Talk:Rubin Carter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: Hi, I have a continuing objection to the Rubin Carter article as it reflects the viewpoint of a minority of people who believe that he is responsible for the Lafayette Bar and Grill murders. It's a cleverly written piece but its bias is unmistakable, especially the problem around supposed evidence found in carter's car. Any attempt to change the article to reflect "the other side" is rejected by those whose minds are already made up that a respected figure world wide is a cold-blooded killer. When I added the fact that John Artis is a Virginia State trooper, I didn't say that he drove the highways giving out tickets. In fact, he went to school and succeeded in getting that designation; he now works in the Virginia Department of Corrections. The people or person who wrote the article (Flatter?) insists that this is nonsense. He hasn't looked it up, I assure you. His prejudice is necessary to his whole belief system; if Artis is not seen as a worthless person, then his calumnious article starts to spring leaks. What Wikipedia has done here is allow a libelous article into the public domain, thereby risking legal action. There has been a concerted effort by a minority of people to convict Carter in the court of public opinion because he was exonerated IN A COURT OF LAW. Those people control the entries in Wikipedia and have abandoned any pretense of "objectivity".Menlopark 17:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC) You my friend, are seriously misinformed, Rubin Carter has never been exonerated in a Court Of Law, one Federal Court Judge cited two "alleged" procedural errors, one of which didn't even apply to Carter's case. Sarokin didn't even overturn the conviction, he "set it aside" stating that in his "opinion" he did not receive a "fair trial" without hearing any witnesess or viewing the evidence against Carter. Carter could have been re arrested, and tried for a third time, how could that be if he'd been exonerated?. If you were to detatch yourself from the misinformation that Carter and his supporters perpetuate, you would see that there is not one libelous statement in this article, if there were, Wikipedia would remove it, I would remove it. I have just read the article, hence my response to you as I wanted to see who had written it, and found your post in it's history. I find this article to be accurate and objective, in fact one of the most objective I've read, on the internet. You are obviously the one with the hidden remit, you are the one that believes that Carter did not commit this crime, and are trying to introduce this into the article, but if you were to look at the evidence, you would find that it is more likely that Carter is guilty than innocent. Carter says he was "framed by racist police" Why? Because he was an outspoken activist - nonsense! The only person Carter has ever been interested in is himself. A very important thing to think about (since you bring up the subject of legal action) if Carter was framed, and put in prison for 19 years, and has been exonerated, why hasn't he sued and been awarded MILLIONS OF DOLLARS? I would sue their rear end off, wouldn't you? Vera, Chuck & Dave 19:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC) BTW, Phil Ochs wasn't taken in by Carter's nonsense, unlike Dylan. Also, it does not matter what you or I think about Carter's innocence or guilt, as long as it does not find it's way into the article. Wikipedia mantains a neutral point of view, that is not a guideline that is policy, see WP:NPOV Vera, Chuck & Dave Also, if you can cite that Artis (which seems to be your main bone of contention) is a police officer, with a reliable source, you can of course include it in the article. See: Wikipedia: reliable sources. 00:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC) (edit)

Re: habeas, the writ is something a judge grants; prisoner's merely submit an application (petition) for it. (See, e.g., http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David Noll (talk • contribs) 02:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC).

Removed libellous language indicating DeSimone was a racist; there is no evidence of this. Prosecutor Humphreys, who was a known supporter of civil rights, would not have promoted a racist to be Chief of County Detectives. Furthermore, James DeSimone (DeSimone's son) remembers that his father - who had deeply-held religious views - would not tolerate his children using ethnic slurs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.3.152.35 (talk) 09:05, 28 June 2005 (UTC)

Given Carter's claims that he was the victim of racism, the racial composition of the juries that convicted him (12 whites at the first trial, ten whites, two blacks at the second) is significant. Prosecutor Humphreys was insistent that the 1976 jury be racially mixed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.3.152.35 (talk) 09:21, 5 July 2005 (UTC)

It is true that the makers of "The Hurricane" took significant liberties with the facts; that this happens in other movies is irrelevant. In this particular case, it appears likely that the controversy over the accuracy of the movie cost Denzel Washington an Oscar - as is noted in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.3.152.35 (talk) 09:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC). Edited by: 68.49.43.108 at 22:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC).

Many of the most recent (7/15/2005) edits - such as comments about Carter's "ordeal" - lack NPOV.

In addition, the comments about the habeas corpus action were somewhat inaccurate; at the time it was filed, there was still an appeal pending in the NJ Supreme Court, and therefore there was an issue over "exhaustion" - one of the requirements for habeas corpus relief. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.49.43.108 (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 NPOV Disputed 2 Legal Status 3 Boxing Ranking 4 photo? 5 Discussion of evidence 6 added Honourary Doctor Of Laws. 7 Identification of Carter 8 Dylan Song 9 Reason why second trial was ordered 10 What about the movie? 11 Aftermath 12 Polygraph test 13 Race 14 Not in the Hall of Fame 15 Merge 16 GUILTY AS SIN 17 Number of different versions 17.1 2nd paragraph tone 18 Boxing Title 19 Reference to Lesra Martin missing in the article 20 Deleted paragraph 21 Subsequent Accusation 22 Mos Def Song 23 Third Trial 24 pre-boxing life 25 Carter's arrest in Toronto

[edit] NPOV Disputed

I suggest that the passage, "The question of Carter’s actual guilt or innocence remains a strongly polarizing one. However, this much is certain: either the criminal justice system released a triple murderer from the punishment that two separate juries had recommended, or it imprisoned an innocent man for almost 20 years," be removed IMMEDIATELY. It seems I am echoing the sentiments of many others here, and I feel this passage is an embarrassment to the NPOV wikipedia strives to maintain. It appears to equally represent two sides of a debate, but in doing so it attributes equal weight to each side - something that is simply not determinable. - 131.104.234.214 (talk) 04:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

So, you would prefer something along the lines of, "However, there's a 75% chance that the justice system released a guilty man, and a 25% chance that it imprisoned an innocent man for almost 20 years"? THAT would seem more NPOV to you? The point of the sentence is not the degree of likelihood that Carter is guilty or innocent, the point of the sentence is that the justice system screwed up. And that's a factual statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.64.50 (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • I just think it's suspect that the few citations in the entry all seem to be to Cal Deal's website. Say what you will about Mr. Deal (who I suspect has contributed a great deal to the entry and will likely delete this comment), but whether or not he is correct in his views of this case, he is clearly not "neutral." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.3.151.16 (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I like that sentence about the justice system. It seems neutral to me, and it draws the reader in.

Transcripts of the Al Bello/Vincent DeSimone interview which occurred Oct 16, 1966 can be found at:

http://graphicwitness.com/carter/bello1066.html

Also, as a general statement to those who have worked on this page, and have posted with mush passion their opinions on the Carter case: Maybe you should be less wrapped up in the technicalities of a case which happened eons ago and more concerned with the fact that our correctional system is STILL F-U-C-T. Also, there doesn't have to be a specific racist cop involved for a entire case to be swamped in racism. Racism is just as much a system of power as it is specific individual actions. 131.252.253.135 17:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Average Joe

Average, the problem with your comments is that they reflect the usual lack of understanding about the case. The case was NOT "swamped in racism", except in the overheated imaginations of Carter and his supporters. For example, in 1976, the Prosecutor frequently took the lead in asking to have jurors who were prejudiced against blacks struck for cause. He did this so often that the judge noted it on the record, that the prosecutor had actually taken the lead in trying to insure that Carter had a jury that was not biased against him because of his race. Now that is a fact, but you have to read the trial trancript to find it, because Jewison had no interest in including anything remotely resembling the truth in his movie. (Trial transcript, November 4, 1976, p. 4.18, et seq). And if that's the way the prosecutor really was, then it's pretty hard to make the argument that the "entire case was swamped in racism".

You can't find out the facts of the case just by watching a movie or listening to a song. But the instant something accurate about Carter is posted in this article - such as pointing out some circumstance about which Carter has lied (not just "fibbed", not "fudged a bit", but flat-out LIED) an NPOV label gets slapped on the article. Waldo&magic 23:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I can appreciate what you are saying about the trial, but I am insulted you feel as though I blindly support Ruben Carter based on opinions centered around a movie and song. I haven't even made up my mind for myself how I feel the incidents on the night of the Lafyette murders went down. I did gain interest in the story through the song, but I must admit I haven't seen the movie, I heard it was shit. I haven't ever been one to devour what the mainstream feeds me. I have researched this case on my own through the net and the library at my school, I wouldn't develop an opinion any other way. And for the record, I did go a bit far saying the entire case was swamped in racism. I have restated myself differently because I was making a general statement about the prevalance of racism at the time, and not its presence within that trial, which I have not yet read full transcripts of. There was an undeniable systematic disempowerment of African Americans, and blacks in general, during and up to the time of Carter's trial. Was he innocent because he was black? No, man. Did he deserve to be retried and released? Well, he hasn't killed anyone lately so I feel no less safe with him out on the street. As far as Carter's alleged lies, I have seen a lot of reference to statements he has made in contrast with factual evidence. I have to say that lyin' and a murderin' are two seperate things. (Yeah, yeah I know what you are going to say about how it reflects character, but I never saw a politician out a murderin' and they lie all the time.) That is probably as far invested as I will get, because I have rapidly lost interest in this case. Howard Zinn forever. 131.252.253.244 18:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Average Joe

This article, along with the other two articles The Hurricane (1999 movie) and Hurricane (song), as currenly written, are strongly biased against Mr. Carter. (I've decided to consolidate all three disputes here.) They also suffer from a serious lack of citations. Here's one particuarly egregious example:

"The movie also depicts the lead detective who investigated the murders ("Vincent Della Pesca") as a Javert-like, obsessed racist who falsified evidence, threatened witnesses, and sabotaged an automobile belonging to Carter’s supporters. In reality, the lead detective on the case, Vincent DeSimone, was a decorated World War II veteran and an outstanding police officer who rose through the ranks on merit to become Chief of County Detectives."

