Rubin (Hurricane) Carter, a star prizefighter whose career was cut short by a murder conviction in New Jersey and who became an international cause célèbre while imprisoned for 19 years before the charges against him were dismissed, died on Sunday morning at his home in Toronto, confirmed. He was 76.
some more discussion after the movie came out that showed that he in fact did commit the murder. There was some website that did an exhaustive review of the evidence (and even went so far as to pick apart Dylan's song) that pointed in the direction for Carter's guilt. I'll have to find it.
both convictions overturned on technicalities.The state declined to try him again. He was never cleared of anything. Dylan has not performed the song since 1978. Tells you something about Carter.
He passed a lie detector test. The testimony of the guy that led to his conviction flipped flopped twice. And he was then released from prison as a wrongly convicted man. But he's still somehow guilty according to a couple posters based on knowledge that's from exactly where again?
Is not dispositive. This happens all the time, almost always after the SOL on perjury has run out. The witnesses rarely have anything to lose decades later.
"Paul Mulshine has been working as a professional journalist since 1975, when he took his first job, as a reporter for the Ocean County Observer in Toms River, where he grew up. He later worked for the Philadelphia Daily News. After some years doing freelance foreign correspondence and magazine writing, Mulshine came to the Star-Ledger in 1995. He regards himself as perhaps the sole remaining old-time conservative columnist at a major newspaper in America."
Does not seem like a right wing nutjob to me. Attacking the source of an article rather than actually refuting what he writes is not a way to have a meaningful debate. Just a way to avoid responding to uncomfortable facts.
I think the Federal court that finally threw it out Â
Sort of like like asking how you separate far leftist and communist but that is not a question I would ask. Everyone still avoiding actually considering the linked story.
that linked story does not prove him guilty of the triple murder. It may or may not prove he was a crook, but his use of the word "thug" colors his journalism. Also, he doesn't offer support for some of his claims. So, though I believe Carter did a bunch of bad stuff, I've never seen proof that he killed anyone, nor is any offered there.
And it's written in bitter response to a movie, not a response to the series of trials.
So, what are you trying to gauge by whether someone read that article or not?
Ok. I never said one way or the other whether he did it. Just wanted input on the article. The article certainly built a good case of what type of person he was and the lack of integrity of those who made that movie.
...your words: "The fact that an eyewitness recants is not dispositive."
Sounds good! Except for one thing.
A crucial prosecution witness did NOT recant his testimony.
He recanted his recantation.
Translation:
Rubin "Hurricane" Carter was convicted with a spinning top.
Not good... dispositive or not dispositive.
I don't know enough about this case to pass judgment. I'm talking more broadly, about witnesses that have been encouraged, be it by family of the convicted or by the saintly volunteers of The Innocence Project, because they are unlikely to face negative consequences for doing so and because, taken with other factors, it may be enough to get a new trial. And twenty plus years after the fact a new trial might as well be a pardon.
a teammate of mine when we won a national bridge championship in 1960. Burrell Humphreys was also an accomplished tennis player and we bumped heads a few times in inter-club matches over the years.
Essex County retained his services as assignment judge some years ago and he cleared out a serious backlog in a couple of years. Told me he just kept saying, when asked for continuances, something to the effect of "no. do the best you can."
the witnesses were highly unreliable, and one of the victims said Carter was *not* he shooter when brought to the hospital at 4am.
However, the common sense bell starts ringing when you consider:
A)Carter's history
B)Its been established that they were in the area at the time
C)Were driving a vehicle matching the description of the getaway vehicle, and
D) A .32 caliber round and a .12 gauge round (matching those used in the murders) were found in said vehicle
to hell with the DA just like so many other cases where later on the conviction is overturned.
So many other cases...there's a term for this, it's called "confirmation bias." The number of cases that are subsequently overturned is quite small, and the number of cases in which the defendant was wrongly accused is even smaller, as other than the DNA overturns the lion's share of these involve Brady violations or things like ineffective assistance of counsel. But a lack of knowledge has never stopped people from having an opinion before...
