the streets?

How did they ‘know’ it if they had no evidence? If they literally had to plant evidence, that means they don’t ‘know it.’

Those cops and prosecutors were acting criminally to frame someone for whatever motivation, and that’s a crime for which they should be held accountable.

If they ‘knew it,’ why not take the stand and be honest and say ‘I know he did it, even though we have no evidence, so we planted evidence to frame him’? And let a jury decide if ‘well police say the know it’ is enough to get a conviction.

 

Sometimes you know. Just like OJ. Doesn't always mean it can be proven in a court of law. That's why Carter was rightfully released.

 

And since we're on the topic of movies portraying bad humans as decent human beings - the birdman of Alcatraz is another movie which admittedly i loved when i first saw it, but learned as i was older what an awful distortion by Hollywood it was of the central character Robert Stroud. but i should save this for the lounge.

 

The roots of the BLM movement were likely tied to the free Hurricane movement.

 

“You just know” is not the basis for a legal system.

If you have to plant evidence to convict and hide evidence that could acquit, that should tell any reasonable, non-corrupt human being that maybe what “you know” isn’t right. If it was, you might not be able to prove it but you wouldn’t have any evidence of innocence to hide as was done in this case (much less the planting of false evidence).

You know what I “know”? I know if they would plant evidence and hide exculpatory evidence in this case, they would probably do it in others. So I doubt this is the only case where they took matters into their own hands because they “knew” — if you “know” then you keep investigating to try to PROVE what you know. They didn’t do that because the “knew” they couldn’t properly convict him on the up-and-up.

 

We know OJ was guily because there was overwhelming real evidence that he was. If that evidence was planted, we would not know.