The problems with this passage include: 1. No source is cited. 2. Opinion is stated as fact - "Vincent DeSimone, was...an outstanding police officer" 3. Circular reasoning is used. The fact (assuming it is indeed a fact) that Mr. DeSimone "rose through the ranks on merit to become Chief of County Detectives" is used as evidence that he was obviously not a racist. But the contention of Mr. Carter and his supporters is not that Carter was the victim of "a few bad (racist) apples" in the police dept., but rather that there was systemic racism in the New Jersey police system. If this assertion is true, then DeSimone being honored and promoted wouldn't contradict him being racist. Of course the assertion may be wrong, but it's a logical fallacy to assume that it's wrong in order to prove that it's wrong.

Another particuarly problematic passage:

"The question of Carter’s guilt or innocence remains a strongly polarizing one, however, this much is certain: either the criminal justice system imprisoned an innocent man for almost 20 years, or it released a triple murderer from the punishment that two separate juries had recommended."

This paragraph may appear neutral at first glance, but the convetion in mainstream writing is to give the final court's judgement the strongest weight. For example, stating that he was "found to be innocent." In the American legal system, the burden of proof shifts after a conviction. So instead of simply showing that there could be reasonable doubt, the convict has to prove that there's no reasonable doubt of his innocence. Of the many thousands of appeals filed every year, only a small handfull of convictions are overturned. So we can note any specific objections to Carter's conviction being over-turned (if any specific sources can be cited), but we must give the fact that it was overturned much stronger weight.

At any rate, all opionions need to be cited, as Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If people have criticized Mr. Carter and his supporters, then cite specifically who said it and what they said. NPOV doesn't mean that you can just write your own personal opinion in the third person as "some people say this, some people say that." Blackcats 19:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I added several details relativizing the evidence. These informations come from some anti-carter sites, but they seem to be undisputed, so I guess this is ok. Gray62

• One thing that differed between reality and the movie was the detective's motives. The movie detective, Della Pesca, was depicted as having known and disliked Carter before the crime occurred. Obviously this would support the theory that Della Pesca would falsify evidence against Carter. The real detective, DeSimone, had never met Carter before he became a suspect in the crime and had no pre-existing reason to frame Carter. So this theory would require DeSimone, depending on the timeline, to either be falsifying evidence against a man he's just met or to have begun falsifying evidence before he even met Carter.MK2 06:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Nost everybody agrees on that, even though it can't be proven that De Simones really didn't know Carter. How could you prove that? Impossible.

• • • Can you prove that Carter didn't kill those people? There's some evidence he did, which is more than you can say for your claim about DeSimone. MK2 16:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • • Having just finished reading the book Lazarus and the Hurricane, I have to point out that the motive offered in the book is not a personal vendetta against Carter, but an attempt to shut down an outspoken civil rights activist. Carter was never quiet about his views concerning racism in places of authority and he could easily have been targeted for that, personal issues aside. Zaklog 13:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

When was Carter "an outspoken civil rights activist" then? I can't find any evidence to substansiate this claim. Lion King 09:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Zaklog, there is virtually NO contemporaneous evidence that Carter was an "outspoken civil rights activist" during his period of freedom from prison (1961-66). What you have is Carter - beginning in about 1974 - saying that he was an activist, and his supporters repeating the claim, but there is a dearth of contemporary evidence. The claim is not supportable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.163.120.55 (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "virtually" NO evidence? There is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever. And in future, DO NOT delete posts from talk pages, thank you. Lion King 10:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The contemporaneous evidence of Carter's "civil rights activism" consists of one comment about shooting cops in Harlem, quoted from a Carter friend, and published in the Saturday Evening Post, which Carter repeatedly declared to have been a joke. A decade later, Carter began claiming that he had been an activist, and published his supposed activities in his 1974 autobiography. While not very convincing or credible, these do constitute evidence that supports Carter's "activist" claim. Hence, "no" evidence is inaccurate; "virtually no" is more accurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.163.120.55 (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2006

• • As for the motive of the police and/or prosecution: I think the main motive isn't something like racial prejudice, I guess it was ivolved but more important was that there had been a triple murder and one victim very heavy injured and there was a lot of pressure on prosecutiuon and police to present the murderers. Don't forget, DAs are elected. Would be interesting to know if there was an election date in '67 or'68. Imho the police had done real lousy work at the crime scene, and the only suspects were Carter and Artis. I guess that the police first was not very convinced that both were the offenders, but as time went by and no new leads surfaced the public became quite fidgety.

• • It should be mentioned now that a reward of $10000 had been announced for information leading to a solution of the case. This, plus a special deal with the police, was a mighty incentive for Bello and Bradley. I don't want to say that the police were aware of any false testimony, but I think the detectives and the DA were so relieved that they didn't ask too many questions. Especially the poice had to fear that someone would start to ask questions about the sloppy investigations. Just check the transcript of Bellos interview. It wasn't even the first interview, but still he was treated with velvet gloves. So the trial was on the way. And after the first comviction was overturned, it would have been too much of a loss of face for the officals to drop the charges. They had to press on.

Sorry, but that's simply not true. Humphreys (the Passaic County prosecutor) had not been involved in the case to begin with, and was under enormous pressure to drop the case. Dropping the case would have been the easiest thing in the world, and he would have suffered no "loss of face" had he done so - in fact, he would have made life immeasurably simpler for himself had he done so. Instead, he did all that he could to insure that the second trial was justified: he conducted a thorough re-investigation, and he required his key witness to undergo not one, but two polygraph exams to make certain that they were telling the truth when he identified Carter and Artis. And then to top that off, he offered to drop the charges if Carter and Artis would just take and pass a polygraph exam. 69.255.14.244 01:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• • I don't say I'm sure it has been that way, but it could have been. Read the stories of the cases that have been overturned because of new DNA evidence. Many times the police and DA were really convinced they had got their man and didn't look for anybody else and didn't publish evidence that would have hurt their case. This happens just too often.

Gray62 19:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I've been thinking about your NPOV entry, Blackcats, and I'm not convinced by your argument against the characterisation of Vincent DeSimone. It's not up to his defenders to prove that he hasn't been a racist. Totally to the contrary, everybody is innocent until proven guilty, right? DeSimone is dead, but it seems he has living relatives, and this article should contain some notice that there's no evidence that the detective in the movie has any resemblance to DeSimone. I'll change that passage to reflect that... Changes implemented. I do hope this is more neutral. Gray62

Blackcats, I now checked the movie article and I find it's undisputable. The 'Della Pesca' story isn't in it. I recommend you remove the NPOV on the movie asap. Gray62

As for the NPOV rating given to this article by Blackcats, I agree with Gray62. The two items that Blackcats mentions show no bias whatsoever either for or against Carter. One was a paragraph describing how DeSimone was characterized in the movie, "Hurricane", and the other was a totally neutral - and accurate - characterization of the case: either Carter was innocent and imprisoned for almost 20 years, or he was guilty and set free by a Federal judge. Blackcats seems to be saying that the "innocent" characterization deserves the greater recognition, but that reflects a misunderstanding of Carter's actual status. Carter has NEVER been found "innocent", not by any court, judge, or jury that has ruled on his case. Sarokin said that he didn't receive a fair trial, NOT that he was innocent. The prosecutors chose not to try him a third time, but not because he was "innocent". In theory (depending on how the original 1966 indictment was dismissed), Carter could be re-indicted, extradicted from Canada, retried, reconvicted, and resentenced for the murders even today. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.116.240.11 (talk) 10:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Why was there only ammunition found in carters car,what did he say about it?this can have the following answers.. 1)he disposed of the weapon but did not do so with the amunition(carelessness maybe?) 2)he was out buying ammunition,in this case a whole box of it should have been found,with details of the dealer who he bought it from confirmed. did they ever find carters gun?...did they analyse it for recent discharge? there are just too mnay unanswered questions to determine wether or not he's guilty...but according to me the most compelling one is why someone would drive around with just ammunition in their car....at that time of the night no less when im sure one cant find too many stores open.

"As for the NPOV rating given to this article by Blackcats, I agree with Gray62" THIS IS NOT WHAT I SAID, ANOYMOUS! Read my sentence above, I was speaking only about the movie article, not about THIS article. Imho you are commiting fraud here by misinterpreting my words. As for Carter's innicence, "Innocent until proven guilty". He was never finally proven guilty, this leaves no room for interpretation of his legal status. Gray62 16:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough - his legal status is "not convicted". That tells us precisely nothing about whether or not he REALLY committed the murders. 69.255.14.244 01:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the question if Carter is innocent, I'm really torn on that one. But I'm positive that he should have been aquitted. Bello's testimony was very questionable and wouldn't have impressed the jury if the deal would have been known. What was left was the 'similar' ammunition in the car and the description of the car. Both would have fitted hundreds, if not thousand other cars at that time. And, after all, that the car was near the bar isn't any evidence that Carter or Artis shot. You say, "Carter has NEVER been found "innocent",", that's technically correct, but misleading. You haven't been found innocent of that murder, too! After the corts overturned the conviction two times, Carter's legal status today is 'not accused of the crime'. Well, possibly Carter could libel against that 'never found innocent' statement. Since he is still alive, we should be very careful about the guilt question. Gray62 21:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

What "deal" are you refering to? The "deal" that happened in Dylan's imagination? Lion King 19:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The deal between Bello and the prosecution, of course. Gray62 16:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Gray, the 1976 jury knew all about the "deal" you are referring to; both Bello and DeSimone testified about it at length.69.255.14.244 01:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

