Saturday, 8 November 2008

Hurricanes, Hollywood and the Lafayette Bar & Grill

This is the story of the Hurricane
The man the authorities came to blame
For something that he never done
Put in a prison cell, but one time
He could have been the champion of the world

Remember that? Bob Dylan's 'Hurricane'? About 1975? The sad story of the boxer Rubin 'Hurricane' Carter and his 'false' imprisonment for multiple murder? A sorry tale of stitch up, conspiracy and malice against a poor, hapless, black boxer, too uppity for his own good. I don't know why, but the lyric came into my head and to pass the time I went and had a look for the story. What was funny was that I didn't quite find what I was looking for.

In the aftermath of the 1999/2000 film, with Denzel Washington, someone had set up a web site to lambast the film for its inattention to facts, its total lack of objectivity and for its completely 'fairy tale' like quality in lionising Carter. Now the site is quite extensive and has all the hallmarks of the 'single issue fanatic'; you know, those loonies who obsess over one thing to the exclusion of everything else, eating, sleeping, washing, you know the kind I mean. Except......

The site's author spent about 20 years as a journalist. Now journalists are a queer bunch, I know, I have a few in my address book, especially once they get wind of a story. For journalists, it's often all that counts while they're working on it, the story. So I was a little intrigued and delved. What the site's author has amassed is a huge amount of official documents which puts a whole different slant on both the film and Carter's account, on which the film is based. What you come away with is an ever growing realisation that in many ways, we seem to have been conned.

The site's author actually covered the second trial for his newspaper and like a good journalist has created a site which, to this penguin, marshalls so many facts, discrepancies in accounts and what appear to be outright fabrications in Carter's account that you can't help but feel that the juries in both trials (yes there were two, separated by about 10 years) actually may have got it right, after all. On the balance of probabilities, the police probably, like the Mounties, did get their man.

Now this is not to say that I think they should pop Carter back in the slammer. He was released by a federal judge on a couple of procedural issues (mainly lack of disclosure by the prosecution) in a last ditch appeal in the late eighties for a writ of habeus corpus and seems now to be leading a perfectly law abiding life, albeit one which seems to be founded on spinning his story of his life at $20,000 a throw. I suppose if you want to pay that kind of money to listen to someone who now says he was running guns to the ANC in the '60s :) all well and good but the American judicial system took a hard knock in the wake of Carter's release and the film made matters worse; perhaps the issue does need to be looked at again. Having said that, there probably is no point, even the prosecutor saw no point trying to pursue the case again in the late eighties so long after the original event, despite the fact that they were decidedly unhappy about the decision. They considered it perverse in the extreme, given that previous appeals by Carter's team based on the evidence had failed.

So why bother to write about it? Well, as I was googling around the subject I came across an obituary for Joey Giardello, who died in September this year.

Oh dear, the penguin's going off topic again :)

Joey Giardello was the undisputed middleweight champion of the world from 1964 to 1965. One of the old school of boxers who fought his way up from rookie to champion the hard way with over 100 fights. A capable and a skillful boxer. When he lost to the man he had beaten in 1964 to gain the title, Dick Tiger, he effectively retired. So what has that got to do with Rubin Carter? Carter was the first challenger for Giardello's title in 1964. Carter lost, as he usually did to boxers who had any real skill, to a unanimous (and undisputed) points decision, effectively 10 rounds to Giardello, 5 to Carter. From then on in Carter seemed to go a little downhill, losing seven of his next fifteen fights and had slipped from one to five in the ranking list of contenders and looked on his 'way out'. A little after that he was 'inside'.

So what did the WBC (which didn't exist in 1964) do in 1993, it awarded Carter a middleweight championship belt (they gave one to Giardello as well at the same time). I wonder how Giardello must have felt? He beat the man fair and square but Carter ends up getting a belt anyway? And then in 2000, the film portrays Carter as a man robbed of the title by a corrupt and crooked system, with Giardello an inept and shambling wreck of a fighter who spends the last round on the ropes being pummeled to a pulp by Carter, when in reality, Carter scarcely got a look in after round five.

Giardello sued and had footage of the whole fight to back up his claim. Universal settled out of court. I wonder why? Perhaps they didn't want anyone else coming forward saying exactly how much fabrication was in a 'true story'?

You see, in one way, it was that story that tipped the penguin over the edge. If the story could be so wrong on that issue, what else might it be wrong on? And if Carter is making a living spinning lies, then shouldn't someone point this out?

I suppose not really, politicians do it all the time, why shouldn't the citizens?

If you want to waste :) an afternoon digging around Cal Deal's site it's here.

6 comments:

  1. It is exactly situations such as this that cause me to despair of ever figuring out the money problem. Almost always, when I get to the bottom of any "rich person" I find this heap of exaggeration, lies and propaganda to cover up the same self-loathing I've decided to address by facing it square on.

    It seems like there really are not any "get rich" schemes out there unless one is willing to sacrifice character. And then, I start to think that being poor has its advantages- such as keeping us focused on survival, which keeps us united against an enemy (poverty) with the added benefit of not ever having to place a face on that enemy. Some people are just poor. There isn't anything inherently immoral or wrong about that (unless you live in Candide's world.)

    So, I'm glad you investigated that. I think you learned something. I know I did.

    BTW- I will be attending University in the spring, so you need to do some Physics posts soon-I never had Physics in highschool- really need to catch up, quick.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think that there are advantages to being poor at some stage in your life, my parents were relatively so, because it teaches you about the important things; friendship, love, being liked for who you are, not just because your dad drives a Mercedes and gives you lots of pocket money (allowance) and, if you live in a area where everyone is poor, there used to be such a sense of community, of commonality.

    And then when you're old enough to understand the sacrifices made so you get what you need to pursue your life, it makes the natural affection children have for their parents so much stronger.

    I deem myself fortunate that I own the flat I live in (even if there are still 12 years on the mortgage); that I don't need to check my bank statement to the last penny; that I don't need to panic when my monthly gas bill rises to £90 per month ($145) when it used to be a third of that in the days of North Sea Gas (Russians tightening the screws); that I don't have to say 'no' if someone asks if I can help them out, financially, knowing that they can never repay; the occasional bottle of Krug. It is 'pleasant' to be in that situation, I think.

    As you say, get rich quick schemes always entail you in lowering your perception of what is acceptable, of being less human than you are. This, regretably is built into the capitalist system, greed over-rides all else. This seems to me to be a sad, tho' affluent, way to live! And I will have none of it! I like my creature comforts but not at the expense of so much hardship for others. In this, I am not 100% successful, but I try! :)

    Self loathing is, in the end, a pointless exercise. It leads ultimately to suicide, moral or physical. Strangely, I never blamed my parents for the way I look but it took an Elfin Queen to stop me blaming MYSELF :)

    Does your course start in February?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wednesday January 14

    ReplyDelete
  4. That's the middle of winter here, not spring! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's not very far away. So, I must study, and quickly.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's not very far away. So, I must study, and quickly.

    ReplyDelete