Hurricane Carter ..rip

[JimStinson]

Just found out he passed today ..another sad day , Great boxer but even greater "human" story ..sad
____________________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

Vintage autographs for Sale Now at My web site
http://stinsonsports.com/autographs-for-sale/

[JimStinson]

"Hatred and bitterness and anger only consume the vessel that contains them. It doesn't hurt another soul," Carter told CNN. "If I were to allow myself to continue to feel that anger and the bitterness of being a victim, I would have never survived prison itself. Prison can deal with anger; prison can deal with hatred because prison is about all those things. So I had to overcome those things."

[Big Dave]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgDx...e_gdata_player

[Jim65]

The man murdered 3 people, no matter what one idiot judge said. I hope his death was extemely painful.

[Big Dave]

He did not murder those three and there is plenty of evidence against that, but none for a trumped up conviction. Research and perhaps your mind won't be so closed. Not saying he was an angel or anything near that, but he didn't kill those people in the bar.

Cops lie all the time, fabricate evidence, break the law, bend the rules, , everything. Especially back during those times against minorities. Not much has really changed either.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Big Dave

He did not murder those three and there is plenty of evidence against that, but none for a trumped up conviction. Research and perhaps your mind won't be so closed. Not saying he was an angel or anything near that, but he didn't kill those people in the bar.

Cops lie all the time, fabricate evidence, break the law, bend the rules, , everything. Especially back during those times against minorities. Not much has really changed either.

I have done research. Ruben was convicted twice and set free by a judge who didn't even say he was innocent. The problem with this case has always been that people base their opinions on his book and later on the movie, on which Ruben was a consultant. His book and the movie are full of fabricatiions and outright lies. Why does he need to lie if he ws innocent?

[Bpm0014]

You are correct Jim65

[Big Dave]

Both convictions were overturned on appeal, and the prosecution decided not to try the case a third time, thus the Judge granted the PROSECUTION'S request to
drop all proceedings. Never read the book nor seen any movie.

Apparently there were a lot of problems with the prosecutor's case since it was overturned both times and they decided not to try it a third time.

[Westsiders]

Originally Posted by Jim65

I have done research. Ruben was convicted twice and set free by a judge who didn't even say he was innocent. The problem with this case has always been that people base their opinions on his book and later on the movie, on which Ruben was a consultant. His book and the movie are full of fabricatiions and outright lies. Why does he need to lie if he ws innocent?

+1

Great point about fabrications and lies. As I've learned many years ago...a lie has many versions, while the truth only has one.

[Big Dave]

And that is why his two convictions were overturned by multiple judges....Prosecutional misconduct, fabrications, and outright lies.

But what the heck, people will believe what they want, regardless of the facts.

[JimStinson]

I was asked to screen the movie "The Hurricane" shortly after its release , by some newspaper or TV station , I honestly can't remember which.
I did and I told them the movie was 99% fiction , they DID spell his name right . The portrayal of his being "robbed" of the title in his title fight with Joey Giardello was the worst travesty as Giardello was a fighter that was old school, took on all comers and was afraid of no one. By Carter's own admission as told TO ME he thought he had found a chink in Joey's armor in the 2nd round but Giardello consummate boxer that he was saw it too and corrected it and from then on the fight was a boxing lesson. The fight was not even close. And Carter knew it even congratulated Joey after the fight and thanked him for the title shot , which actually should have went to Joey Archer, who had already beaten the bejesus out of Carter, But Rubin was ranked #1 and Joey did the right thing. In the movie the police and the detectives got a bad rap too.
His book from prison the 16th round was a good read , completely forthcoming ? Probably not .....but more on point than the movie.
Carter was imprisoned in Rahway NJ where I grew up and fact is during the prison riots according to many of the guards he helped to save lives including their own because of the sway he had among the inmates.
In the real world however he had a consummate knack for forgetting people when it was convenient for him. When he was released from prison, and in need of funds I arranged a private signing. He was charismatic and charming I suggested the lecture circuit. He was always available by phone ....and had numerous conversations , Until the movie came out...even then I was not the only one , of the numbers I had to call I was told "yea he cut us loose too"
Can't say I blame him I'd rather talk with Denzel Washington on the phone than me..
But later when he became a celebrity of causes , and Larry King talked about his being "robbed" in the Giardello fight , couldn't he have set the record straight ? instead of smiling and nodding.
So when it comes down to the truth or lack of it , that was a brutal triple murder that night on June 16th, 1966 over at the Lafayette Bar and Grill in Patterson New Jersey. And I was not there and neither was anyone reading this post. Do I have opinions ? Of course I do. But now the ultimate judge will render his verdict and will have nothing to do with testimony or evidence...and it will be the truth. The only thing worse than doing what someone did that night in the Lafayette, is NOT doing it and being accused of it.
_________________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