On second thought: Why don't we just delete this sentence: "The question of Carter’s guilt or innocence remains a strongly polarizing one, however, this much is certain: either the criminal justice system imprisoned an innocent man for almost 20 years, or it released a triple murderer from the punishment that two separate juries had recommended.". After all, at least some people like Blackcats think it's unfair. And it's simply not necessary, providing no new information. It's up to the reader to draw conclussions, not to us to ask him to chose one of two alternatives. Pls respond to this question. If no other opinions come up, I'll delete it next week. Gray62 21:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• If Carter belives he is innocent and wrongly imprisoned, why has'nt he sued? I would! Surely any innocent man would. Lion King 02:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe a lawyer could give some hints to the answer to this question. However, this is pure guesswork and doesn't belong into this article. Gray62 16:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The answer is pretty simple: because Carter knows that he could not win. He would have to show that there was no reasonable basis for the prosecution against him, and the fact that a grand jury indicted him, and two juries convicted him, is pretty strong evidence that there WAS a reasonable basis for the prosecution.69.255.14.244 01:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal Status

"Regarding the rule 'innocent until proven guilty', the legal status of Carter and Artis today is 'innocent'." What are the specific objections against this sentence? It isn't gratuitious, since we can't assume that everybody knows what the consequences of a dropped charge are. And it surely isn't inaccurate. I'm not a lawyer, but this much I know: If you haven't been convinced of a crime, you are assumed innocent before the law. For the ethical question, that's something completely different. Gray62 19:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

In law a "presumption" is a fact that you are permitted to infer from the existence of another fact or facts. The "presumption of innocence" was created in order to allow the resolution of a criminal trial when the prosecution failed to present enough evidence for a conviction. In order to resolve such cases, the fact of "innocence" is presumed from the fact of a lack of sufficient inculpatory evidence. And once that kicks in, the jurors are then instructed to return a "not guilty" verdict. If this were not so, then a jury might sit there and say, "Okay, we think he's probably guilty, but we're not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, so now what do we do?"

This presumption has application only inside the courtroom, during a trial. Outside of the courtroom, "presumption of innocence" has no real meaning or effect. You cannot say to a police officer, "You can't arrest me, because I'm 'presumed innocent'", for example. [Vincent Bugliosi has a nice discussion on the presumption of innocence in "Outrage".]

The term "innocent" is also misleading, because few people understand the distinction between being "not guilty", and being factually innocent (meaning that you really did not commit the crime). OJ Simpson, for example, was found "Not guilty", but that did not make him "innocent" factually. If it had done so, then the civil trial could never have occurred, and THAT jury concluded that he was "factually guilty", that he did commit the murders.

The statement was "gratuitous", because everyone in the entire world is "innocent" of the murders by that definition, including whoever actually did the deed. So the statement tells us precisely nothing. But it carries the implication that Carter and Artis were, or are, "factually innocent", a conclusion that is as much a matter of opinion as the statement that they are "factually guilty". You would not accept the latter statement, why would you accept the former? 69.255.4.244

A lot of information, thx. But firstly: Would you pls pls register as a Wiki user? It's really easy and this way I would know if I'm speaking to the same person (I hope so). Secondly, yes, it's difficult to make a precise statement that wouldn't be misunderstood. I tried to do this by inserting 'juridicially innocent'. No, I wasn't especially happy about this, either. But I really think a statement is necessary because of the majority of Anti-Carter sites in the internet. Most of them use the Cal Deal statement: Never declared innocent. Imho this is EXTREMELY misleading. Who has ever been declared innocent? Here at Wiki, we are supposed to provide people with facts, so I think some statement about the effect of the 1985 decision is necessary. How about 'not previously convicted', that better? If not, pls make another proposal; it's past 3 here, have to go to bed. Cu Gray62 01:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The current statement - that the prosecutors decided not to prosecute the case further - is, IMO, quite accurate. It does not convey the impression that the criminal justice system reached any definitive conclusion about Carter (which is true), nor does it suggest that Carter was either "factually innocent" or "factually guilty"...209.116.240.11

Pls use four ~ to sign your posting. This discussion would be a total chaos without infos about who said what. Regarding your opinion, I said very clearly that nobody can decide the factual innocence. Imho that's up to god. I was talking about the legal status. Has the justice system reached any definitive conclusion about you being the murderer? Is there any difference? Gray62 15:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm - Carter was indicted under the legal system, hence at least one body of the system (a grand jury) concluded that there was probable cause to believe that he committed the murders. No one else was ever indicted for the murders, so, yes, Carter did stand in a different status than anyone else with regard to these murders. The indictments were dismissed, but not based on any conclusion being reached on them. So you could accurately say that the justice system reached a conclusion about Carter (and Artis) that it has reached about no one else in the world. Waldo&magic

Waldo, pls use 4 ~ characters to sign your contributions. I'm getting weary of adding this for all of you here. As for the 'conclusion', yes, the justice system has reached a conclusion. Supreme Court judge Sarokin concluded that the accused' right to a fair trial was violated and that conviction is invalid. His verdict wasn't overturned. The DA didn't start a new trial. So this still is the final conclusion of the system. Maybe the DA has another conclusion, but that would be his personal opinion, as long as he doesn't reach a convition in the system. Maybe you come from a country with a different system of justice (like me), but we are talking about US law here, right?Gray62 17:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[One reason I have deleted your postings - and should have deleted more - is that you are so often careless with terminology. For example, Sarokin was NOT a "Supreme Court judge", he was a Federal District Court judge.]

Sarokin did NOT render any kind of a final judgment on Carter's guilt or innocence, he simply set aside the 1976 conviction. The prosecutors made the decision not to retry the case.

Let's put it another way: suppose that a man confesses to the brutal rape/murder of an 11-year-old girl, takes the police to where the body is, describes in detail how he did it, shows them the murder weapon, DNA links him to the body of the victim, etc., etc., etc. Next thing, a judge rules that he was not properly advised of his rights before his confession, and rules that ALL of the evidence that flowed from that confession is inadmissible.

The DA looks at his case, and realizes that he has nothing left - no evidence to link this guy to the crime, so he reluctantly drops any prosecution. Okay, the criminal justice system is not going to hold the killer accountable. But now he wants to buy the house next door to where you live with your three young daughters, aged 10, 8, and 6. Are you going to say, "Okay, since the criminal justice system didn't convict him, he must be 'innocent', and I'll go see if he's available to babysit my girls."

No, I didn't think so.

The point? That just because the criminal justice system has not convicted someone, you might still decide on your own that you didn't want the guy as a neighbor.

Okay - let's take that same logic over to Carter. The criminal justice system has decided not to convict him, but what does that fact tell us about whether or not he actually killed three people at the Lafayette Grill? Answer? Absolutely nothing. If you want to know the answer to Carter's factual innocence or guilt, you need to understand the evidence. And you need to think about such things as, "WHY did two different prosecutors decide to prosecute Carter? And WHY did two separate juries conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was guilty? And WHY did two separate trial court judges confirm those verdicts? And WHY did the New Jersey Supreme Court, on two different occasions, confirm the trial court's decision?" And that might persuade you to be a little more careful with your terminology. Waldo&magic 00:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Just two points, Waldo: Firstly, sry for the mees up, Of course it was a federal court, I guess the habeas corpus doesn't make any sense at the state court, I should have noticed that. But that's in our discussion here, not in the article, ok? I'm sorry but I can't spend as much time ont this matter as you.

Secondly, how many times have I to repeat that I'm not talking about any factual guilt. Check the headline: 'Legal Status' Hello? And, sry that you don't like that, but Sarokins decision is the final decision that is still standing. DA was not able to overturn it. This is the final decision of the justice system. Ihat doesn't say Carter is guilty or unguilty, but all his conviction in this case were overturned. Frankly, I don't know why the supremes or the jury decided in other ways BEFORE that, I'm no mindreader, and I'm absolutely not interested in this question. Presumptions have no place in Wikipedia.Gray62 01:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

And MY point was that if you are careless with the facts - as you have been - then you can expect to get your work edited, criticized, or deleted. The fact that you don't have time to do careful research does not give you an excuse to put sloppy work into the article.

As for your second point, this is an article about CARTER, not just the legal system's "final" (more on this in a minute) judgment on him. Carter is significant because the legal system screwed up on him, and did it in one of two ways: either it put an innocent man in prison for almost 20 years, or it released a guilty man. In order to understand WHICH way the legal system screwed up, we have to look at whether Carter was "factually innocent" or "factually guilty". Assume for a minute that Carter is, in fact, a triple murderer. Okay, NOW you should be asking yourself, "How and why is this man walking free? Why did the legal system give him two trials, convict him both times, and STILL release him?" The implications are huge, because now we're looking at the value of habeas corpus - should we keep this procedure, if it results in letting murderers back out on the street? Okay, now assume that Carter was "factually innocent", that he was nowhere near the Lafayette Grill when the murders occurred. Okay, NOW the question is, "How did this happen? Where did the system go wrong? Why did the prosecutors believe that he was guilty, and why couldn't the defense lawyers convince even 1 out of 24 jurors that there was a reasonable doubt about his guilt?"

You simply cannot walk away from the issue of factual innocence or guilt with Carter; without that issue, he is of no significance. Simply saying that Carter was "granted a writ of habeas corpus" tells us next to nothing. It is the underlying question of whether he was "really" innocent or "really" guilty that gives his case the power to generate four books, a movie, and a Bob Dylan song.

