The Hurricane

[enrique]

Let us see what the facts are:

RECORD: a 25-12-1 record does not establish Carter as an all time great. His peak period was 1962-1963 when he scored some notable wins- Griffith, Fernandez, Benton- but overall he lost a dozen -some to very good fighters- and others to not some stellar performers such as Ernie Bufford.

TRIAL: As pointed out, Carter was released on technicalities, not acquitted for being innocent.

CELEBRITIES: It's a fact that Dylan, the celebrities and the support team dissapeared after he was released from jail.

The movie.... well, that was pure crap, fluff piece where characters that did not even exist were portrayed as real.

Rubin Carter is a felon who is still trying to cling to his fifteen minutes of fame.

[Ezzard]

I checked out Alan Sugar's story and it seems as if carter has all but dropped him, which seems terrible considering the sacrifices Ron made.

[cosand]

Decagon



Joined: 28 Sep 2005
Posts: 4790

Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 5:39 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cosand wrote:
The FACT is, that if you want to blame someone for bringing "race" into the issue, blame the prosicution, and the judge who allowed it in the first place. Anyone who knows the facts of the case and can deny that, does not just border on retarded, they have trancended the term
Um, all that crap about racist police officers, judges and prosecution was a complete fabrication by the filmmakers, and has nothing to do with "fact."

You simply have a poor understanding of the trial, which is based on a popular movie instead of what actually happened.

You and Berry should get a room together

Both so fixated on a song, a movie, and a racist psycho web sight you are both so fond of posting.

I'll say it ONE more time, slooooooowly.... in more detail, just so the two of you can follow along...maybe

A federal judge..H Lee Seroken..one of the most respected of all federal judges, a federal judge who holds a Jurist in Residence position at the university of San Diego, has authored more than 2,000 written opinions, authored various articles including publkished in national law reviews, was was appointed by former Chief Justice Rehnquist to the Judicial Conference on Court Administration and Case Management, and was Chair of the Case Management Subcommittee charged with implementing the Civil Justice Reform Act.......... ruled in the Carter that Due Process , Equal Protection, Discovery and habeas corpus were violated. The same judge also ruled the the verdict was tainted by racism.

OH...BUT WAIT !...Dracagon and Berry disagree, and they have a tin foil hat style whacko web sight composed by some nutjob to back them up. (From which they take what they call the "facts" of the case)
Well that changes things huh ?
Bwhahahahahahahaha !!!!!!!!!!!
(That means laughing at you both, really hard)
Ummm...which High schools did you two almost graduate from ?

Sorry fellas....all you rage and resentment will not change the facts of the matter, and neither will regurgitating quasi intellectual bigotry.
Bullshiite stated with conviction, is still bullshiite

[cosand]

Dentsun4228



Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 87
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:10 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seems to me like a lot of people have their minds made up about this. It's hard to read some of these posts because it's like some of the posters have never even CONSIDERED the possibility that they might not know what the heck happened that night. One poster says "why should he receive a fair trial when he was guilty?" or something to that effect. Another poster says: "Everybody knows he was guilty just like OJ". I know I'm paraphrasing but it seems like there are a lot of closed minds on this topic. It's an important point to make because none of us were there at the time. We really don't know what happened. I would venture to say that none of the guys posting on this website are qualified to judge Rubin Carter or comment on his "personal character". In other words, most of you are full of cr@p. If the movie was full of speculation, so are all of you. Who knows if Carter was a hero or a scumbag? It's all a matter of perspective. It was a great movie and it had something to say about the way justice or injustice is prosecuted in America.

Well said....

The movie was what it it was. Like all movies of it's type, it used revisionsist drama to make a point.
Did Carter do it ? Only Carter and God know that.

What can not be disputed however, is that a highly respected federal judge ruled, based on that pesky Constitution and rule of law that some people find so objectionable (except when it benifits them) that the conviction was based on judicial misconduct and racial bias.

Nothing can change that fact. not psycho racist web sights, not angry white boys who feel slighted because a black man found justice, and not revisonist history.

I used David Koresh as an example in an earlier post, but the fringe media and the internet is littered with crusading rants about he and other white trash who are supposed to have been wronged by even the slightest legal or social technicality, yet those of the same ilk, present and create material defaming Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Muhammad Ali and in this case Rubin Carter.
Like I also said in that post, were it not so unjust amnd idiotic, it would almost be amusing.

[cosand]

Decagon



Joined: 28 Sep 2005
Posts: 4795

Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:36 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure, some of the jurors were racist, but even if they weren't, he'd still have been found guilty.

Maybe, or maybe not.

The Federal judge didn’t make his decision based on a song or a movie, he based it on the facts of the case and the rule of law.

One has to wonder, if his guilt was that clear cut, why the prosecution in the original case felt the need to resort to what the federal court described as one of the most flagrant cases of judicial misconduct it had ever reviewed.

Enrique has pointed out a couple time that carter was never found to be "innocent"
'Innocent" is not an option is the American judicial system. There is Guilty or 'Not Guilty" based on the evidence presented. The difference is much more then semantics

Bottom line, Justice was served in this case...finally

[silkov]

I've never seen evidence that proves Carter was guilty, everyone knows how corrupt the police and Justice system is, back in the 60s it was even worse... it surprises me that many on here are willing to condemn Carter when theres no real evidence to prove his guilt.

