Rubin Hurricane Carter: Guilty or Innocent?

[The Old LefHook]

What do you think? There is a lot of material out there on this case, only some of which can be counted on, we all know from internet experience.

Carter was not exonerated of his crimes when released from prison, as I understand it. The reason for his eventual release was improper procedure by a number of people involved with the investigation and trial.

I heard once that Bob Dylan went to visit Carter shortly after his release, and left the meeting pale as a ghost, apparently in mild shock, and never spoke of it again, as if Carter had scared him half to death. I have never heard a report of what was said in that meeting.

Carter did provably beat his new wife and her son after his release.

A violent temperament does not automatically mean guilt in a ****cide.

What is the real evidence, both physical and circumstantial that might exonerate or convict Carter?

[Bundana]

Henry Hascup, who posts here from time to time, attended most of the court proceedings... and he's certain, that Carter was guilty.

[BattlingNelson]

Henry Hascup, who posts here from time to time, attended most of the court proceedings... and he's certain, that Carter was guilty.

Yep. There is a thread where he goes through it all.

[#1Assassin]

i never came across a person who thought carter was guilty who wasnt incredibly racist. doesnt mean there isnt one, just saying thats my experience up to now. not racist in my opinion either, i am talking about openly and admittedly racist.

at worst i think you must admit you dont know, meaning he should be freed on account of reasonable doubt. the mere fact that there isnt even a motive with any kind of solid thought process behind it makes it hard to convict imo. he just walked in there and killed a bunch of people for no reason? with no history that could explain such behaviour (his past criminal history isnt comparable to such a crime).

lets also keep in mind we already know it wasnt a fair trial. two black men cant get a fair trial in todays america let alone in the 60's. certainly not when charged with the murder of white folks. they had testimony that the culprits were black. at that point they are going to throw a ****** in jail, period. doesnt have to be the right one. there were no other suspects, meaning they were ****ed from the get go.

the legal system cant be trusted, someone saying they went through the court proceedings means nothing. it wasnt a fair trial, thats just not how america works.

[Rip Chudd]

Henry Hascup, who posts here from time to time, attended most of the court proceedings... and he's certain, that Carter was guilty.

Oh well then that ends it huh, guilty.

[BattlingNelson]

I lived only a few blocks away from the bar that this happened. I also knew both John Artis and Rubin Carter a little.

Artis ran the hurdles for Central High School a few years before and I ran distance races for Passaic County Tech, both schools were located in Paterson at the time.

I met Carter several years before at the Riverside Oval in Paterson and he even pitched some softball. One time he and several of his friends went across the street of the ball field and went bowling. I followed him and he asked me to keep score, which I did. Also, when he pitched he used to let me sit with his team, he called me kid.

When I was in high school they let me go to the court house several times to do a report on the case. It was some long days, but I reported back what I saw and heard. They had several family members of the people that were killed on the stand. It was pretty sad and some of the items they showed were still full of blood.

I also knew Lt. Vince DeSimone some, and several of my friends knew him very well and they all said he was a honest cop and would never have done what the picture stated he did. Just read the site that Cal Deal has and you can make your own judgement.

Carter was on his way down as a boxer when this happened, just look at his record.

Cal Deal did a GREAT JOB in getting the material together and I read his site many times over the years.



I read just about everything about this case and I believe that both John Artis and Rubin Carter were and still are Guilty!

I grew up in Paterson and I knew Carter and his partner in crime, John Artis. In fact I lived a couple of blocks away from the Lafayette Bar where the murders took place.

I first met Carter when he came into a ball field in Paterson, called the Riverside Oval." I yelled out his name and he turned and waved.

Later on he and a couple of his friends went across the street to a bowling alley, so me and a friend of mine followed him. As they started to bowl and Carter asked me if I knew how to keep score. I said I did, and he invited me down to do so.

After that I would see him again at the Oval and he would actually pitch softball for one of the local teams. If he saw me, he would say, Hi Kid, why don't you sit down with us, so I sat with him and his teammates on the bench.

When I was in High School back around 1967, my teacher asked me if I would like to go to the court house for a couple of days and follow the case, which I did.