As to the "finality" of Sarokin's decision, what he decided was that Carter was entitled to a new trial. So, yes, that is a "final" decision. It says nothing final about Carter's guilt or innocence. Waldo&magic 12:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that there is such a thing as a "factual finding of innocence" that I believe is a ruling that is VERY rare but does show that in the criminal justice system there are differences between conviction vacated, not guilty, and "innocent" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.230.164.41 (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boxing Ranking

I'm not happy about that information ranking Carter as the #3 contender. Frankly, imho this info was put here deliberately to refute Carter's claim for #1 and stamp him as a liar. But in an interview, Giardello himself remembered having said: '"No, Carter is ranked number 1, he earned his shot. Give it to him." I found that here http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/box1-00.htm and at some other places. It would be easily falsifiable by checking that Philly newspaper. I'm well aware that 'The ring' put Carter on #3 in the annual ratings, but there are monthly ratings, too, though I couldn't find them for 1964 in the web. Still, I don't think that the champion would have made an error about the rating of his contender. I will try to find other infos, help appreciated. Gray62

Boxing rankings are quite subjective, so it's important to note the source (and point in time) for a particular ranking. In this case, the #3 ranking is that given by Ring Magazine, and that fact is noted in the article. The others ranked above Carter (by Ring Magazine) were Giardello (the champion), Archer, and Tiger. Objectively, since Carter fought - and lost to - all three of these men, it would be hard to justify ever ranking him above any of them. [FWIW, Ring NEVER ranked Carter higher than #3, and this includes both its annual and monthly rankings.]

However, another ranking organization, the World Boxing Association, DID rank Carter as the #1 contender during a period of time leading up to his fight with Giardello. At some point, and I believe it was BEFORE he fought (and lost to) Giardello, his WBA ranking began to drop. If this is the case, then it would not be accurate to say that Carter was the #1 contender at the time of his fight with Giardello, according to either Ring or the WBA. Giardello may have said that he was, but considering Giardello's interest in the issue - obviously he wants to promote his own fight - his comments must be taken with a grain of salt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.116.240.11 (talk) 10:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Giardello said no such thing - Carter was ranked #3, the only reason he gave Carter a shot was because Carter was mouthing off and calling Giardello a bum. Joey Giardello didn't have to fight him, he chose to. Lion King

Thx for contributing, 209.116.240.11 (would be nice if you would get a login, too, it's easy). I was searching for WBA ratings, too, but couldn't find them for '64. Pls post a source here, if you have one (publication or weblink). As I said, Anti-Carter website are bragging that Carter lied on the #1 contender, but that seems not to be accurate. Gray62 21:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The source that I have is "Boxing Illustrated", which published the WBA rankings during 1963 - 1966, when Carter was listed. The April, 1964 issue of BI (which was probably on the stands in late February or early March) ranked Carter as the #1 challenger, based on his fights through January, 1964. He continued to be listed as the #1 challenger through the December, 1964 issue of BI (covering his fights through October 1, 1964. According to the January, 1965 issue of BI (probably on the stands in late November or early December, the WBA ranked Carter as the #2 challenger, based on his fights through September, 1964 (that is, about two-and-one-half months before his fight with Giardello). And according to BI (March, 1965), the WBA dropped him from #2 to #3, based on his fights through December, 1964 - which included his loss to Giardello. At the time of his fight with Giardello, then, the WBA had him ranked as the #2 challenger, Ring Magazine as the #3 challenger. 69.255.4.91

Thank you very much for these details and the source! I know next to nothing about boxing and I wouldn't have known how to get at this informations. Gr8 work! I've moved the discussion of evidence below, check there for further commentary. Gray62 18:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Carter's Army Boxing Career - Evidence supporting Carter's claim to "56 fights, winning 51, 35 by knockouts" is completely absent in contemporary (i.e., 1954-1956) documents - such as The Stars And Stripes - where such accomplishments would have appeared..209.116.240.11

I provided evidence. Absence of information is not evidence that something didn't happen. You have to show first that stars and stripes always publish boxing results of army members. Are there any articles on that at stripes.com? And pls stop deleting my work without giving me a chance to discuss that here. Imho that's very ufriendly. Gray62 15:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The Stars & Stripes published the results of the USAREUR championships, both finals and quarterfinals, as well as (on an irregular basis) command championships. Carter is mentioned nowhere in any of the articles, for the entire period of time that he was in Europe. Carter's name does not appear as having fought (at any level) in the championships that he claims to have won. The claim that you posted - that Carter had this stellar boxing career while in the Army - does not appear until the early 1960s (nearly a decade after he left the Army), is repeated in The Sixteenth Round (Carter's 1974 autobiography), and has been repeated endlessly since then. However, there is simply no contemporary evidence for it, and a great deal of evidence that it is NOT true. I don't mean to burst your bubble, but you need to check VERY carefully any claim that Carter makes.waldo&magic Oh, that's you! Thx for getting a login. As I said, pls sign your commnet by putting 4 ~ characters at the end, this will add username and time. OK, back to topic. I didn't use any Carter claim in this case, this comes from an article of a journalist at ESPN channel. Normally, I would think that those professionals know what they are talking about. And in this case, there is no mention of any championship, but only of fights and knockouts. You said, that only title matches are listed, so this doesn't speak against Carter fighting on a local level - division or something. However, this point isn't important enough to engage in a long struggle. As long as no other infos come up, I'll delete the sentence. Ok? Gray62 17:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but this IS important. You need to understand that Carter lies about things like this, because then you may understand that he will lie about other things, and realize that you need to CHECK anything he says. Carter DID claim to have won a championship, the European Light-Welterweight championship. [See Hirsch, Hurricane, p.74] This is a lie; the New York Times published a retraction on just this point, and the Stars & Stripes has the actual results for those championships - and guess what? Carter didn't win, he didn't even fight in them. And BTW, where do you think the ESPN journalist got his information?Waldo&magic 23:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC) Waldo, it may be important for you, but this is no study of the character of Carter. It looks to me as though he's a notorious liar, but this is based on info from Cal Deal's site, and I would trust only the hard evidence there, not his own biased words. However, this is an encyclopedia article, not a psycholgical report, so this doesn't belong here. As for the ESPN reporter: No clue where he got his info from, do you? If you've got the time, try to send him an email. More info would be nice.Gray62 02:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

See my comments above. Carter's character IS important, because the primary reason for believing that he is factually innocent is his insistence on it. If, as you say, he's a "notorious liar", then his protestations of innocence should carry little weight.

Let's put it another way. Let's agree that the jurors should have given little weight to Bello's testimony, because he was a known liar, a convicted felon, an alcoholic, and because he changed his story many times. Now we realize that Carter is a known liar, a convicted felon, an alcoholic, and has changed his story many times; should we not reach the same conclusion about Carter, that we must give his protestations of innocence little weight? And if not, why not? Carter doesn't get a free pass on the same issues that we want to discredit Bello for, does he?

And BTW, Latin maxim for you: falsis in unum, falsis in omnibus — false in one thing, false in all things. Waldo&magic 12:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

"Carter's character IS important, because the primary reason for believing that he is factually innocent is his insistence on it." Firstly, I have already stated that I think that there wasn't enough evidence to convict Carter. This has nothing to do with his character. And secondly, how do we get a factual statement on Carter's character, do you have a mindreader at hand? Such info wouldbe pure opinion and has no place here. Go write that in a blog. Gray62 16:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Gray, you really need to come to an understanding of the difference between "not convicted" and being "innocent". This case has an INCREDIBLE amount to do with Carter's character. Why do you base your statement on, that "there wasn't enough evidence to convict Carter"? You don't know what the evidence was, so you're relying on the statements Carter has made over the years. Why should you believe those statements? Or why not? Well, that depends on Carter's character. If he has a reputation for always telling the truth, then you have some basis for believing his assertions of innocence. If he's a relentless liar, then you have no reason to accept his claims. Which is he? Well, golly, gee - when you start checking up on Carter - and I mean REALLY checking on the things he says, what you will find is that if his lips are moving, he's probably lying.

Error. Gray seems to have nailed the difference between "innocent" and "not convicted". Before George Bush's term of office, the American justice system had a maxim that people were innocent until proven guilty in a valid trial by a jury of their peers. Regardless of whether Rubin Carter shot anyone, he's innocent by all valid definitions. Dybeck 11:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Carter has never been "delared innocent", but it's also true that in a legal technical sense, he has never been found "guilty". But, the evidence against him still stands. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and they met it not once, but twice. Getting an overly liberal judge (who requested to play himself in the movie!) who heard no evidence and didn't understand the case, to let you out of prison for some procedural error, does not make you an innocent man. Lion King 13:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course we're arguing semantics now... but I'm afraid it does! Dybeck 12:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, you know more than my Record Company's solictors now? Please explain to me how, where and when and who it was, that declared Carter innocent, I seem to have missed something.Lion King 17:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It would appear that I do! One is not 'declared' innocent, one is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. I suspect your solicitor friends know this - it's a fundamental thing they would have learnt if they ever studied criminal law. None of this means that there's much chance Carter didn't do the crime of which he was accused, of course, but if we're going to comment on his legal status, we should at least get it right. Dybeck 12:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No, Carter was proven Guilty twice by 24 American citizens whose lawful verdicts were set aside by Sarokin. This is not an exoneration, the evidence still stands. And of course "My Friends" have studied criminal law, have you? Lion King 15:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)BTW, Gerry Conlon was "Declared Innocent".

This whole argument turns on the meaning of the word "innocent". Suppose a crime occurs. Joe comes under suspicion, and in fact actually committed the crime. Several different results are possible: (1) Joe is tried and convicted of the crime. No one would say that Joe was "innocent", since he is both factually guilty, and guilty by the determination of a court. (2) Joe is tried, but acquitted (found "Not Guilty") of the crime. Some people might say that Joe is "innocent"; that simply means that they are using "innocent" as a synonym for "found not guilty" - which is a reasonable (although misleading) interpretation. "Acquitted" is a better term, since it doesn't suggest "factual innocence". OJ Simpson is the perfect real-world example here. Simpson was acquitted, but a civil jury concluded that he was "factually guilty". If the "not guilty" verdict meant that he was "innocent", how could he have been found liable? The answer is that a "not guilty" verdict and "innocence" are really two different things.

