I just read through a couple of Rubin Carter is guilty websites, and they don’t seem to be the usually biased opinions you often see on such sites- in fact, what I read was damn convincing that he was guilty beyond a reasonble doubt- motive, decent witness ID, dubious alibi, matching gun shells in car, exact sequence of events reconstruction seemingly flawless- what exactly garned him the support? Mere racist backlash? Especially now that we know the movie was closer to JFK than The Thin Blue Line?
And follow-up question, why do similar people do the same thing for Mumia Abu-Jamal, also more than a reasonable doubt guilty of killing a cop?
The theory I’ve heard for much of the support for Mumia Abu-Jamal is that there is a certain segment of the population that doesn’t want to believe that anyone who can write well, and insightfully, could be a murderer. By no means is this the only reason for the support he gets, forex: there are some people who legitimately question whether justice is possible in any kind of racially charged incident. (I don’t claim to agree with them, all the time, but I regret that I can’t say they’re wrong to be concerned about it, as a general case.) I do think that the ‘artist can’t be a bad person’ idea is common among some people with links to broadcast media, though. So, when they started having doubts of Abu-Jamal’s guilt, they had access to national media venues to air their concerns.
For that matter, do you recall many people protesting Stanley “Tookie” Williams’ execution, in part because he’d written such a charming children’s book?
There’s at least one relatively famous case where NYC intelligensia have intervened for a convicted criminal who’d shown some ability as an artist (I think writing poetry, but I can’t remember, now.) and got him released to the recognizance of one of the more prominent members of NYC society. And the released felon shortly ended up murdering again. I can’t remember enough of the details to even think that a given Google search would begin to find me the exact cite, but it’s a fairly notorious case. Then there was all the support Ira Einhorn got while he was on the lam.
I really do believe that there are a number of people who can’t accept that laudable and vile traits can exist in the same person.
I’m responding to your question about Abu-Jamal, rather than your OP about Carter, because all that I really know about Carter is the Dylan song.
Thinking of Jack Abbott? Susan Sarandon even went to bat for him after his second murder, the douche.
When a federal judge overturns the conviction of a triple murderer and it is upheld by the federal court of appeals and denied review by the supreme Court, you can be pretty sure that there were some serious questions as to his guilt.
Pfft, not necessarily. Judicial peeps can be idiots as well as anyone.
Thanks, Operation Ripper. Even if that’s not what I was thinking of (and I believe it was, though I’d remembered the murder victim as female.) it showcases the attitude I was looking to highlight.
I think the judge overturned the conviction because of procedural errors. I also seem to recall after having read a lot of details on the case that just maybe the cops had framed an guilty man–but it’s been a while.
FWIW, here’s a lot of info on the case:
What I’ve read from some of his supporters is that they don’t think he was necessarily innocent, but that he didn’t get a fair trial.
At that level they don’t care about his guilt. There may have been serious questions about the process but that is not the same as his guilt or innocence.
And the important thing is it made for a great song.
I came in here to say the same thing. I went to Evergreen where he was a graduation speaker. Most, if not all, of his supporters at the school were willing to concede privately that Mumia was involved in the murder but also did not receive a fair trial.
Which is why I tried to be careful in my own post about Abu-Jamal’s case to agree that it is unfortunately reasonable for people to question whether such a racially charged crime (black, drunk accused vs. white family man cop) can be tried fairly. The justice system has to try to deal with such cases, but the historical record is such that even without obvious bias or errors in the trial record it’s not unreasonable to question just how proper the trial was.
But I really don’t think the man’s case would have garnered national interest if it weren’t for the people in the national media who chose to advocate it. And often the reasons for their advocacy seemed to stem more from Abu-Jamal’s other acts rather than anything relating to the crime or the trial.
Don’t kid yourself. Judges are people too, and I have personally witnessed them do backflips and push the law beyond its breaking point to avoid setting a person free when they believed was guilty. They don’t all do it, but some do. I am more inclined to believe a person who actually sat and listened to the evidence than armchair quarterbacks who base their opinion on… well I don’t know what you base it on. The point is, I know the federal court did not base its opinion on whether he was innocent, but whether he got a fair trial, which he clearly did not. If he has not had a fair trial how can we say whether he was guilty or not?
The Hurricane has died.
Another part of the counter-culture fad of pretending to care about civil rights and sticking it to the man. Then they realized rent was getting higher and had to get jobs. Then they became the man.
Let’s see:
[ol]
[li]Lying initial “eyewitnesses”[/li][li]Matching shells didn’t match bullets recovered ballistically.[/li][li]No confessions[/li][li]The alleged conspirators didn’t turn on one another[/li][li]No forensics evidence[/li][li]No gunshot residue test to prove that the defendants had fired any weapons around the time they were arrested[/li][li] The victims didn’t identify the accused (one victim survived)[/li][li] Alibi witnesses placed the two accused men at another location at the time of the robbery[/li][/ol]
It was a weak case that probably shouldn’t have been pursued by the prosecution until additional evidence was obtained.
Downgraded to a tropical depression.
I think in some cases, protest movements adopt causes they know are hopeless. They’re looking to form an ongoing mass movement not just address a specific incident.
What happens if they choose to rally around a case where there’s real injustice? They may gather a lot of attention and support - but they run the risk that when they expose this genuine injustice, the authorities may concede their point and address the injustice. People may feel a brief period of triumph but they’re also going to feel a sense that the goal was accomplished, justice triumphed, and the system ultimately worked. These are not the feelings you want to foster if you’re seeking a widespread change in that system.
So instead a movement looking for change will focus on a hopeless cause - one where the authorities got it right and there’s no chance they’re going to say they’re wrong. That way the protesters can keep the struggle alive. As the authorities defend themselves, the protesters can keep attacking and denouncing them. Supporters will be building up feelings of hostility and defiance and frustration - and these are the ingredients the movement wants.
Without watching the movie, seeing other posts, or knowing anything about the topic at all, I’m going to guess that about half of the black men in prison in that state were stopped illegally and jailed without proper representation nor a fair trial.
She even named her son after him.