I saw the Denzel Washington movie several years ago, and of course it made it look like the boxer was framed by a racist society. While I know many an African American has suffered the consequences of simply “being black” in America over the years, I have an inherent distrust of “Hollywood” versions of true stories, especially when it comes to convicts (The Barbara Graham story got a LOT OF DRAMATIC LICENSE in “I Want To Live” but much of it was made up). SO…does anybody know the actual facts of the story of the Hurricane? Was there any hard evidence to indicate that perhaps he WAS actually guilty? Was there any hard evidence to indicate that he was unfairly framed by racists? Facts only please.
Truth be told there is a pretty fair amount of evidence Carter was guilty.
However, the prosecution and police screwed up the case in several ways; they withheld things from the defense that they were supposed to disclose, relied on the testimony of criminals, and messed up the chain of custody of evidence. Quite honestly, I think Carter was probably guilty. But that ain’t enough to convict.
I have to second RickJay: probably guilty, but denied a fair trial.
Google found this site, which seems to summarize the case against Carter pretty well.
Carter was likely guilty of the crime but the evidence was slim and the prosecution did a poor job. I believe in today’s legal system he would have been found innocent.
That said, Carter was hardly a Saint and IMO a poor subject for a Dylan song 
I think “The Lonesone Death of Hattie Caroll” showed us that Dylan’s research skills weren’t always top-notch.
He was almost definitely guilty. He was given a 2nd trial not shown in the movie because of the prosecutorial defects.
2 other things come to mind:
-
The opening fight where he beats the hell out of the white guy only to have the racist judges rob him was total crap. The filmmakers were sued by the white boxer who released the video of the fight which showed a close, but solid Carter loss, and he WON a settlement.
-
The cop (Nick Tortelli, I forget the actor) who follows Carter from childhood to his release, framing him for everything, was total fiction as well.
There were several other “liberties” with the truth. Carter was a thug, a criminal from day one and he was guilty of this murder as well.
What the hell is it with Hollywood MAKING SH-T UP!? If the prosecution bungled the case, that’s one thing, but BLATANT LIES on the part of Hollywood seems to be the order of the day out there, doesn’t it? Yeah I know all about “dramatic license” but trying to pass of lies as facts is reprehensible!
Here’s the last 2 1/2 rounds of the Carter-Giardello fight. Does it look like a racist setup here?
If real life was interesting enough we wouldn’t need movies. But yeah, probably guilty but the prosecution was horrible.
All you really have to ask yourself is “is ‘probably guilty’ good enough to spend your life in jail?” Some people say yes, some people say no. Funny thing, that.
I don’t disagree, but when you make a movie that is “based on a true story” most people are going to believe that while minor details and scenes are tweaked to make it more interesting, the basic premise/truth of the story that is being told won’t be compromised.
To set up a fake result of a boxing match, to create a fictional character who set up Carter for his whole life, to neglect the legal details of a Brady violation as the only reason Carter was granted new trials (as opposed to real doubts about his innocence), and to deny other real details about his guilt and portray him as something he wasn’t?
That’s not “literary license.” It’s propaganda, and should be identified as such instead of giving the impression of truth.
I remember that movie. It was basically a 1960s movie made 30 years too late, where you’re not supposed to care how true it is because it teaches a good lesson to always question the establishment, man!
It’s a movie. They made stuff up. All of the evidence is tainted. It would be reasonable to find all the witness lacking in credibility. And he may have done it. There will never be a way to know for sure.
PROPAGANDA! EXACTLY! I wonder how long it will be when a movie is made about either Tooky Williams or Abu Jamal Mumia to make THEM out to be innocent saints who were either railroaded or guilty because SOCIETY made them that way!
You are 100% CORRECT! Sadly I don’t think Hollywood likes it when we the general public question HOLLYWOOD’S MOTIVES, MAN!
William Goldman wrote:
A mainstream crowd-pleaser like The Hurricane is at heart reassuring: the criminal justice system was corrupt and racist back in the day, but now it’s all better, thanks to hard-working, idealistic youngsters. Here’s proof, using a famous case.
Any information contrary to that statement will be neatly expunged.
Think this one was bad? If you watch “Birdman of Alcatraz”, you would be convinced that the “birdman” was just like Jesus Christ! Of course, he was actually a vicious murderer, and sexual pervert/predator.
I think a greater effort should be made to point out and celebrate films that do make a real effort to be faithful to the actual historical events and persons depicted. Glory, for example.
For some reason the bizarre inclusion of the child molestor bugged me the most.
EDIT:What I mean is the film shows Carter as a child stabbing a child molestor in defense of his friend, in real life it was a robbery there was no child molestor.
Again, I have to wonder why exactly Hollywood is infatuated with these thugs and miscreants so much that they have to rewrite the facts to make them look like heroes. I mean, isn’t the whole point of celebrating somebody who overcame the odds to LAUD & CONGRATULATE THEM! I would assume that there are enough real heroes that movies could be made about without resorting to lying about criminal thugs! For that matter, why in the world did Bob Dylan think it was necessary to praise this dirt bag?