Carter's situation is not nearly as strong as Simpson's. Simpson had a "not guilty" verdict to point to; Carter doesn't even have that.

This is the point where everybody wants to say, "What about the presumption of innocence?" I believe the answer is covered elsewhere in this discussion, but here's the basic rule: The phrase has meaning in only one place - and that's inside a courtroom, in front of a jury. When you're walking down the street, outside the courtroom, the "presumption of innocence" has no significance. It conveys no rights, it entitles you to nothing. Sorry, but that's the fact. 69.255.14.244 00:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"The fact" (lol). Anyway I get what you're all saying. Just so long as we all remember that we're impartial biographers, and so long as none of this nonsense spills onto the main page, it's fine to have your own opinions about Rubin Carter. I'm certainly not going to argue that he didn't shoot the diners in the LaFayette. I should, though, point out that this page is becoming overlong, and that this thread is becoming less and less about Carter specifically. I'd recommend that further discussion on this line is taken to Talk:Presumption_of_innocence. Dybeck 16:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] photo?

Imho it would be good to add a photo of Carter to the article, especially for those who know only the movie (and think he looks like Denzel Washington). I'm aware that there are copyright problems involved, we can't just copy a picture and add it here. If anybody would offer some advice where and how we can obtain a photo without copyright, it would be greatly appreciated.Gray62 18:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I like the new photo. But since it's a still from a movie and this article is not about the movie - can we still claim fair use? Dybeck 15:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of evidence

I've got to question your opinion on the likely impact of Bello's "deal" on the jury. This would have been pretty small potatoes at the first trial, since the jurors DID know that Bello was a convicted felon, a thief, a man who would rob the dead, a parole violator, and had failed initially to identify Carter, and still convicted. The idea that if they had only known one more thing - that the police had agreed to overlook two misdemeanors (an attempted burglary and petty larceny from the cash register) - they would have acquitted Carter (and Artis), is pretty silly. But the NJ Supreme Court said, Okay - we'll give you a new trial on the off chance that that MIGHT have swayed the jurors. So at the second trial, the jurors again learned about all of those things, plus the "deal", plus the fact that Bello had recanted, plus that he had told multiple different versions of his story, plus the fact that he was an alcoholic, and they STILL convicted. So much for the impact of knowing about "the deal" on a jury.

As for the "positive he should have been acquitted", I can only refer you to the 1976 trial transcript. If you read what went on at that trial, you will understand why Carter was convicted. Humphreys (the lead prosecutor) and Marmo did a brilliant job on the case, against long odds. Key elements included Humphreys's redirect examination of Bello, in which he laid out the entire history of Bello's various stories, and the testimony of Carter's alibi witnesses from the 1967 trial, in which they admitted to having committed perjury in 1967 at Carter's request.

And you left out much of the evidence from the 1976 trial - two witnesses who identified Carter's car, the route followed by Carter's car, Carter's "search for his guns", various "consciousness of guilt" acts that the jury was permitted to consider, and so on.

I find it puzzling that you profess to be "torn" on the question of Carter's innocence, but then propose to delete the one sentence that accurately describes your own confusion. If Carter is innocent, then he was imprisoned for a crime he didn't commit; if he is guilty, then the criminal justice system let a convicted murderer go free. Take your pick - it's one or the other. I'm mystified as to how that statement is "unfair", to either the NJ criminal justice system or to Carter. IMHO, the more Blackcats objects to it, the more accurate it seems to become. I would suggest that the NPOV should go before that sentence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.255.4.91 (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow, a lot of stuff. I'll try to clarify my position. As for the impact of Bello's deal on the jury, well, nobody will know that. Fact is that the prosecution was obliged to be open about that, not to hide it. But I respectfully protest that the stealing of 60$ from a cash register is a misdemeanor. It's larceny. And Bello was on parole! Dunno how much he would have had to serve for it, but it sure was serious. "The idea ... is pretty silly" Hey, that's personal, stay cool, ok? I'm not a doofus and imho the idea is not silly. Keep in mind that not everybody shares your beliefs.

The second trial - I haven't done much investigating right now and I have no clue what the jury was thinking. Anybody who has must be into mind reading. But imho Bello's evidence should have had absolutely no impact on the jury anymore. That pretty much left the jury with Patricias testimony, the two bullets in the car, plus the recanted alibi testimonies (dunno much about them right now). So far, I belief that the recantation of the alibis must have left quite an impact on the jury (but then, would that impact have been higher than their testimonies at the first trial? The first jury clearly didn't believe them). Looking at Patricias alibi, we learn only that she had seen a car similar to Carter's with plates similar to Carter's and two black men boarding it. That's nowhere near sufficient to put Carter in the bar or even shooting the victims. Imho that doesn't even prove BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that Carter was there at all. And the bullets? Carter undisputedly was a gum fanatic. How many gun fanatics are there in New Jersey that own both a shotgun and a 32 revolver? Combining car, plates, and bullets gives a reason for serious suspicion, but it can't be enough to sentence a man for life. I don't doubt that the prosecution did a brilliant job, and I'm not so impressed by the defense, but a conviction shouldn't stand on the brilliant rhetoric of a prosecutor alone. Maybe that was the reason for the second conviction, the jury was impressed, but they should have weighed the evidence, too.

And let's not only talk about Carter, don't forget Artis! He has been in the car when police stopped them, but at the first time, there was another man with them, to. Where is any evidence against him? Not his car, not his plate, and more probably than not not his bullets. No case at all.

"And you left out much of the evidence from the 1976 trial" Just a moment, Sir. I DIDN'T leave this out. And I didn't delete this. It wasn't there. This is not my article; in fact, I have done a very small part of the work here. I try to add important details now and then, but I'm still checking informations on this case and don't want to add important passages until I'm convinced to have a point. If you want to add the evidence, go ahead. As a newbie, I feel much more comfortable with editing than with writing new chapters, especially for this highly disputed article. OK? So, what can I say about 'the search for his guns'. Mot much. I do know that the police never claimed that he got the guns that evening. I've read different versions of the story, but, honestly, I haven't looked much into it.

"I find it puzzling that you profess to be "torn" on the question of Carter's innocence, but then propose to delete the one sentence that accurately describes your own confusion." Yeah, I see your point. But in fact, the sentence DOESN'T reflect my position. Imho it is possible that Carter did commit murder, but I'm sure that he didn't get a fair trial (1st trial, undecided about the 2nd). It may also be possible that he didn't do the shooting, but drove the real murderers. You must admit, these positions aren't in the sentence. There may be even more points of view other than these, so what are we gonna do, replace the sentence with a 'multiple choice'? Wikipedia isn't a soapbox, and we shouldn't do the thinking for the reader. I think it's best to not propose different viewpoints, but to state the facts here, leaving the decision for the reader.

Just one final point: Most of the 'hard' sources (newspaper articles, transcripts of police interviews and trials etc) here in the internet can only be found at Cal Deal's graphicwitness site. Mr. Deal doesn't hide his opinion that he thinks Carter is guilty and as a former newspaper reporter he knows how to present the facts that help his case and how to omitt everything that doesn't. Imho his website should be used with all due caution. If facts are presented there, it doesn't say that they are correctly described. If facts are not there, this isn't evicence that they don't exist. Again, we don't have many other reference links, so we have to use him, but we shouldn't simply copy his opinions.

So OK, we have different viewpoints on the case, but I'm pleased that you're participating here. I don't have all the answers, maybe we can improve this article in teamwork. Gray62 18:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

“As for the impact of Bello's deal on the jury, well, nobody will know that.”

Well, if you have a second trial, and Bello testifies, and the jury DOES learn about Bello’s deal (and a whole bunch of other stuff that should have made Bello even LESS credible), and the judge instructs the jury that in order to convict, they HAVE to believe Bello, and the jury STILL convicts, well, obviously the “deal” didn’t have any impact on the second jury, and by implication, it wouldn’t have had much of an impact on the first. [BTW, Leopizzi DID give that instruction to the jury. It was a mistake on his part, but that was one of the instructions given to the jury.] There are interviews of some of the first-trial jurors extant, and one of them commented that they didn’t pay too much attention to what Bello and Bradley said, the key evidence was the prosecution’s proof that Carter’s alibi witnesses were lying. Once the jurors believed that, they were ready to convict.

“Fact is that the prosecution was obliged to be open about that, not to hide it.”

Agreed. Prosecutor Hull knew that he had to disclose it, tried to do it two different ways (on cross-examination and during his closing argument), and screwed it up both times. His mistake, and it led to a new trial, because of the POSSIBILITY that it might have influenced the jury.

“But I respectfully protest that the stealing of 60$ from a cash register is a misdemeanor. It's larceny.” Criminal offenses come in two grades, felony and misdemeanor. Petit larceny is generally a misdemeanor; larceny above a certain dollar amount is a felony. Don’t know what the amount was in 1966 under NJ law, but Bello’s theft from the register was larceny, and a misdemeanor.

"The idea ... is pretty silly" Hey, that's personal, stay cool, ok? I'm not a doofus and imho the idea is not silly. Keep in mind that not everybody shares your beliefs.

Didn’t say you were a doofus, said the idea was silly. Which it is.

“The second trial - I haven't done much investigating right now and I have no clue what the jury was thinking. Anybody who has must be into mind reading. But imho Bello's evidence should have had absolutely no impact on the jury anymore. “ You should read the transcript, especially Humphreys’s redirect examination of Bello. He put the whole story of the recantations together for the jurors, assembled all the pieces, showed the jurors everything that the DEFENSE had done to bring it all about – well, if you read it, you realize that Bello had a great deal of credibility. Here’s one example: Bello didn’t know that an investigator named Hogan had made notes of their November, 1973 conversation. Bello described that conversation from memory three years later. When Hogan’s notes surfaced during the trial, and matched what Bello had already testified to, all of a sudden Bello was looking pretty credible, especially since Hogan had gone to extreme lengths to try and hide his notes.

