Hurricane Carter ..rip

[JimStinson]

Originally Posted by Jim65

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

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

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by JimStinson

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

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

[JimStinson]

Originally Posted by Jim65

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

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

[bigtrain]

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

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by JimStinson

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

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

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

[packs]

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

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

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by packs

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

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

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

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

[packs]

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

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