[cosand]

Decagon



Joined: 28 Sep 2005
Posts: 4802

Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:45 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, take a look at the following article comparing the report Sarokin used to set Carter free with what actually happened:

http://www.graphicwitness.com/carter/sarokin_wrong.htm

Basically, Sarokin was working with a faulty report, and he set Carter free without a full knowledge of the facts. For more info, you can read the prosecutor's case against Carter:

http://www.graphicwitness.com/carter/brief-long.html

Are you freaking kidding me?

Are you honestly going to even attempt to claim that a half whacked out fruit loop like Cal Deal, and a prosecutor who was found to be in misconduct in the case, is more reputable then the judgment and due diligence of a judge like H. Lee Sarokin, a man who for 27 years has been shown to be totally beyond reproach and an a authority, some say THE authority on Constitutional law????????

Dude, you are reaching

Cal Deal is a right wing zealot nut job with a personal agenda and an axe to grind. His questioning Sarokan's decision is like a learning disabled 6th grader questioning the uniform proton inertia theory.

And lest anyone thinks Sarokin is some flaming Liberal...think again

He was appointed by former Chief Justice Rehnquist (a judge two and a half steps to the RIGHT of Mussulini) to the Judicial Conference on Court Administration and Case Management

[cosand]

Decagon



Joined: 28 Sep 2005
Posts: 4805

Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:10 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sarokin based his decision on one document. He simply didn't do enough research on this case.

Good GOD !
You ARE claiming Deal has more credibilty then Sarokan !
Well at least you're not claiming the decision was based on a book and a Movie anymore.
So i gguess based on your groundbreaking discovery and legal expertize, we can expect the judicial peer review for the perpuse of condmening and senshuring Sarokan for judicial misconduct and neglagence any day now right ?

LOL'

Don't hold your breath.

Once again, Sarokans decison was based on the disposition of the original trial, and the conduct of the prosiction.
Do you NOT see the differnce between THAT and a rehashingg of evidence that was at best, questionable and suspect in the first place ?

By the way, Sarokan's was NOT the final word in the case. the prosicution DID appeal

do you really beleive the 3rd circuit court and the SCOTUS was 'wrong too ?

Here is the result of the appeal of the sarokas decision

U.S. District Court Judge H. Lee Sarokin was assigned Carter's Habeas Corpus case. His lengthy decision on November 7, 1985 was in favor of Carter and Artis.

Judge Sarokin quoted extensively from the New Jersey Supreme Court dissenting opinion wherein three of seven judges found the suppressed polygraph evidence would have made a material difference in the outcome of Carter's second trial. Sarokin also made the point that

In fact, Bello never identified Carter and Artis as the murderers.
Judge Sarokin knew the respected Third Circuit Court of Appeals - and possibly the United States Supreme Court - would review his actions. He also knew it was possible the higher courts would find he abused his discretion, but he did what he believed was right.

Immediate release from custody [he set Carter free] with prejudice [meaning the case is over forever] is rarely awarded, and when it is, the appellate courts may find abuse of discretion
Prosecutors filed an Appeal with the Third Circuit. The government also asked the court for an order directing the prison superintendent to keep Carter in prison until the appeal was decided. The reason? Carter was a dangerous man.

The court disagreed, and Carter remained free while the judges decided the state's appeal. The unanimous result could not have been more favorable for Carter. Here is part of what the Third Circuit judges said in their Opinion:

...nder any reasonable characterization of the 1976 trial, the critical importance of Bello's testimony to the prosecution's case clearly looms large and commanding. Bello's eyewitness identification testimony was the only direct evidence placing Carter and Artis at the Lafayette Bar & Grill. Bello's credibility, as well as his opportunity and ability to observe the gunmen at the crime scene, has to be considered an issue that is crucial to the guilt-finding process. We are not confronted by a situation in which the suppressed evidence - here, information impeaching Bello's credibility and challenging his professed vantage point - was of only 'minor importance.' Justice Clifford noted in dissent, and we agree, that a complete account of Harrelson's [the professor's] polygraph examinations and the prosecution's use of his conflicting oral and written conclusions had the real capacity...to bring about the utter destruction of by far the most important witness in the State's arsenal, with the fallout levelling the vaunted polygraphists and casting doubt on the tactics of the prosecution. Never before [this information was uncovered] could defendants argue so persuasively that Bello was in all respects a complete, unvarnished liar, utterly incapable of speaking the truth.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed the overturned conviction, and Carter remained a free man. Although the State of New Jersey appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, the high court did not change the outcome. The final fight ended when prosecutors did not seek a third trial.

[TheRiverCityHippy]

Did Carter lose in England to a english journey man fighter called Harry Scott?

Yes he won and lost a fight to Liverpools Harry Scott who was more than a journeyman fighter to be fair. Although Carter was on the slide by then possible due to heavy drinking.

i read somewhere carter was ranked in the top 3 mw`s when scott beat him.
although he lost a fair few as well, scott went in with the likes of griffiths, minter, benvenutti, sandro mazzinghi, chris finnegan, kevin finnegan, yolande pompey, laszlo papp, wally swift, bunny sterling, les mcateer, tom bogs etc. etc.

[hhascup]

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.