“Looking at Patricias alibi, we learn only that she had seen a car similar to Carter's with plates similar to Carter's and two black men boarding it. That's nowhere near sufficient to put Carter in the bar or even shooting the victims. Imho that doesn't even prove BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that Carter was there at all. And the bullets? Carter undisputedly was a gum fanatic. How many gun fanatics are there in New Jersey that own both a shotgun and a 32 revolver? Combining car, plates, and bullets gives a reason for serious suspicion, but it can't be enough to sentence a man for life.”

Nonsense! Valentine at no time used the word Similar in her testimony. The word Similar was used by one of Carter's Lawyers.

The jurors also learned about the activities of Carter that evening, the path followed (apparently) by the killers, which was the exact path that Carter’s car followed, and a boatload of “consciousness of guilt” evidence – things that Carter did that the jurors were told they could regard as evidence of a “guilty mind”.

“I don't doubt that the prosecution did a brilliant job, and I'm not so impressed by the defense, but a conviction shouldn't stand on the brilliant rhetoric of a prosecutor alone.”

Didn’t say that prosecutorial “rhetoric” won the case. Said the prosecutors did a brilliant job. They assembled and presented an outstanding case, marshaled as much evidence as they could, presented it ably, cross-examined the defense witnesses well. And then Humphreys gave an outstanding summation.

“Maybe that was the reason for the second conviction, the jury was impressed, but they should have weighed the evidence, too.” Astonishing! You have no idea what the evidence in the second trial was, nor how it came across, you admit that you have no idea what the jury was thinking, yet you’re certain that the evidence wasn’t enough to convict, and you’re also certain the jurors didn’t weigh it. Just amazing!

“And let's not only talk about Carter, don't forget Artis! He has been in the car when police stopped them, but at the first time, there was another man with them, to. Where is any evidence against him? Not his car, not his plate, and more probably than not not his bullets. No case at all.”

Okay, so ask yourself this: why were the two men tried together? Did you know that Prosecutor Humphreys offered them separate trials (he actually brought it up because he knew that Artis would suffer in a joint trial with Carter), but Steel (Artis’s attorney) turned the offer down? This was the biggest single mistake made by either side at any point during the second trial. Artis would have walked free if Steel had managed to utter one word: “Severance”.

BUT – given that Artis was tried jointly with Carter, Bello DID identify Artis as having been at the scene, carrying a pistol. And Artis basically testified that he and Carter were joined at the hip throughout the entire evening. So the jurors couldn’t very well say that Artis was innocent, once they decided Carter was guilty; Artis had hitched his wagon to Carter’s star, and that doomed him. But in a separate trial, he’d have gone free in a New York minute.

"And you left out much of the evidence from the 1976 trial" Just a moment, Sir. I DIDN'T leave this out.

Actually, I was referring to your comments about what the evidence was. “What was left was the 'similar' ammunition in the car and the description of the car.” If that’s what you think the second trial evidence was, you left a bunch out.

“I do know that the police never claimed that he got the guns that evening. I've read different versions of the story, but, honestly, I haven't looked much into it.”

Hmmm. Once again, you need more information. There actually was a witness to whom Carter said that he HAD recovered his shotgun. For various reasons, Humphreys did not put her on the stand during the trial, preferring to save her for rebuttal. The fact that Humphreys still had her waiting in reserve was probably the single most important reason Carter decided not to testify.

"I find it puzzling that you profess to be "torn" on the question of Carter's innocence, but then propose to delete the one sentence that accurately describes your own confusion." Yeah, I see your point. But in fact, the sentence DOESN'T reflect my position. Imho it is possible that Carter did commit murder, but I'm sure that he didn't get a fair trial (1st trial, undecided about the 2nd). It may also be possible that he didn't do the shooting, but drove the real murderers. You must admit, these positions aren't in the sentence.

Well, actually they are. If Carter “drove the real murderers”, then he was a “principal in the first degree” or an “aider and abetter”, which means that he could have been prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced in exactly the same manner as the man who pulled the trigger. So once again, he was either innocent, and imprisoned for almost twenty years, etc.

“Just one final point: Most of the 'hard' sources (newspaper articles, transcripts of police interviews and trials etc) here in the internet can only be found at Cal Deal's graphicwitness site. Mr. Deal doesn't hide his opinion that he thinks Carter is guilty and as a former newspaper reporter he knows how to present the facts that help his case and how to omitt everything that doesn't.”

Gee. Now you’ve decided that Deal is omitting evidence from his web site. What do you base that on? Why would you assume that Deal was hiding anything? Here’s another possibility: most of the ‘hard’ sources actually point to Carter’s guilt.

“Imho his website should be used with all due caution. If facts are presented there, it doesn't say that they are correctly described. If facts are not there, this isn't evicence that they don't exist. Again, we don't have many other reference links, so we have to use him, but we shouldn't simply copy his opinions.”

EVERY website – including this one - should be used with all due caution. Waldo&magic 00:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

"The jurors also learned about the activities of Carter that evening, the path followed (apparently) by the killers, which was the exact path that Carter’s car followed, and a boatload of “consciousness of guilt” evidence – things that Carter did that the jurors were told they could regard as evidence of a “guilty mind”"

I have read a lot about the case, including all infos that can be found on the internet, and I nowhere found evidence about the route the killers took. There's only evidence about Carter's route. Also, Carter didn't make threats against the bar owner, so what evidence is in his activities? I don't know about "consciousness of guilt evidence", quite to the contrary, to me Carter's actions after being stopped by the police seem to be that of an innocent man. So, this seems to be a matter of inzterpretation and IS NO EVIDENCE.

Gray, you really don't know squat about either the law or this case, which is why you should not be commenting on it. The "consciousness of guilt" EVIDENCE - which WAS introduced in 1976 - consisted of - among other things - persuading various witnesses to support a false alibi. In 1976, New Jersey permitted prosecutors to introduce evidence of such activities, and jurors were told that they could consider such evidence in determining guilt.

"There actually was a witness to whom Carter said that he HAD recovered his shotgun. For various reasons, Humphreys did not put her on the stand during the trial, preferring to save her for rebuttal." Testimony outside of the trial doesn't belong here.

Why not? Who says that the article must be limited to what was testified to at trial? If you want to go by that rule, then we can't consider anything that Carter has to say, since he didn't testify in 1976 . . .

"Gee. Now you’ve decided that Deal is omitting evidence from his web site. What do you base that on?" On what do you base your opinion that everything is stated there? Mr. Deal has a motive to paint Carter in a bad way, Deal's 'good advices' to Carter were repeatedly rejected. Deal wrote several articles against Carter, so he might think that his reputation is at stake. I recommend that every reader here should visit that website and make up his own mind. Imho it is pure anti-Carter propaganda.Gray62 16:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I want to say that last point more clearly: Go to Cal Deal's site, read his statements, and then click on the "evidence" and make up your mind if Deal fairly presented the facts. Tkae the lie detector test, for instance. Deal doesn't say that the results are questionable, and he doesn't say that other authors, among them Hirsch, stated the reults in a very different way. The article that Deal cites already gives a misleading picture, and Deal cherrypocks the information from that. This isn't honest, he's just trying to make a convincingly looking case against Carter. Check that site and I think you'll agree.Gray62 18:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have checked the site, I have seen the evidence, I have read the transcripts. Deal, by and large, has it right.69.255.14.244 01:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it's a complete and unbiased site alright. Let's elect Cal Deal to the Supreme Court and give him a Nobel Prize for balanced objective journalism. Dybeck 11:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] added Honourary Doctor Of Laws.

I can't find a source for it right now, but I was there. It should be in the Sunday papers, most likely the Toronto Star, or the Monday Globe and Mail. York is notoriously slow in updating their web pages.

[edit] Identification of Carter

Marins, the sole survivor did NOT say that Carter and Artis were not the killers. According to the trial testimony of Callahan, the detective who took Carter and Artis to be viewed by Marins, Marins could not say one way or the other. At trial, Marins stated that he did not know one way or the other; Carter himself admitted that Marins said this in his autobiography, The Sixteenth Round.

The most important identification of Carter comes from Alfred Bello. Was Bello a ballistics expert? No, a petty thief - yet he describes the weapons used, to the first officer on the scene of the crime, long before there is a ballistics report. How could Bello possibly identify a .32 revolver and a shotgun as being the murder weapons if he did not see who was holding them? Impossible! Let's turn to the .32 revolver. In 1965, Carter fought English boxer Harry Scott in London. The promoter of the fight Micky Duff, reports that Carter had purchased a .32 Arminius 7 shot revolver in Paris, which he smuggled into England in Duff's luggage without Duff's knowledge, what is Carter's reaction when Duff confronts him? He laughs and says, "you would have got the blame, not me!" Note, one year later Carter is implicated in a crime which involves a .32 revolver. Coincidence? I think most definitely not. Rubin Carter, innocent? African American role model? Civil rights activist? Draw you own conclusions. John Simpson.

John Simpson: Can you please identify a source or a citation for this story? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.252.64.32 (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

John Simpson: Can you please identify a source or a citation for this story? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.64.50 (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've read portions of Duff's book. I don't believe he identifies the pistol as specifically as stated here. Where does Duff say Carter bought a .32 "Armenius" pistol? That would be a highly significant fact.

I've read Duff's book and Carter did not tell Duff the make of the gun, (although Duff did see the gun) Carter told "one of his friends" (in England) and showed it to him. Carter was disapointed, because what he had bought was a "Armenius".32 which was a cheap West German "Saturday night special". Carter thought he had bought an "Arminius" .22 which is a far superior piece, and then realized why the gun he had purchased in France was so inexspensive. That's the complete story anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.69.223.152 (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been unable to locate any such story in any of the named newspapers. Does anyone have a better citation for this information?