I followed the case very close, because I really liked Rubin, BUT when I heard the whole story, I was sure that Carter and Artis did the act. In the movie they had a cop that would try to frame him, I know a lot of people that knew that cop and he was one of the best and honest cops around.

If you want to know the hold story, just go to the following web site:

Henry Hascup, who posts here from time to time, attended most of the court proceedings... and he's certain, that Carter was guilty.

Some of the posts ^^^^

[The Old LefHook]

If anyone took their beliefs from or left tears at the movie, the film had Carter getting robbed in his loss to Giardello and being railroaded into prison. But the problem is, Giardello slapped Carter silly and made it look easy. The movie was so fouly biased that Giardello sued the producers and won, if that tells anyone anything. It tells me the movie was a pile of dog meat after it has passed through the dog.

#1 Assassain is probably black. His cynicism that no motive was ever uncovered, seems correct. His other statement that: Black men cannot receive a fair trial in America, has the clarion ring of squalling. Think of some new words. Most black men get a fair trial in America, it's that simple. That's how America works. Any person picked at random can get a fair trial 65-70% of the time, possibly more often. Overall, blacks should do only slightly worse than whites because of their hue in Maine, and I am no black 'un. Not sure about ol' Dixie

Evidence must be air-tight to convict someone of murder. Can circumstantial evidence ever be strong enough in a murder case? Yes, I suspect so. I only have to imagine a dear relative murdered to know there is a line at which mounting circumstantial evidence achieves enough. Perhaps the prosecution had a paltry bag of circumstantial evidence to match their empty sack of physical evidence.

Like I said, the stuff I read was heavily inflected against Carter. I believe quite a lot of it was from local newspaper accounts immediately following the mass killing, and during the trial, now that I think of it.

To be honest, I was hoping someone else would do most of the heavy lifting for me, and I could be lazy and make up my mind out of their contributions. The other fellow Nelson mentioned did some heavy lifting. But he's dead or gone. I can't jabber to posts written ages ago, so it is not the same active, communal experience.

Years ago I was on another boxing forum where someone had put in a similar effort to hhascup. Maybe it was the same guy. Those posts and the apparent evidence were heavily inflected toward Carter being guilty. I also recall a lot of articles excerpted from newspapers and court records, with portions highlighted in yellow. Anyone?

Heave! Ho!

[soul_survivor]

I don't know enough about the case but from what I do know, there was enough doubt cast to stop a murder conviction from happening, that's all that matters right? How can one be convicted of murder if there is enough doubt he may be innocent?

[The Old LefHook]

Sounds like the Noble prize winner forgot to do his research. In the hands of a master propagandist anything could be made believable. The untruths propogated by the movie and song go way beyond fair poetic license, I believe. As artists they can always claim they were more interested in revealing the general truths of racism than the particular case. Then the movie and song should have been about the general societal situation of racism not about the particular case. The song, fostering its false historical view, will be a staple for generations. In other words, there is still a price to pay for this song. It will be used again, it will inspire again.

Dylan was no innocent victim, unless he is the dumbest Noble laureate of all time. Instead of doing his research he was content to let his already-held world view of racism in America have full sway for the sake of telling his audience what they wanted and expected to hear.

But who else could write a line like They looked like middleweights? Dylan was the all time master of song lyrics. It is too bad that an idol of mine had to forget the value of honest research once. Based on this song he would not deserve the Noble prize. Fortunately, the size and quality of his output make this political song a rarity.

It is hard to come to a definitive decision on Carter's guilt or innocence. There seems to have been quite a lot of circumstantial evidence, if you want to call eyewitness identification circumstantial. On a dark corner at night I think it is circumstantial, or dubious at best. The description of the car and its unique tail lights seems more reliable. The distinctive car was a classic "colored 'mobile," right out of the era, Carter had bought with winnings, and was easily recognizable.

[Anthony342]

Whether he did it or not, the details of the movie were complete crap and there was actually no evidence that cleared Carter. Just an overturned conviction because of the prosecution failing to turn over some evidence, resulting in an unfair trial, plus with all the time passed, witnesses were either dead or too old to remember what they saw: