Am i the only one who thinks Rubin Carter is a Murderer

Am i the only one who thinks Rubin Carter is a Murderer? 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-defence," 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 defence examined a staggering 377 jurors. The defence 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 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, shit. 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. 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. I did some research into this a few weeks ago and it led me to a site that displayed all the evidence of the case, it convinced me that Carter was the killer. HaHA.. A website said that and you fucking believe it! :lol1: Sorry boys, but I'll take the word of the multi BILLION dollar Hollywood studios and their teams of fact checkers, researchers, and experts over some fucking website. Here's another site for you guys.. http://martinlutherking.org/

He was as guilty as oj simpson

put it this way Carter car was indentified as the gettaway car by eyewhitness & they found a shot gun & a hand gun in the car ,coincidently the bullets matched the ones that were used in the Shooting & he had motive as it was a all white bar & apparently the bar tender was racist The only parts wrong with that post are that he wasn't identified by an eye-witness until 6 months later, having been "unidentified" by one of the victims, "unidentified" by the man who later claimed to identify him. His car was identified as being white with out of state plates - no more than that. No guns were ever found, even though the police figured they'd dropped them in a 5 minute break at Ed Rawls house, so hardly time to hide them. They even dug up Ed Rawls stepfather thinking they were in his coffin!! THe shell and bullet found were of a different make and material to the ones used in the shooting, it was possible that one of them could have been fired from one of the guns, the other was not even entered as evidence in the first trial. Carter had no motive, the idea that any black man would murder any white people in revenge for the killing of another black man does not constitute a motive. The Lafayette Bar was frequented by blacks and whites, and there was no evidence that the barman was in any way racist. apart from those points - spot on!!

Cal Deal openly states that his version of events is not meant to provide a balanced view of the case. He goes for guilty and makes every effort to prove it, which is fair enough. He states that Carter has never proved his innocence, but the law does not require anyone to prove their innocence in any case. He also glosses over many facts which don't add up, and other facts which are no more than "guilt by association" For instance, Carter was a troublemaker, a violent man with convictions for robbery and assault charges. But that does not make him a murderer. He associates the killings at the Lafayette Bar with the killing of Eddie Rawls stepfather (black stepfather he reminds us, playing the race card, even though Rawls stepfathers killing was a business dispute, nothing to do with race, and the killer had been captured at the scene!) Carter is a liar, but again that does not make him a killer either, although it is possible that Carter did not help himself by lieing during different interviews (albeit 6 months apart). I don't buy the conspiracy theories, the framing as such. But thew crux is, the police did such a poor job in investigating the crime (from not sealing off the crime scene, to letting Carter be driven back to the crime scene, displayed in front of people who would later testify to him being there, and even taking him INSIDE the bar on the night of the crime!!) and their forensic examination was virtually non existence. Decisions of the police when they saw a speeding car to not follow it but to take another route hoping they would cut it off later!!! Making a big assumption they knew where it was heading!! Bello's testimony, and changes in his testimony which make him, the star witness, as unreliable as Carter!! Was it a Dodge? a Cadillac? or a Buick that he saw? He mentions all three. He also tells of how he ran away from Carter and Artis when they saw him outside the bar, and he's a little fat man, with a penchant for wearing high Cuban heeled shoes, which he was wearing that night?? Just a few things to ponder There is a photo on Cal Deals site showing Carter when he'd been taken back to the Lafayette by the police. He's wearing exactly the same clothes as were described by Pat Graham (Valentine) when she saw him driving away from the scene. The police and prosecutors (and Deal) say that they stopped at Rawls place to change cothes and dispose of the guns. So how come, even though the crime was supposed to have been fuelled by news of Rawls stepfathers death and conversations Carter had less than an hour earlier, both Carter and Artis had spare and identical clothes already at Rawls apartment?? Artis has never commited acrime in his life, has no racial issues, has no issues at all. Yet he is the biggest murderer, he fired at 3 people in cold blood, killing two of them, Carter only killed the one. Is Artis really a cold bloodied racist killer?? At the time in Paterson Frank Graves was trying to quell racial problems related to the numerous taverns in the city. Racial tensions were high, black people convicted of serious felonies were executed. For a crime of this magnitude, the death sentence would have been almost mandatory - 3 dead white people killed by two blacks! So how come mercy was shown??? Finally the weapons, they were never found. Carter had been looking for guns of his that he'd lent to a hood some time ago, he met him that evening, they searched for the guns, they weren't found by Carter. If Carter wanted guns he had plenty at his home, he didn't need to find these specific guns even if he could!! The weapons used in the shooting were never found, the police even dug up Rawls stepfathers body, but no guns in the coffin!!! And the bullet and shotgun shell found in the hire car were not the same as those used in the shootings, same calibre, but different shell casings. One of them was not even allowed to be admitted in evidence!!! The whole investigation was a shambles, but De Simone needed a body, and once they'd got Bello's testimony, and Valentine had been coached into being able to give a decent account of the night (not a truthful one, she always said she was alone and hadn't gone out, even though she'd been drinking with a friend earlier that evening and had gone back to her flat with "Steve" her married boyfriend!!) then they had enough to go to trial. Carter and Artis lawyers screwed up by not going for seperation, most lawyers agree that there was insufficient evidence to convict Artis on his own. There's just not enough satisfactory evidence to convict either of them. The film however is a good film, a total work of fiction of course, but a watchable film nonetheless! Thanks for the post, I knew there is alway two sides to a story, I had my doubts when they said they find live shell case in the back seat of the car..If the shooting was done in the bar how could they have found any shell casing in the car?