Is that episode (Carter telling one of his friends) described in the Duff book? If not, what is your source? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.252.64.32 (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The story appeared in The Sunday Times when the film about Carter came out. It wasn't one of Carter's friends, it was one of Duff's (who was not named) who Duff had "mind him". I remember the make of guns and I am familiar with both makes, so that part of the story checks out. I also seem to remember something about the gun ( the one which was used in the murders) being of possible european origin in the ballistics report, and that's pretty much it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.69.223.152 (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see your "Talk" page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.252.64.32 (talk) 11:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find any such article in the Times. Do you have a citation? Or was it perhaps a different paper? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.163.180.8 (talk) 08:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a story from The Observer or Sunday Telegraph rather than the Times to me. Vera, Chuck & Dave 21:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts, it could have been The Irish Times Hope this helps. Vera, Chuck & Dave 00:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't find this story in any of these papers . . . has anyone got an actual citation for this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.252.64.32 (talk) 12:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Biography.com says that both Bello and Bradley were later revealed to have recieved money and reduced sentences in exchange for their testimony agianst Carter. Also, that in 1974 they both recanted their testimony, then two years later Bello switched back to his original story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.77.134 (talk) 10:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, 75% of wrongful convictions are the result of eyewitness misidentifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.77.134 (talk) 11:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That is total nonsense. Neither Bello or Bradley recieved any money or reduced sentences for giving evidence against Carter and Artis. There is however, considerable evidence to suggest that Bello had been offered a bribe of $20,000 and "a piece of" The 16th Round to recant his testimony by Carter's supporters, which was the reason his recantation was rejected by Judge Samuel Larner as: "lacking the ring of truth."

As for 75% of wrongful convictions being the result of "eyewitness misidentifications": who ruled that Carter had been wrongfuly convicted? 91.106.193.226 (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dylan Song

The Dylan song is already discussed in the article, and has its own Wikipedia page. The deleted sentence is both unnecessary and inaccurate (for example, "Desire" was published in 1976).

That is true, but Hurricane was released as a SINGLE in 1975. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.70.129.181 (talk) 02:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The Dylan song does NOT attribute a racist motivation to the DA.

This is also true, but it does brand Patrica Valentine, Bradley, Bello, Twelve U.S. citizens and the entire N.J. Police Dept. as racists. I wonder why Dylan forgot the female FBI agent that was tracking Carter's every move in 1966? Maybe it was because the FBI did'nt have female agents 'til the early 70's?. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.70.129.181 (talk) 02:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't there that line, "don't forget that you are white". Who says that in the song? -Patrick Beverley —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.131.34.195 (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, wait, it was the police, not the DA. -Patrick Beverley —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.131.34.195 (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reason why second trial was ordered

The reason why a second trial was ordered, was that the existence of a tape recording of witnesses by the police, was not made known to the defense before the first trial. It was a technical point. The ruling was ironical, because during the first trial the prosecution had tried to present testimony about the inerviews, but was blocked by the defense. No new evidence was introduced by Carter's lawyers. Lion King 02:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason why Carter was granted a second trial in this article is inaccurate. I have cited the reason above, on information received from Hon. Judge Silvia B. Pressler, N. J. Sup. Court.

[edit] What about the movie?

The article says nothing about the movie... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.155.218.8 (talk) 09:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably because the movie is almost entirely fictional. SuperDuperMan 23:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aftermath

This section of the article, does not mention that Giardello was also awarded "an honorary championship belt" at the same banquet held in Las Vegas, and should state quite clearly that in reality, such "belts" are nothing more than "mementos". Lion King 19:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I really have to take issue with you going out of your way to demean this honor as simply a "memento" and nothing more. If the word "honorary" is in the title, it goes without saying that it counts as simply an honor, nothing more and certainly nothing less. For instance, Arnold Schwarzenegger was awarded an honorary "Box Office Champion" belt by the WWF after making a public appearance on their Smack Down! show to promote his then upcoming film "End of Days". Obviously he was never an actual champion of anything, but the WWF thought it would be a nice gesture and indeed it was just that, a polite form of recognition for all that he had achieved in his career in the form of a trophy belt. Obviously it was not an official badge of rank, and one would have to be a great fool to think that it was anything more than that. Likewise, if a boxer long retired from the sport is awarded an honorary belt (mind you, with the word "honorary" itself directly in the title), one would have to have incredibly poor comprehensive abilities to not discern that it was simply an honor and not a title won in sports competition. It seems clear to me that you are simply trying to minimize the honor due to your own petty personal bias against the subject of the article. You are not writing objectively and the article, and by extension, the reader, suffer for it. SubXerox 14:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

And I really take issue with you refering to this "belt" as an "honour", it's a memento given to both men for attending a WBC (who were not the sanctioning organization of the Giardello-Carter fight anyway) banquet, it is completely incorrect to refer to these belts as "Honorary Championship Belts." Furthermore, neither were they given for "a lifetime achievement in the sport of boxing" they are mementos, nothing more, nothing less.

Joey Giardello's lifetime achievement was recognised with his induction into The Boxing Hall Of Fame, you won't find Carter there. And how dare you accuse me of "personal petty bais", I take great exception to such an uncivil accusation. It would also be helpful if you refrained from facecous edit comments. Lion King 17:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that it was not given as a memento to all banquet diners at the door, and that Carter and Giardello alone received it. I apologize to all readers and users of the encyclopedia if this is not the case for misleading the article with my edit, as the way in which the original text was written both confused me and looked like a misguided attempt to slander. I acknowledge that I am at fault for defending the subject with a minor edit without researching it properly if this is indeed the case. As for you taking offense to my claim of petty bias based on a seeming personal dislike of the article's subject, while I acknowledge that it was a distinct possible outcome, it was not my base intention to offend you. However, if this (your fragile ego being bruised) is the case I am not contrite as I find your pompous attitude more than a little overbearing. Grow further indignant if you will. Life goes on after someone was rude to you on the internet. SubXerox 23:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This is indeed "the internet", it is also Wikipedia - WP:CIV Lion King 01:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polygraph test

"Examiner John J. McGuire came to the conclusion that he didn't participate in these crimes, but he may know who was involved". Totally incorrect.[1]Lion King 19:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

A polygraph as a lie detector is pseudoscience, and as such can't be considered NPOV. Text altered and reference added 24 July 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.41.5.238 (talk) 11:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This correct?. So why does Carter persist in saying that he "Passed" it? Lion King 14:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)P.S. Please sign your posts. Lion King

Carter "persists" in saying it because it's one of the very scant defenses that he has, apart from the "racist police" framed him because he was a "black freedom fighter", and Bob Dylan says he didnt do it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.69.247.94 (talk) 12:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Race

Can a consideration be made to somehow reword "all-white jury", with the argument that "Afrcan-American jurors" is later used? Zchris87v 05:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it racist to assume that a jury of whites can't fairly deliberate the facts on a case involving a Negro? - DWD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.125.234.14 (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is but that's a dirty little secret the politically correct set doesn't want to discuss! 72.80.6.192

description of the jury gives insight into discussion of whether this was actually a jury of his peers, as is afforded by the constitution. the_undertow ^talk 00:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that "a jury of his peers" as afforded by the consituion refers to the color of a person's skin? {{subst:unsignedIP|84.69.223.152|17:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)}

[edit] Not in the Hall of Fame

I removed the part that said "Carter was also inducted into the Boxing Hall Of Fame along with Giardello." He's not an iductee. http://www.ibhof.com/ibhfrost.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.230.166.232 (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I'm proposing that the content in the Alfred Bello article be moved here, since that article only contains information related to this court case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kerowyn (talk • contribs) 06:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC).

The best thing to do with the Alfred Bello article is to junk it. All accurate information appertaining to Bello with reference to Rubin Carter is in this article already. The rest of it is tantamount to character assasination. Lion King 14:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC) PS Please sign your posts Lion King

[edit] GUILTY AS SIN

Carter was guilty. 2 juries said so. Everybody in New Jersey knew it. He got off on a technicality. I grew up near Paterson and remember the case well. The most disgraceful thing about the entire affair is that Carter and Artis aren't still rotting in jail. The song by Dylan and the later movie made a travesty of the true facts in the case. - DWD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.125.234.14 (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You do realize that this is not a blog or a message board right? It isn't the job of wikipedia to take sides on such matters even if your opinion was remotely articulate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlund (talk • contribs) 08:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Kindly note the most headline entries on Wiki are Caps and Lower Case, and please feel free to register and sign your entries. It is the beginning of validity. LorenzoB 18:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Number of different versions

"Because Bello had told a number of different versions...etc" How many? He told the same version in the first and second trials, and a different one at the recantation hearing (was that held in open court?) I make that two different versions. Is that the number? Or was it more? If it was more, then the exact number of times should be specified, at present this section of the article is ambiguious, and I would suggest, misleading. Cheers, Lion King 18:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the answer depends on what you count as "different". Bello identified Carter by name (orally) to Bradley and Kellogg the morning of the murders, he gave a written "I can't identify anybody" statement to Lawless that same morning, he identified Carter's photo to DeSimone the following day, then retracted that identification, he gave a series of progressively more detailed identifications to various investigators before the first trial, he gave a written statement identifying Carter and Artis to DeSimone, he gave yet another identification to DeSimone (the famous taped version), he testified at the first trial. He gave several statements in the process of recanting, at least one of which was filmed, and another consisted of a written statement, he testified during the recantation hearing. Then he got involved with Miller and Ziem and gave something like 17 hours of taped versions, all different, which included such outlandish versions as the "Kellogg and Bradley did it and were setting me up to be the fall guy" version. These led into the various "inside the bar" versions. At that point, Hawkins entered the picture, and Bello gave two different written versions to Hawkins. He also talked at length to various officials before he testified to the Essex County Grand Jury in 1975. He gave a version to DeMasi when he was polygraphed. He gave a version to newspaper reporter Cal Deal. He talked to DeVesa during the re-investigation, and then with Harrelson and Arther, the two polygraphists who tested him in 1976. Then, of course, he testified at the second trial. Each of these statements differed from the others to some degree; at what point do we label them "different" versions? There were "one automobile" and "two automobile" versions, there were "two killers" and "four killers" versions. There were "Carter and Artis armed" versions, there were "Carter and Artis not armed" versions. There were "inside the bar" versions, and "on the street versions". There were "I can't identify anybody" versions, and "It was Carter and Artis" versions. There were versions under oath, versions not under oath, written versions, oral versions. "Dozens" is probably accurate, but the point is, that Bello had told his story so many different ways that Humphreys was skeptical, and wanted to be as certain as he could be that he did not put perjured testimony in front of the jury. However you count them, it was a large number, far more than two or three. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.116.240.11 (talk) 09:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess it's not as ambigious as I thought! I appreciate your prompt, detailed and articulate reply. Best wishes, Lion King 13:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd paragraph tone

