Talk:Rubin Carter/Comments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)