Cal Deal openly states that his version of events is not meant to provide a balanced view of the case. He goes for guilty and makes every effort to prove it, which is fair enough. He states that Carter has never proved his innocence, but the law does not require anyone to prove their innocence in any case. He also glosses over many facts which don't add up, and other facts which are no more than "guilt by association" For instance, Carter was a troublemaker, a violent man with convictions for robbery and assault charges. But that does not make him a murderer. He associates the killings at the Lafayette Bar with the killing of Eddie Rawls stepfather (black stepfather he reminds us, playing the race card, even though Rawls stepfathers killing was a business dispute, nothing to do with race, and the killer had been captured at the scene!) Carter is a liar, but again that does not make him a killer either, although it is possible that Carter did not help himself by lieing during different interviews (albeit 6 months apart). I don't buy the conspiracy theories, the framing as such. But thew crux is, the police did such a poor job in investigating the crime (from not sealing off the crime scene, to letting Carter be driven back to the crime scene, displayed in front of people who would later testify to him being there, and even taking him INSIDE the bar on the night of the crime!!) and their forensic examination was virtually non existence. Decisions of the police when they saw a speeding car to not follow it but to take another route hoping they would cut it off later!!! Making a big assumption they knew where it was heading!! Bello's testimony, and changes in his testimony which make him, the star witness, as unreliable as Carter!! Was it a Dodge? a Cadillac? or a Buick that he saw? He mentions all three. He also tells of how he ran away from Carter and Artis when they saw him outside the bar, and he's a little fat man, with a penchant for wearing high Cuban heeled shoes, which he was wearing that night?? Just a few things to ponder There is a photo on Cal Deals site showing Carter when he'd been taken back to the Lafayette by the police. He's wearing exactly the same clothes as were described by Pat Graham (Valentine) when she saw him driving away from the scene. The police and prosecutors (and Deal) say that they stopped at Rawls place to change cothes and dispose of the guns. So how come, even though the crime was supposed to have been fuelled by news of Rawls stepfathers death and conversations Carter had less than an hour earlier, both Carter and Artis had spare and identical clothes already at Rawls apartment?? Artis has never commited acrime in his life, has no racial issues, has no issues at all. Yet he is the biggest murderer, he fired at 3 people in cold blood, killing two of them, Carter only killed the one. Is Artis really a cold bloodied racist killer?? At the time in Paterson Frank Graves was trying to quell racial problems related to the numerous taverns in the city. Racial tensions were high, black people convicted of serious felonies were executed. For a crime of this magnitude, the death sentence would have been almost mandatory - 3 dead white people killed by two blacks! So how come mercy was shown??? Finally the weapons, they were never found. Carter had been looking for guns of his that he'd lent to a hood some time ago, he met him that evening, they searched for the guns, they weren't found by Carter. If Carter wanted guns he had plenty at his home, he didn't need to find these specific guns even if he could!! The weapons used in the shooting were never found, the police even dug up Rawls stepfathers body, but no guns in the coffin!!! And the bullet and shotgun shell found in the hire car were not the same as those used in the shootings, same calibre, but different shell casings. One of them was not even allowed to be admitted in evidence!!! The whole investigation was a shambles, but De Simone needed a body, and once they'd got Bello's testimony, and Valentine had been coached into being able to give a decent account of the night (not a truthful one, she always said she was alone and hadn't gone out, even though she'd been drinking with a friend earlier that evening and had gone back to her flat with "Steve" her married boyfriend!!) then they had enough to go to trial. Carter and Artis lawyers screwed up by not going for seperation, most lawyers agree that there was insufficient evidence to convict Artis on his own. There's just not enough satisfactory evidence to convict either of them. The film however is a good film, a total work of fiction of course, but a watchable film nonetheless!

