Maybe Rubin Hurricane Carter isn't as innocent as believed

I have no clue .. I read the book as I kid and was fascinated by it ... not even sure if he wrote the book with such a limited education ... that said and I believe he got out on a technicality , is the in all the years after his release he didn't go back and that does say something about him ..

 

He didn't shot the victm, but he was in in the armed robbery. I think is that what I read somwhere years ago.
Which make him guilty of everything that happened, you don't need to be the guy that fired the shot to be guilty of the murder, since it was very foreseeable that some **** would happen when you go armed to a ****ing robbery.

 

1) Yes
2) Yes

 

I’ll answer this way:

1) Do I think he did it? Probably.

2) Do I think he got a fair trial (either time)? Absolutely not.

The prosecution withheld information on deals made with witnesses in exchange for testifying against Carter (and the other guy who was convicted, I think his hame was Artis?)

Also withheld was:

A statement from the expert who performed a polygraph on the key witness that the key witness stated during the examination that he was inside the bar that evening around the time of the murders (which would impeach his testimony that he was never in the bar that evening), and that the key witness said he was told he would collect more than $10K in reward money for testifying. Also, the key witness recanted his ID of Carter after the first trial and then in the second trial again testified that he saw Carter fleeing the scene. (The other eyewitness’ descriptions matched neither Carter nor Artis, but he died so his testimony from the first trial was read into the second trail.)

Beyond that, originally no slugs or shell casings (both a handgun and shotgun were used in the murders) were originally recovered or mentioned in reports. Then, five days later, an officer reported finding on a second search of the car a slug casing and a shell in the rental car that had been impounded (and already searched) — and neither of these, it turned out, matched the evidence at the scene (wrong brand of shell, wrong kind of slug — copper, while the slugs at the scene had brass casings).

The police then magically produced a ‘misplaced’ report that said the slug and shell actually were found the night of the shooting (and apparently never bagged for evidence … but left inside the car, lol). Yet despite finding these in the car that night, neither Carter nor Artis were arrested — they were let go and arrested later — nor asked about these when interrogated for hours.

It all adds up to a LOT of hanky-panky on the part of police.

Eventually upon appeal, the U.S. district court ruled that the prosecution and trial were full of racial tactics that shouldn’t have been allowed. And the Supreme Court upheld that finding on appeal by the prosecution.

3) So as far as I’m concerned, if Carter (and Artis) DID do it, the police were also guilty of tampering with (and almost certainly in the case of the shell and casing, planting) evidence, the key witness definitely lied (more than once) and it’s the fault of the police (and trial judge) that the conviction was overturned.

It was a wrongful conviction. That can happen even if the person convicted actually did it — it has to be proven in a fair trial. And they didn’t have enough evidence to actually convict without false testimony and planted/tampered with/mishandled evidence. That’s on the justice system, not Carter.

Rubin wasn’t a good man. He wasn’t a nice man. But he wasn’t ever proven in a fair trial to be a murderer. If you or I were convicted under the same circumstances, we’d rightfully claim to have been railroaded too.

 

the agenda is the agenda. how dare you question it? you have been fined 30 thousand social reward points and your passport is suspended.

 

I’ve heard a lot of talk about this before and i have the same suspicions as well. Rubin Carter was not a good man. Was he really guilty of that murder ? I don’t know. I won’t hold him accountable for something that was never thoroughly proven. But he wasn’t the nice person the film made him out to be

 

I don’t understand what the movie has to do with whether he murdered someone.

Every single movie you’ve seen that was ‘based on a true story’ or even presented as the ‘actual’ true story … has as much Hollywood fabrication in it as fact — usually more.

But just because the movie wasn’t accurate about the Giardello fight nor Carter’s status as a contender doesn’t mean he was guilty. That’s an insane leap. It’s like saying Braddock didn’t actually beat Baer because the movie was inaccurate in its portrayal of Baer.

From Tombstone to A Beautiful Mind to The Revenant to Rudy (he was offsides for one thing, haha) to Cinderella Man (Max Baer’s villainous portrayal) are full of complete horse manure that Hollywood uses to ‘enhance’ a story or to add drama or any of 1,000 other reasons.

But I’m curious to those who are 100% convinced of his guilt (I said above he’s probably guilty), upon what do you base that? And do you really think it was a fair trial with the police/prosecution tampering with (probably planting) evidence, hiding from the defense things like the chief witness changing his story (and apparently lying on the stand), incentives offered to witnesses to testify that Carter was guilty, etc. … do you really think he got a fair trial?

 

So he's basically the 60s OJ

 

To say that 1979 is four years before 1983 seems implausible. I believe it is only two years before 1983. The website you've listed is too mainstream for me to believe this about these two years. Find me something less mainstream and maybe I will take a look at it. Nothing that's a dotcom website. Only dotorgs.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w13xttt6

The Hurricane tapes podcast was really good that had some great interviews from Ron Lipton and detective Robert Moll

Ive always thought he was guilty but i did have some doubts after finishing that.There are still people alive today who know what really happened.The referee who recently passed away Eddie Cotton (Lewis vs Tyson) had a housing complex named after him on the same street as the murders.

https://patersontimes.com/2020/09/1...councilman-renowned-boxing-referee-ed-cotton/


With Carter constantly lying i thought he was digging a bigger hole for himself and by listening to the man himself through the tapes he was clearly mental.I remember thinking afterwards if he told the truth he might have been out earlier

 

LOL. The links I saw took us to a site that is dominated by ‘his obit in The NY Times has some incorrect information in it’ and ‘the movie got a bunch of stuff wrong.’

One of the citations in the critique of the NYT obit said it’s incorrect that his arrest and conviction cut his career short. Ummm, it did. Whether he was still a contender or n or, he hadn’t retired. And he wasn’t able to box after that, so yes, it cut his career short.

I scrolled down and finally found a section about whether his conviction was just … and it was a link to a message board not unlike this one on cyberboxingzone. So just people posting things, not actual evidence or examination of evidence.

There’s also something about lie detectors. The chief witness against him took a lie detector test … and in it he admitted that he was actually inside the bar that evening around the time of the shooting, which contradicts his testimony. That the chief witness lied on the stand was never disclosed to the defense.

Same with the odd case of the shell casing and shotgun shells, that’s not procedural error — that’s willful misconduct on the part of police and the prosecutors.

If they had enough to convict him, perhaps they shouldn’t have manufactured evidence nor hid the truth about the chief witness.

 

Hurricane Carter made a deep impression in 1962-63 with spectacular first-round knockouts of Cuban slugger Florentino Fernandez, and welterweight-middleweight champ Emile Griffith. He also had good wins over Holly Mims, George Benton, Farid Salim, Gomeo Brennan, Skeeter McClure and Jimmy Ellis. Because he was a muscular black ex-con with a menacing scowl the boxing mags liked to describe him as a smaller Liston. Carter's Fu Manchu mustache was his innovation. He had a thuggish image from the start. He won only one of his last five bouts but I wouldn't say he was washed up. He'd been fighting professionally for only five years.