Not innocent. The prosecutors nor the State deserved a conviction. I got into the case heavily influenced by Dylan's song in the late 70s when attending Fordham. Stayed with it over the years. Watched the various exposes on news shows. I tend to think the guy was guilty. But not beyond reasonable doubt. If he was innocent RIP. if he wasn't & never confessed his Mortal Sin, well, there's no RIP.
comments about that. what I do know is that the film did him no favors, because by overplaying its hand with factual inaccuracies, including his boxing career, it played into the people's hands who thought he did it. it should be a lesson to all young film producers who are making a film to prove a point, overselling your case is never a good idea.
I'll say that if there's this much debate, there's a good chance there wasn't enough for a murder conviction that could withstand an appeal.
It also strikes me as unusual to pursue an appeal so long and so consistently and ultimately overturn a conviction on behalf of someone who really did do it.
An interesting question to me would be how many times has a conviction been wrongly overturned?
As it happens, I saw an old 20/20 episode over the weekend about this case, which fits that bill. An Army sergeant was convicted in a civilian court of a rape and triple murder in 1986. The verdict was overturned on appeal, he was acquitted, and then almost two decades later he was charged in a military court and convicted. Link - ( New Window )
This entirely objective and honest witness subsequently recanted his testimony...
...and, then, wait for it... he then did a 360 later on and recanted his recantation.
So... Mr. Carter was originally found guilty by a man who resembles something like a spinning top.
And there are some very bright lights on this thread who are crying about the guilt of this now deceased former boxer?
Get a life.
put that together with the links to David Duke, and I think it is probably not a site you want to take info from
Does not seem like a right wing nutjob to me. Attacking the source of an article rather than actually refuting what he writes is not a way to have a meaningful debate. Just a way to avoid responding to uncomfortable facts.
The guy was innocent.
And it's written in bitter response to a movie, not a response to the series of trials.
So, what are you trying to gauge by whether someone read that article or not?
Sounds good! Except for one thing.
A crucial prosecution witness did NOT recant his testimony.
He recanted his recantation.
Translation:
Rubin "Hurricane" Carter was convicted with a spinning top.
Not good... dispositive or not dispositive.
I read some of the other articles from that rag you cited. Don't like MLK nor Jews and quote David Duke.
Sounds good! Except for one thing.
A crucial prosecution witness did NOT recant his testimony.
He recanted his recantation.
Translation:
Rubin "Hurricane" Carter was convicted with a spinning top.
Not good... dispositive or not dispositive.
I don't know enough about this case to pass judgment. I'm talking more broadly, about witnesses that have been encouraged, be it by family of the convicted or by the saintly volunteers of The Innocence Project, because they are unlikely to face negative consequences for doing so and because, taken with other factors, it may be enough to get a new trial. And twenty plus years after the fact a new trial might as well be a pardon.
No worries. It's an object lesson for everyone, though. Check out any new site before you link to it.
Essex County retained his services as assignment judge some years ago and he cleared out a serious backlog in a couple of years. Told me he just kept saying, when asked for continuances, something to the effect of "no. do the best you can."
However, the common sense bell starts ringing when you consider:
A)Carter's history
B)Its been established that they were in the area at the time
C)Were driving a vehicle matching the description of the getaway vehicle, and
D) A .32 caliber round and a .12 gauge round (matching those used in the murders) were found in said vehicle
That is a whole lot of coincidences to consider.
But some of the witnesses for the prosecution were an interesting bunch to say the least.
So many other cases...there's a term for this, it's called "confirmation bias." The number of cases that are subsequently overturned is quite small, and the number of cases in which the defendant was wrongly accused is even smaller, as other than the DNA overturns the lion's share of these involve Brady violations or things like ineffective assistance of counsel. But a lack of knowledge has never stopped people from having an opinion before...
I didn't think that was an option.
This is my stance on the subject
It also strikes me as unusual to pursue an appeal so long and so consistently and ultimately overturn a conviction on behalf of someone who really did do it.
An interesting question to me would be how many times has a conviction been wrongly overturned?
Link - ( New Window )