boomboomminter

Carter was not a technical boxer, he had no real jab to talk of, but had lightening hand speed and a heavy punch. He was a bit of a one trick pony though. He was also never the fittest of fighters and a bit too musclebound to have any great stamina. So against a technically good fighter who could get inside his shots, he had nothing to offer. He fought from a crouch and delivered single shots mainly. Avoid these, tire him out, and build a big lead on a jab and he was in big trouble - unless he got lucky. If he'd been a heavyweight, he'd have done very well, particuarly against bigger lumbering men who'd be perfect targets for his bombs!!

"The movie was way off on many of the facts, which made Carter out to be the victim of a vengeful detective. The truth is, Carter was guilty and his guilty charge was dismissed on a technicality. Hollywood made him out to be a hero of sorts. He wasn't." Mmmmm "dismissed on a technicality" That technicality being that the prime witness Al Bello had lied to the police about his whereabouts on the night, and that the prosecution lied and withheld evidence from the defence that would most likely have brought about a not guilty verdict! Quite some technicality! Carters no hero, he's a brute, a violent man, a man who has laways boasted openly about his violence. Artis however isn't!

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!

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!!