Vintage autographs for Sale Now at My web site
http://stinsonsports.com/autographs-for-sale/

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Big Dave

But what the heck, people will believe what they want, regardless of the facts.

I guess we can agree on that much.

Just for the record, I grew up in Paterson and always believed he was innocent until I really did research and changed my opinion.

[Big Dave]

Well, we will leave it at that. As Jim stated, God will be the utimate judge of his guilt.

[2dueces]

Originally Posted by Jim65

I have done research. Ruben was convicted twice and set free by a judge who didn't even say he was innocent. The problem with this case has always been that people base their opinions on his book and later on the movie, on which Ruben was a consultant. His book and the movie are full of fabricatiions and outright lies. Why does he need to lie if he ws innocent?

Everyone should read the facts on this case. His alibi changed 16 times. His co defendant and his alibi never matched. So much wrong with his story. He was set free on a procedural error, not because of innocence. The movie and the book are out right lies to the facts. Anyone that has researched this for even 10 minutes cannot say this man is innocent.

[Westsiders]

Originally Posted by 2dueces

Everyone should read the facts on this case. His alibi changed 16 times. His co defendant and his alibi never matched. So much wrong with his story. He was set free on a procedural error, not because of innocence. The movie and the book are out right lies to the facts. Anyone that has researched this for even 10 minutes cannot say this man is innocent.

Completely agree. I saw the movie years ago, and naively assumed that he was an innocent man that was wrongfully convicted. After researching the case, I'm embarrassed that the wool was pulled over my eyes, and ashamed that I supported the movie with the purchase of my ticket. The research that I conducted was in hopes of supporting my position of innocence, but the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. I'm simply astounded at the level of support he received over the past 40+ years. Denzel Washington calling this man "all love" is simply laughable.

Unfortunately, the conviction of innocent people is something that unquestionably has, and still does occur....and thankfully there are some outstanding organizations that fight on their behalf. But in my opinion, this was not one of those cases.

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by Westsiders

I'm simply astounded at the level of support he received over the past 40+ years. Denzel Washington calling this man "all love" is simply laughable.

Without commenting on this case specifically, the Hollywood and music crowd has a long history of naively attaching themselves to dubious causes. Entertainers are rarely legal or geopolitical experts. They are just regurgitating the line of the special interest group that has worked their way into a trusted position.

[johnmh71]

Great topic. I admit that I only know what was in the movie. What would have been his possible motivation to commit the shooting?

[JimStinson]

Originally Posted by johnmh71

Great topic. I admit that I only know what was in the movie. What would have been his possible motivation to commit the shooting?

Great question as the motive was not robbery as all the money was in the till. In fact the principal witness for the prosecution by his own admission stepped over dead bodies to empty the till before he called police , Oh and prior to that he was minutes earlier a lookout for a factory robbery which is the reason he was there in the first place , nothing good happens at 2:30 am in the morning

[2dueces]

The black step father of a friend was killed by a white man in a business disagreement earlier in the evening.

The witness was the lookout for the factory robbery, not Carter.

Carter's car was positively identified by 2 witnesses. He was stopped again in his car a few blocks from the scene. It was a newer white dodge with out of state plates and butterfly tail lights with two black occupants. At 2:30 am it pretty much narrows down the suspects.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by 2dueces

The black step father of a friend was killed by a white man in a business disagreement earlier in the evening.