I can't remember if it's on that site or this vid but i've heard that they were looking for someone who had beat up a friend or something and wen't to the wrong place. Carter's get away

It goes to show you how fake these movies, "based on a true story" can be.

i need to read more about the case so i voted not sure.

I have a buddy who swears that Carter did the murders. I really don't know much about the whole thing though. I realize now that this wasn't very helpful

i have done no such research and have only seen the film. just shows you how hollywood can twist things really, if you were to watch the film you'd be left with the impression carter was innocent without question. I'm not sure about the actual crime, but that film also gave the impression that Carter was robbed in a title fight against Giardello. And that is total bullshit.

There were some good technical fighters back in the mid-1900's like Ezzard Charles, Charley Burley, Archie Moore, Jersey Joe Walcott and Emile Griffith. Many others too. Then there were tough guys like Lamotta, Graziano, Marciano, Fullmer and Rubin Carter. The classic match-up between technique and toughness. yeah i can remember Walcott,Moore were good technically ,bit im not to up on some of the other fighters i must admit

I don't know the details. I only know what the movie put out there. In those times, I wouldn't totally count out racism as a factor. I can't say if he is guilty or not but from some of the previous post, race still is a factor. He is black so without a doubt, he did it. PLEASE. i suggest u visit this site a polish up then cause Carter was not a victim of racist coppers http://www.graphicwitness.com/carter/index.html

damn man George Benton looked a damn good fighter ,great Technique for the time nice shoulder rolls ,im impressed i thought most fighters in that day & age were like Graciano ,Marciano,hardly any Techincal ability besides Robinson ,Ali There were some good technical fighters back in the mid-1900's like Ezzard Charles, Charley Burley, Archie Moore, Jersey Joe Walcott and Emile Griffith. Many others too. Then there were tough guys like Lamotta, Graziano, Marciano, Fullmer and Rubin Carter. The classic match-up between technique and toughness. Jersey Joe Walcott humiliates Marciano for 13 rounds then gets knocked out with one punch. Respect to Rocky for not quitting after that first round. Robinson KO's the seemingly unstoppable Gene Fullmer with one nice left hook. Robinson KO's Rocky Graziano after being dropped in the same round. Archie Moore gets dropped 3 times by Yvon Durelle in the first round but weathers the storm and KO's Durelle in the 11th round. Moore was 42 or older in this fight, amazing.

I don't know the details. I only know what the movie put out there. In those times, I wouldn't totally count out racism as a factor. I can't say if he is guilty or not but from some of the previous post, race still is a factor. He is black so without a doubt, he did it. PLEASE.

Yes he is. Good fighter, he was inducted to the hall of fame. http://www.ibhof.com/benton.htm EDIT: SLOW damn man George Benton looked a damn good fighter ,great Technique for the time nice shoulder rolls ,im impressed i thought most fighters in that day & age were like Graciano ,Marciano,hardly any Techincal ability besides Robinson ,Ali

He is a murderer, isn't it cool. And he used the I am black and that you cops are racist argument. You know white ppl can't use that excuse because it doesn't work for whites. Well turd,why do you think that is,if it is true? Could it be because over the years countless blacks HAVE been railroaded by racist, pig cops???? I don't really have an opinion on guilt or innocence...but a frame by racist cops is just as possible as his guilt.

I just don't understand Carters Motive for killing those people, that's why I think he didn't commit the Murders. an article on the motive http://members.shaw.ca/cartermyths/cartermotive.htm

Didn't he confess on his deathbed? He isn't even dead yet.

Didn't he confess on his deathbed?

I just don't understand Carters Motive for killing those people, that's why I think he didn't commit the Murders.