MovieChat Forums > The Hurricane (2000) Discussion > Any evidence of Carter's innocents ?

Any evidence of Carter's innocents ?


I'm aware of the follouwing evidence of his guilt. I would like to believe in his innocents, but I have found no real world basis.

Artis and Carter failied their lie detector tests and refused a no risk test prior to the second trial. The central eyewitness, although a degenerate, passed with regard to witnessing Carter at the scene in each and every instance. Cater had clear motive,and discussed finding his guns and revenge for his friends dads murder earlier



He had false paid alibis, Matching ammo in the car and no exonerating evidence. He had a history of illicit gun use. Two witnesses identified him at the first trial. His unique car was identified by witnesses as well.

reply

I guess not.

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.

reply

Mr.Carter is an innocent man. He was at my school earlier on today and he had told us his story and what had happened. He never committed that murder and for 13 years he was in prision for something he did not commit. He is a very nice and funny man, he takes his work very seriously by travelling all around the world meeting with many presidents and government officials. Mr.Carter makes it very clear that he is innocent, and he is.

reply

Soccer, thanks for clearing it up. He was a really funny and friendly man and is thus innocent.

reply

Charles Manson seems pretty funny, and he hasn't killed anyone lately...

Parole Granted!

You Play Ball Like A GIRL!=Hams,The Sandlot

reply

[deleted]

Charles Manson seems pretty funny, and he hasn't killed anyone lately.

As far as I recall, he has never been shown to have actually killed anyone.

reply

soccer
You are a joke!! I got a great laugh out of your 3 year old post! He was in prison 20 years, give or take, not 13, for the murders.
LOL! What did you think he was gonna get paid a hefty price to come to your school and tell you he was really guilty?!(Btw, that's what he does for a living, He is a motivational speaker)
You better really do some good research, and investigating. Common sense will tell you he is walking around free, (as OJ was) when really pretty obviously guilty.

reply

A Federal Court judge must have seen some evidence of his innocence if he overturned his conviction. Hollywood may have made up some parts of that movie, but not that part.

3rd Party 2012

reply

It didn't overturn his conviction. He was merely released for time served. They didn't want to bother with another trial. I've read up on material, and while I liked the movie, it's absolute fiction. Carter was a violent man, he was a dishonorable soldier, he did drink alcohol, and his career was going down at the time of the murders. The revenge motive fits because the bar WAS racist, making it a target in a black community. The racist detective played by Dan Heyda does not exist. He's based on a real Italian American detective on the case who was not racist, an honest cop, and had no prior connections to Carter. The case against Carter was a good one: his car was pulled over twice because it matched the description of the getaway car. Carter was suspiciously lying down in the backseat, as if trying to hide. Bello got a good look at him: he was not across the street, but on the same sidewalk that Carter was on.

reply

His innocence...however faulty and very doubtful sure does make for a good song though...but that's it! He was as guilty as OJ.

reply

He's as guilty as OJ? There you have everyone. He's guilty.



It's nobody's business but ours.

reply

Yeah that's right. Is there any doubt whatsoever that OJ was guilty? You'd have to be a complete moron or in deep denial to think otherwise. Just like with the murderer Orenthal James Simpson, all the evidence pointed towards Rueben Carter and Artis being the killers. If you have any evidence that points to their innocence then let's hear it. In fact, I'd love to hear it.

reply

I believe Carter is innocent, it's my opinion & I'm entitled to it.
It's sad to see all of these responses comparing him to O.J. Simpson, besides being Black & playing a sport, they have nothing in common.
All the references to Carter being kicked out of the army, after 21 months.
Carter was 17 when he was discharged, he wasn't even old enough to be in the army.
So he definitely wasn't mature enough to handle the situation.
Now if the U.S. Govt. can make a mistake like that, is it not possible to imagine
the type of mistakes that were made in Carter's trial?
It was a different era & the fact is Carter was released.
Carter spent 20 yrs, behind bars which wasn't an easy stretch.
He educated himself, wrote a book, & once released did some good work for others wrongly convicted.
I'll simply say this:
The evidence found in his car was found 5 days after the arrest, so it could have been planted there.
Lie detector tests are no longer admissible in court cases, b/c they are imperfect tests. So failing 1 doesn't truly reflect guilt.
Carter wasn't the only person Black man in NJ who owned a white car of that make or similar make.
Fact is he would have to be the dumbest person in the world to use his car in a murder, where witnesses were present, & continue to drive around that time of nite in that neighborhood. Especially after already having been pulled over that nite.
The statements made on both sides of the case are questionable & have changed over time. You can believe whatever you want, b/c it's your right to have your own opinion.

reply

Both professional athletes, and both got away with first degree murder. I'd say they have a lot in common. You brought up the black part though. I'll go with the overwhelming evidence pointing directly at Carter and Artis, if there's evidence pointing to someone else then I'd be more than happy to give it full consideration. Personally I'd rather see Carter innocent, I'm a big Dylan fan. That would make his song true - like i originally thought it was. But even with my Dylan bias, after looking at all the facts of the case, all the evidence points towards Carter and Artis as the gunmen. I'm just using common sense, nothing racist about it at all.

reply

Let me share you top ten myths about Rubin Carter for FACTS' sake.

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-defense," 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 defense examined a staggering 377 jurors. The defense 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 in the Dylan song, 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, *beep* 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. This is not pertinent to the murders, but just like Myth #10, it's something the defense keeps insisting upon.

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.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/

RON PAUL 2012

reply

Re: Any evidence of Carter's innocents ?
by Kazuya_Ryuzaki (Sat Dec 24 2011 11:23:15)
Let me share you top ten myths about Rubin Carter for FACTS' sake.

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 yet a Federal judge saw fit to release a twice convicted person. What does this say? Does a judge just release a person who shot and killed three people - after "time served"?

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-defense," 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...

I though Hurricane blew those folks away because he was for black power. Was that not the motive? Why would a top boxer have motive to get a gun find some one else with a gun and kill some random joes (and a josiette) at a bar? You really can not have it both ways - unless you are insane - like Charles Manson.

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.

What evidence?

reply

The evidence was found in his car soon after, witness's saw it also.
Somehow you are right,it was not submitted or recorded for 5 days.
You are entitled to your own opinion yes, But if you really do your homework it is so blatantly obvious of his guilt!!
I loved the film, a brilliant performance Denzel, and was a great money making idea, but was blown away to realize he was really guilty. Even just check his character, and past arrests and crimes, and motivation, pretty much common sense.

reply

The "exhibits" were not handed in until weeks after the incident. If they had been found in Carter's car that night, why were they not handed in then?

The sole survivor of the shooting made a dying deposition that Carter and Artis were not the offenders.

Witnesses described the offenders as black men about 5'11" tall of medium build, Neither was described as having a shaven head or a prominent mustache. Carter
was 5'8" tall and stocky, Artis well over 6'tall and skinny.

Several Grand Juries refused to indict either man before the Paterson Police promised Bello and Bradley immunity for crimes they had been arrested for.

A defendant does not have to prove his innocence in Court, it is up to the prosecution to prove his guilt.

reply

If you do an all evening and next day research, as I did, after viewing film for the first time yesterday, You would be somewhat ignorant to believe in his innocence.

reply

[deleted]