The witness was the lookout for the factory robbery, not Carter.

Carter's car was positively identified by 2 witnesses. He was stopped again in his car a few blocks from the scene. It was a newer white dodge with out of state plates and butterfly tail lights with two black occupants. At 2:30 am it pretty much narrows down the suspects.

John Artis was driving Rubin's car while Rubin was ducked down in the back seat, probably because he knew Al Bello got a real good look at him. The movie made it look like Bello was across the street when in reality he came within about 10 feet of Rubin and Artis as they walked to the car.

[JimStinson]

Correct ! the other witness Arthur Badley was also a felon committing a crime at 2:30 am along with his "friend" Al Bellow....both were witnesses , although at the time of the trial Mr. Bradley was incarcerated. Bradley's friend that evening , Bellow first delivered the money stolen from the cash register BY HIM (see confession) to Bradley before coincidentally calling police. Nice of him to do that

It should be noted here with all due respect that the Police official that investigated the case the honorable Mr. Vince DeSimone was considered by ALL that have ever worked with him as the ULTIMATE HONEST POLICE OFFICIER Unlike the villain portrayed in the film ..was NOT a racist so this was NOT a racial crime ......so we agree. Mr DeSimone does NOT belong in this argument. His reputation is beyond question as anything BUT honorable so take him out of the mix.

The 32 caliber bullet recovered from the car the ONLY physical evidence of the shooting matched the same caliber weapon used in the crime , except for the fact that is was NOT the same type tip of bullet used in the shooting and was removed from the suspects car DAYS later

[baseball tourist]

Having grown up in Toronto, the city Carter settled in post incarceration I will admit that I heard bits and pieces about him, his history and his new life over the years but did not research his story. I appreciate understanding some of the facts and would like to hear other opinions.

[JimStinson]

Originally Posted by Jim65

John Artis was driving Rubin's car while Rubin was ducked down in the back seat, probably because he knew Al Bello got a real good look at him. The movie made it look like Bello was across the street when in reality he came within about 10 feet of Rubin and Artis as they walked to the car.

Agreed , now ask yourself this common sense question , according to Mr. Bello he was within 10 to 15 feet of the killers as they exited the bar, with a 32 caliber handgun and a 12 gauge shotgun at 2:30 am in the morning. They obviously SAW him as he said he "ran" from them , would you then enter the bar minutes later to empty the cash register and call police ? Or would you be afraid of your own safety as Bello claimed to be when he recanted his testimony in the 2nd trial
???
No wait ..it gets even better , Return to the bar empty the cash register deliver the money to your accomplish and then return to call police ?
Then when Carter is brought to the crime scene that night identify him as wearing the same clothes he was witnessed fleeing in ....................which was a White sport coat which according to police had no blood evidence of what was a bloody and brutal crime scene. Also to note I have many times fell asleep in the back seat of someone's car after returning from a bar at 2:30 am in the morning.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by JimStinson

Agreed , now ask yourself this common sense question , according to Mr. Bello he was within 10 to 15 feet of the killers as they exited the bar, with a 32 caliber handgun and a 12 gauge shotgun at 2:30 am in the morning. They obviously SAW him as he said he "ran" from them , would you then enter the bar minutes later to empty the cash register and call police ? Or would you be afraid of your own safety as Bello claimed to be when he recanted his testimony in the 2nd trial
???
No wait ..it gets even better , Return to the bar empty the cash register deliver the money to your accomplish and then return to call police ?
Then when Carter is brought to the crime scene that night identify him as wearing the same clothes he was witnessed fleeing in ....................which was a White sport coat which according to police had no blood evidence of what was a bloody and brutal crime scene. Also to note I have many times fell asleep in the back seat of someone's car after returning from a bar at 2:30 am in the morning.

