Rubin 'Hurricane' Carter

Oh please! There was no evidence beyond a "reasonable" doubt? GTFO. Maybe if youve only read the 16th round and seen Hurricane, MAYBE, I could understand that. But if you actually look at the facts, THE FACTS, then there is not only an absence of reasonable doubt but there's a complete lack of evidence to support Carter. Jesus the guy was out of prison for a few weeks when he nearly beat a WOMAN to death. But hey, Im sure this was a combination of Carter's racially oppressive upbringing and the white establishments conspiracy to keep #1 contender Carter from winning the middleweight championship... You wanna see if you can find all of the things wrong in just that one sentence. Because thats kind of how Carter's whole story works. Cut through the bull**** and its as thin as wet tissue paper.

Conjecture my ass: witness tampering, bullets matching those used in the shooting found in his car (which exactly matched the description of the getaway car, attempting to hide when pulled over immediately after the crime), identified by several eye witnesses both on and off the record, failed polygraph test. I could keep going but even Carter's own attorney's admitted that there was a ton of damning evidence against him in court. If there was NO evidence against him dont you think this supposed forthright symbol of freedom loving peoples everywhere would fight to actually clear his conviction? No? Because despite what he and his supporters say his conviction was never overturned. It was set aside supposedly because he didnt get a fair trial but its now evident that the senile judge overseeing his appeals had little to no understanding of the case. If a guy is as pure as the driven snow he doesnt need to create a MOUNTAIN of lies to get free.

[url]http://members.shaw.ca/cartermyths/Hirschbook.htm[/url]

 

Guilty and over rated

 

No, I am saying the evidence given in court showed after two trials and many appeals at different levels, that it is beyond reasonable doubt Carter was innocent.

If you can show anything other than conjecture that, that is not the case, then you need to contact the authorities with your evidence. I suspect there are still a few officials around who would be really appreciative of that evidence...

 

In his auto biography Mickey Duff recounts how he met Carter on the runway at the airport in the UK [ he was here to fight Harry Scott], Carter handed him a bag which Duff took through customs.In Carter's hotel room the boxer opened the bag ,there was a hand gun inside it.
Duff said "you cant bring that into the country it's illegal", Carter replied ,"I didn't you did".

 

LOL, I think pot, kettle and black comes to mind with Duff, he was no angel himself! As I said in my first post on the thread, Carter is no 'Saint', but after years of the case going through the Courts in the USA, he was shown to be innocent of that Murder.

 

Dude always seemed guilty to me, and that movie they made about him is very inaccurate. I remember it was on a while back and they made Joey Giardello look like a pansy who got the decision against Carter on a robbery by being white. I turned off the tv after that and watched the fight on youtube where you can clearly see Giardello schooling Carter. Giardello sued the films producers for libel and they had to settle out of court.

Plus, on Dylan's song, which rules but is also inaccurate, Dylan says that Carter was the #1 contender for the middleweight crown, but I believe he never got higher than 3 and was on the decline when the murders happened. He had one win in his last five fights. What footage I've seen of Carter shows an exceptional physical specimen with great stamina and strength but without the necessary skills to be champ which is why his record is only 27-12-1.

Personally, I've never understood the reasoning some people have that boxers don't commit crimes. The idea goes that they get all of their aggression out in the ring and so they are calm as Hindu cows the rest of the time. But this flies in the face of experience which shows us a long history of boxers going to jail for violent crimes: Monzon, Valero, Kid McCoy, Tyson, Papke, James Butler, Jo El Scott, Esteban De Jesus, Ibeabuchi, Ayala, Mayweather, etc. The fact of the matter is that Rubin Carter had a rap sheet a mile long and had been in prison for most of the ten years he spent before becoming a boxer. He was obviously a thug and a criminal and having stuff like that in your past makes it a lot more believable when you are accused of murder whether you are a boxer or a brain surgeon.

 

Around the mid-70s when I was about 17 I watched Carter as a guest on Tom Snyder's 'Tomorrow' show giving an in depth interview while looking for a re-trial. Not having the internet in those days I had to consult my Ring Record Book after Carter made a statement saying, "Why would I murder and rob the store when i was the number one middleweight contender, making $100,000 a year and about to get a title shot at Dick Tiger?" After consulting the book I immediately questioned what was said. After the Giardello fight Carter went 7-7-1, was not getting a title shot at Tiger (I don't believe Tiger was even the champ at this time) and was on the fast track to journeyman status (i refrained from saying palookaville because it seemed he was hot and cold but likely not even in the top ten anymore). I haven't delved into the intricasies of the case, but didn't the Canadian group that helped spring him later say they did think he was guilty after further deliberation?? Please educate me on this one.

 

So, again, what evidence do you feel showed beyond a reasonable doubt that he was innocent?

 

This post, btw, strongly suggests that your belief about the case comes entirely from the movie. Carter was not released because it was shown that he was innocent, let alone "beyond reasonable doubt." He was released because evidence that would have undermined the credibility of a key prosecution witness was not turned over to the defense, as required by law, and the evidence might have led a reasonable jury to conclude that the state's case was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. His release was absolutely NOT predicated on a showing that he was factually innocent.

 

It's definitely my favorite Dylan song.

 

The lack of evidence to prove he did. As the accused he is innocent until proven otherwise. This case spent over 20 years on and off in the judicial system of the USA, and the outcome was Carter was proven innocent. And as I suggested, if you have evidence to prove otherwise, get in contact with the American authorities, it is your duty.

 

I have never seen the film, and I realize the judge who released him in the mid 80s did so on a technicality. The case was so controversial, that, that decision would of been overturned if it was shown to be wrong.

 

You're saying two very different things as if they're the same:

1) He was proven innocent beyond a reasonable doubt; and
2) Because he wasn't proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he should be considered innocent.

1) is clearly incorrect. At leaves us with 2). First and foremost, 2) doesn't mean that he was "proven innocent." in fact, jurors can (and should) render a "not guilty" verdict even if they're pretty sure the defendant committed the crime.

The two times a jury had the case, he was believed by them, unanimously, to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Bello was the key prosecution witness, but there was a great deal of evidence against Carter aside from Bello's testimony. Carter is free for one reason alone - the prosecution didn't meet its duty to turn over evidence that would have been helpful to the defense, and as a result, a jury might have returned a Not Guilty verdict. The prosecution had the opportunity to try him a third time - something that would not have been the case had he been "proven innocent" - but declined to. The legal proceedings didn't show or even suggest that Carter was innocent or even that he would have been found not guilty. But he was entitled to a trial with his team having the single piece of evidence that had been withheld.

My claim has nothing to do with evidence that the authorities were unaware of. It has to do with evaluating the evidence that is already known.

 

Well they have to be the same or Law does not work. You cannot live in a Liberal society and not have challenging standards for authorities to punish the citizen with loss of their freedom.