The second paragraph is well-written, but seems out of place within the confines of an encyclopedia, which should be devoid of any sort of emotional provocation. I won't remove it, but it's a thing to keep in mind. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.54.160.141 (talk) 11:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who this RACIST DWD caracter is, but all the man, the film and the song are suggesting are; that the courts of the USA were not back in the sinful years before 1999 any justicial at all. People from all over the place got convicted for things they did not do! Corrupt cops or systems, all the same. The shame is though nowadays it seems to be the economics and economical trading systems that are corrupt with up to 95% of corporate executives misleading owners with option rights - not in their time of right. SÅ DE SÅ. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.14.78.41 (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

And THAT is the problem. The man, the film, and the song are all suggesting that Carter was convicted because of racism, and that simply was not so. Everyone "knows" that Carter was an innocent victim of racism - but if you study the case, and read the transcripts, what you will find out is that Carter was NOT a victim of racism, especially the second trial. There was a very liberal prosecutor, who had been a long-time member of the NAACP and the ACLU, who went out of his way to insure that the trial jury had blacks on it, who went out of his way to insure that his witnesses were telling the truth. He enlisted black investigators to re-investigate the case. Carter was re-convicted in part because black witnesses took the stand and testified that he had asked them to lie for him, and because some of Carter's white witnesses clearly lied. But neither Carter, nor Bob Dylan, nor Norman Jewison are interested in telling you the facts. So when you come here and read facts, you immediately decide that the people telling you the facts must be racists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.163.180.8 (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

What you may not realize is that Rubin Carter has NEVER been declared innocent or otherwise exonerated by the courts. Carter was set free because of two alleged procedural errors, NOT because of new evidence. Those alleged errors were cited by a single judge who heard no witnesses and issued an error-filled opinion that demonstrated his very poor grasp of the facts. The judge claimed the prosecution had appealed to "racism over reason" -- which makes no sense because the 1976 jury that convicted Carter included two blacks! That lone judge threw out the work of scores of police and prosecutors who, to this day, believe Rubin Carter is a triple murderer. So do I. -- Cal Deal —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.80.6.192 (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

The problem with your assertion is that according to the U.S. justice system his previous convictions were overturned, ergo the first two trials did not legally occur. That is why the state had leave to bring charges, if either of the previous trials had stood, jepordy would have attached. After the convictions were overturned the indictment was dismissed, presumably then with prejudice.

Why do you presume the original indictment was dismissed with prejudice? Does the dismssal order say that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.163.180.8 (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You are free to believe the Rubin Carter is in fact one of the people involved in the relevent shootings, but in the eyes of the U.S. Justice System he is not. Additionally when the single federal court judge's ruling was appealed to the Circuit Court, the prosecution was unsuccessful on at least one of the original federal court judge's findings, so it's not accurate to claim that the entire case was overthrown by one judge over the wishes of 24 jurors. But for the purposes of an encyclopedic knowledge we should mention that there are those who believe Carter is guilty, but by the standards of the U.S. legal system he is in fact innocent as his previous convictions were set aside. Knightw 20:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a problem with your terminology. If you use the word "innocent" to mean "not convicted", that's fine. But if you use it to mean "factually innocent", you are not correct. OJ Simpson was acquitted, but you could not accurately say that he is "factually innocent". Fact of the matter is, unless the indictment was dismissed with prejudice, the justice system has made no final decision on Carter . . . yet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.163.180.8 (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's also worth noting, that "the one federal jugde" H.L. Sarokin, in writing his decision made more than A DOZEN FACTUAL MISTAKES, even inserting the name of a victim from another COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SHOOTING.

Now this is just ridiculous, we aren't here to debate whether Carter commited these murders, but to suggest improvements on the article. It's no use insulting the DWD person for stating his mind, and he never make a racist comment anyway. I disagree with him as well, but I'm not going to waste time and space arguing with someone I can't see. --24.192.181.59 (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)HonestComment

[edit] Boxing Title

i remember at the very end of the film it says that rubin carter was awarded some kind of boxing championship title, something never done before. does anyone know anything about this? Sundar1 06:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Carter was "awarded" an "Honorary Championship Belt" by the WBC at a banquet in Las Vegas. Carter said/says that he was the only person to receive one, which is not true. Joey Giardello also recieved one at the same banquet. These belts are just mementos, the implication that they mean anything other than this, became part of Giardello's Civil Action against Universal Pictures. [2] Hope this helps. Lion King 12:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to Lesra Martin missing in the article

Unfortunately I don't know enough about the case, I'm also not a native english speaker, so some other might want to do it. Greets. --Theclawen 21:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted paragraph

It's editorializing not needed in an encylopedia. If it must stay at least find a better place in the article for it, and leave the category added. 130.156.29.101 22:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Editorializing? I think that even a cursory glance at this talk page validates the content you have removed. I suggest that you please replace it. Thank you Lion King 22:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It serves more as a comment on the unfortunate realities of the US criminal justice system then it does to educate the reader. I will replace it in the Aftermath paragraph, where it can serve as a summary. 130.156.29.101 22:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunate realities? Please elucidate. Lion King 22:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Elucidate? LOL. OK, if you insist. Sometimes guilty people are set free, and sometimes innocent people go to jail. I thought you would have understood this from the paragraph you so wish to remain in the article, and which I have replaced. These are the unfortunate realities of the US criminal justice system, are they not? 130.156.29.101 22:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL? LOL? I'll give you bloody LOL! I'm reverting to where this info was in the first place. Lion King 22:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Now you're making me laugh even more. You forgot to sign out of your other handle when you made the change. How many user names do you use? LOL. 130.156.29.101 22:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this some kind of accusation? Lion King 22:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you promise to revert, then I go to the article and see that there's already a revert under a different name, so perhaps you can understand my suspicious, since you obviously can't understand my deletions.130.156.29.101 22:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't give a flying fart about you being suspicious, now go away and stop acting like a troll. Lion King 23:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Flying fart? Yeah, I'm the troll. 130.156.29.101 23:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subsequent Accusation

Wasn't Mr. Carter accused of assaulting a volunteer working on his defense? IIRC, it received some attention in the press 'way back'. I'll attempt to locate a reference. LorenzoB 18:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes he was: [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.251.78 (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mos Def Song

I want to make reference to the Mos Def song "Hurricane", which is about Carter. What section should it be under? —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 18:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You may enter a new category at the bottom called "Popular culture" -- the same as in the Humphrey Bogart article. If you are going to make such a category, the Dylan song and the popular movie should also be included and linked. Thank you. Softlavender 07:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third Trial

An explanation is given why a third trial was not attempted. The section doesn't specify whether this is the explanation given by the prosecutors or by someone else. There should be a cite for this section and it should be left out if it is orignal research. 69.141.118.19 (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added a reference for this info. If you need another please see [4] Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. The first seems like a rewrite of the wiki page but the Times article is certainly convincing. I've rewritten the paragraph somewhat to include more of what that article explains. 69.141.118.19 (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, The Times is a much better link - well done, good rewrite! Cheers,Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] pre-boxing life

I corrected a lot of spelling mistakes and grammatical errors in this section, but I still don't like how it's written and the fact that it doesn't quote any sources. I would suggest that someone who knows more about this than me should make some edits and add some references.Stanlavisbad (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted, the only references that could be added would be from the story according to The Hurricane. Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 12:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It reads a lot better now, but the film has been criticised for not being accurate, so if that's where the current info is from, then it's not really good enough to put on his biography. I think the unreferenced tag should remain, or at least a sentence mentioning that his pre-boxing life is not very well known. Stanlavisbad (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Carter's official pre-boxing life: [5], For Carter's version, see The 16th Round or The Hurricane. Cheers, Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carter's arrest in Toronto

I believe that this information is being added to this article, for one reason, and one reason only. It is being linked to grossly inaccurate articles that state that Carter spent "19 years in prison for a murder he did not commit." No court has ever ruled that Carter did not commit these crimes. It is a not so subtle way (Carter fans) of misleading readers into beleving that he has been exonerated of the crime, in such a way that would never be allowed to stand in the Wikipedia article. I find this kind of underhanded introdution of material that backs up Carter's many outrageous untrue claims to be totally despicable. I sincerely hope that someone in authourity on this site sees this for what it is, and removes it. As for my self, I have far better things to do with my time than argue with people who have hidden agendas with reference to Rubin Carter and his ludicrous claims, such as smuggling guns to the ANC, or being best friends with Martin and Brother Malcolm, it really is quite pathtetic but also very frightning, that there are people in this world, who believe it! I think that Wikipedia has great potential, and I wish it every success, but I will not be complicit in allowing Carter's propaganda on to the site, albeit via the back door. I shall now take my leave of Wikipedia. Thank you, Educated Guest (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)