ralph124c writes:
> . . . Also, Stuart knew Bennett, and there is evidence that Bennett was Stuart’s
> accomplice in some unsolved thefts from the Kakas store. . .
Cite?
See “Rogues and Redeemer” (Gerard O’Neil, Crown Publishers, ppgs. 335-361); also the Boston “Phoenix”, October 1980; also “Boston” magazine, June 1980. Matthew Stuart (Charles’ brother) died in 2012, due to a drug overdose. He received a bag from his brother, containing the pistol used to murder Carol Stuart. He never told the whole story about his brother’s murder of his wife.
From what I read about the case the condemnation of the police was 20/20 hindsight. The evidence against Bennett was much better than the evidence against Stuart. Bennett’s MO was armed robbery and he had already shot two people. A cousin of his claimed to overhear him bragging about the murder and that he used a phrase that the killer used that was not publicly known. The only eyewitness picked him out of a lineup.
Stuart had no motive, and was a succesful person with no criminal history. He was injured much more than most people with self-inflicted wounds and initial reports said that the wounds were unlikely to be self-inflicted. The weapon and the stolen goods were not recovered even though Stuart never left the car.
The evidence was followed but it was leading to the wrong person.
ralph124c, I wasn’t asking for confirmation that Matthew Stuart assisted his brother in covering up the murder or that he may have been a robber. I was asking for confirmation that he knew Bennett.
I already said that “Saint” may be a bit much. As for whitewashing Bennett’s prior record of felonies, according to Puddle Glum Bennett had numerous arrests and arraignments and it appears that he has been convicted of shooting a double amputee. I admit I would like to see verification of this, but that is my point. If Puddle Glum’s posts are correct, then the media left much of this out when the murder occurred. While I said from the beginning that I have no intention of excusing Stuart’s vile actions, the fact of the matter is that Bennett’s history and lifestyle did him no favors and thus made it very easy for the cops and the general public to believe that he was capable of such behavior, considering that he was not some upstanding citizen. On another note: similarly after the Rodney King beating the initial reports portrayed him as an innocent family man brutalized by the evil racist LAPD. IS the LAPD brutal and racist? Perhaps…perhaps not. Nonetheless Rodney King was DEFINITELY not some upstanding citizen who was beaten for “driving while black.” He was beaten for drunkenly driving his car around recklessly and endangering the public, and the pissed-off L.A. cops went overboard once they got him subdued.
It had no relevance to this case. The media wasn’t defending Bennett to start with, they were assuming he had comitted the crime. I’m sure his previous crimes were reported at the time. Once it was found out that he didn’t commit the murder the only relevant part of the story concerning him was that he had been falsely accused. You haven’t shown that that he’s been portrayed in anything but a factual manner.
If information is left out then it’s not entirely factual. That being said, that was what I was asking: was he some totally innocent man that was railroaded by the system or was he a criminal thug that just happened to be NOT GUILTY of this particular crime? I must admit I am curious about the supposed connection between Bennett and Stuart prior to the murder, assuming that the story is true.
What relevant information is left out? Maybe he ate paste in school when he was a kid, but that has nothing to do with this story. Show some evidence that anything about Bennett was covered up at any time.
Already been answered. You might have to read it yourself though.
He was identified by Charles Stuart in a lineup and arrested. His ordeal lasted only a few days. While I don’t envy his experience, he certainly wasn’t “tried for a murder” or anything even close.
“…the African American community is justifiably angry with the white community who fell for this ploy so easily…”
This is pretty screwed up.
I’m not sure if this is your intent, but it sounds like you’re framing this like a false dilemma.
You seem to be wanting to ask, “isn’t this all a big huff, since the jerk just got what he deserved accidentally?”
To which, the answer is no. A system of justice that accidentally punishes people, even if they incidentally deserved it…well, that’s a problem.
The reason cases like this get so much attention isn’t because of the particulars, it’s because of the generalities. You can’t undermine that by attacking the character of the “victim” in this case – when injustice is perpetrated against somebody, you can’t waive that off by just insisting they “had it coming.”
…that said, I don’t know that Bennett’s situation here really justifies the outrage, or if it just looks terrible in bullet point form. But trying to attack Bennett’s character just seems pretty off-point.
I guess I don’t understand your question. There was no real suspect to pick out. There’s also no guarantee the police will put ringers with alibis into the lineup. All Stuart had to do was pick one guy and that guy would become the person we’re now talking about instead of Willie Bennett.
I guess it’s possible that he might accidentally pick someone so holy his story would fall apart…but remember, the main problem this tale exposed was everyone’s willingness to assume a black man – any black man – would be guilty.
The reason everyone assumed a black man did it was because one of the people who got shot said a black man did it. Having someone point a gun at you and then shoot you with it makes that person stand out in your mind. Thus people tend to believe people who identify who shot them.
There is a guarantee that there are fillers in a lineup. That’s how you run a lineup. You don’t line up six people who may have committed the crime and ask the victim to pick the one who looks most like the perpetrator. If the perp was picked, either Stuart was lucky, or he was tipped off, like in this case.
edited to add: And there was a real suspect in the lineup. Based on his past criminal record, Bennett was a real suspect. He just hadn’t done it.
This was actually my point: While Bennett most certainly was NOT GUILTY of committing this atrocity, the fact of the matter is that Bennett was a known felon and right or wrong, that automatically makes you a suspect much of the time, even if you may be totally innocent of the particular crime you are now accused of (as was the case of Willie Bennett).
I know, but my point is that if the police conducting the investigation tell the witness who the suspect is, the entire procedure is rendered moot, and Stuart appears to have been tipped off.
I don’t know the evidence that Stuart was tipped off. However either way we are both correct in our points.
I’m not sure what your point really is. Are you saying that Bennett deserved whatever he got in this case because he did something else wrong (and that King also really deserved to get the shit beat out of him, because again he did something else wrong once)?
I mean, it almost sounds like you’re trying to convince someone – maybe yourself – that, really, the police don’t make mistakes OK, and/or that if they do it will never hurt nice people like yourself.
No, that’s exactly backward. Charles Stuart chose to say a black man did it very specifically because he knew people were predisposed to believe a black man as the suspect, and once the hysteria was going, people might not look at his story as closely. So “one of the people who got shot” said a black man did it because he knew people would be inclined to assume it was true.
If this is the case I remember, Stuart didn’t go to police and say “Willie Bennett shot my wife” or “that guy over there,” he said “a black man did it,” and police then rounded up Willie (and possibly others) on the basis that they fit that description. The press certainly ran with the “black man shot a white woman” issue. The story is still a reference point for racial fears.