Neither Bello or Bradley were nice guys. Bello recanted his testimony out of fear and a promise of money but it should be noted that Bello passed a lie detector during the retrial. IMO Patty Valentines testimony is not so easy to dispute, she identified Rubin's car when he was brought back to the bar.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by JimStinson

The 32 caliber bullet recovered from the car the ONLY physical evidence of the shooting matched the same caliber weapon used in the crime , except for the fact that is was NOT the same type tip of bullet used in the shooting and was removed from the suspects car DAYS later

The bullet and the shotgun shell were found in Rubin's car the morning of the murders but were not logged until 2 days later.

[JimStinson]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Neither Bello or Bradley were nice guys. Bello recanted his testimony out of fear and a promise of money but it should be noted that Bello passed a lie detector during the retrial. IMO Patty Valentines testimony is not so easy to dispute, she identified Rubin's car when he was brought back to the bar.

Have to agree with you on that one , if not mistaken Bello passed two lie detector tests , (Can anyone here comment on how accurate lie detectors are ? I don't know the answer)
And yes Patty Valentine had a birds eye view of the car, the question is did she see the car passing in the street ? she looked out her "right" front window which might indicate she saw the car passing her house. which would make it entirely plausible it was the car they were driving but not the car actually leaving the scene of the crime.
Also from what I've read the jury in the 1st trail (Which was NOT an all white jury as portrayed in the film) only debated the case 8 hours and those still living as well as family members of the jurors insist to this day they 100% got it right.

[bigtrain]

My close friend represented Carter on one of his early Habeas Corpus proceedings and was mentioned favorably by Carter in one of his books. The State messed up the prosecution, failed to turn over discovery including exculpatory documents and my friend took a statement from a State's witness who recanted, among other things. Carter's conviction was thrown out by Judge Sarokin because he did not get a fair trial, not necessarily because he was innocent.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by JimStinson

Have to agree with you on that one , if not mistaken Bello passed two lie detector tests , (Can anyone here comment on how accurate lie detectors are ? I don't know the answer)
And yes Patty Valentine had a birds eye view of the car, the question is did she see the car passing in the street ? she looked out her "right" front window which might indicate she saw the car passing her house. which would make it entirely plausible it was the car they were driving but not the car actually leaving the scene of the crime.
Also from what I've read the jury in the 1st trail (Which was NOT an all white jury as portrayed in the film) only debated the case 8 hours and those still living as well as family members of the jurors insist to this day they 100% got it right.

I believe she testified she saw 2 men get into the car, then the car pull away, another neighbor (the name escapes me, Ruggiero?) saw the car drive by after Bello ran.

The movie shows the car parked in front of the bar (E 18th) it was actually parked on the side street (Lafayette)

[packs]

I'm not a lawyer but I believe lie detector tests and their results are not permissible in a court of law. They are not binding and shed no light on whether someone is being truthful or not. Though asking someone who you perceive to be guilty to take a lie detector test is a reliable interrogation technique, the results don't mean anything in a court of law.

Polygraph tests are easily manipulated. It's entirely possible for an innocent person to appear guilty and for a guilty person to appear innocent. All a polygraph test is good for is measuring stress. So when a person who is guilty is lying, their stress level goes up. But the same is true when an innocent person is fearful and answering questions they believe could put them in prison.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by packs

I'm not a lawyer but I believe lie detector tests and their results are not permissible in a court of law. They are not binding and shed no light on whether someone is being truthful or not. Though asking someone who you perceive to be guilty to take a lie detector test is a reliable interrogation technique, the results don't mean anything in a court of law.

Polygraph tests are easily manipulated. It's entirely possible for an innocent person to appear guilty and for a guilty person to appear innocent. All a polygraph test is good for is measuring stress. So when a person who is guilty is lying, their stress level goes up. But the same is true when an innocent person is fearful and answering questions they believe could put them in prison.

Polygraphs can be admissible, its usually up to the judge.

The truthful person who is stressed because they are nervous will usually show stress on all questions including when asked name and age. Thats where the skill of the examiner is important.

[packs]

I don't think so. If I am not mistaken there are only certain states where polygraph tests are allowed as evidence and that is only on the condition that both parties (prosecution and defense, not judge) agree to the results being entered.

The judge's discretion I think only applies to federal cases.