Witnesses, Evidence and Racial Motives

Discrepancy: In the movie, Lt. Vincent Della Pesca is portrayed as a racist, profanity-spewing cop who was out to "get" Carter. They insinuated that this obsession had been ongoing since his incarceration at the age of 11. The defense tried to use racial discrimination as a basis for the "frame up" of Carter and Artis.

Truth: Carter NOW says that it is a "composite" designed to represent the racist system. But, rather than depicting that in another way, they chose to instead make one policeman, Lt. Della Pesca (real name: Lt. Vincent DeSimone) as the racist. The real man was a very religious person, and did not even swear. Nor was he even in the courtroom the day Rubin was released (remember the scowl on Della Pesca's face in the movie?). Lt. DeSimone had been dead for years before the decision to release Rubin.

Discrepancy: Eyewitness Al Bello lied to help frame Carter. The movie shows Bello sitting in front of a tape recorder with the racist Lt. promising him he would not prosecute him for burglary. Bello plays along, and says sure, it was Carter. It also shows Arthur Dexter Bradley, the burglary accomplice sitting behind Bello during this, making it seem like the Lt. wanted the two to have the same story.

Truth: Al Bello identified Carter eight days earlier, October 3, 1966. Patterson Detective LaConte saw Bello's car outside the bar, he went inside to talk. Bello was shaken up and said he had been threatened to keep his mouth shut. He told LaConte "You had the man and let him go". (telling him it was Carter) LaConte set up a meeting with his boss Sgt. Mohl, in which Bello again identified Carter.

On October 11, 1966, is when the taped interview happened. Bello did not know he was being taped during the interview. Bradley was not in the room, he was miles away at the Bordertown Reformatory. Bradley first identified Rubin Carter on October 6, 1966, 5 days before the taped interview with Bello. He had no opportunity to coordinate his testimony with Bello. The only promises made to Bello were to ensure his life wouldn't be in danger if he testified. Bello later tried to recant his testimony which ID'd Carter and Artis, but the prosecution played the tape in an open court to discredit Bello's recantation.

	Part I: It's not the best quality, but listen for the key phrase: "I thought that I had seen this one man, I thought it was Rubin Carter."
	Part II: Bello says, "When the police came back with 'em he [Carter] was dressed the same way an' everything. You know what I mean? So in my mind I know it had to be him. It was the same person I had seen come around the corner."
	Bello Identifies Carter's Car: Police apprehended Carter and brought him to the Lafayette Grill just 30 minutes after the murders, Bello recognized "the same car an' the same people I saw" earlier -- the getaway car and the gunmen. DeSimone is recapping here, which is why he is making statements.

Killers' Getaway Car
Complete Transcript of Trial Testimony, 1967
PATRICIA GRAHAM VALENTINE, being first duly sworn, testifies as follows:

THE COURT: Before we start, Mrs. Valentine, will you please make certain that you keep your voice up so that everybody in the courtroom can hear you?

THE WITNESS: I will try to do so, your Honor.

DIRECT EXAMINATION:

By MR. HULL:

Q: Is it Mrs. Valentine?

A: Yes, Patricia Graham Valentine.

Q: What was your name on June 17th of 1966?

A: Patricia Graham.

Q: You have since married, is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Where did you live on June 17th of 1966?

A: 1428 East 18th Street.

Q: What floor did you live on?

A: Second.

Q: What was the first floor of that building?

A: Tavern; Lafayette Grill.

Q: Where were you at about 2:30 A.M. on June 17th of 1966?

A: Well, I was laying on my couch watching television, and I had fallen asleep.

Q: In which room were you?

A: The living room.

Q: Did anything unusual happen at about that time?

A: Yes.

Q: What happened?

A: I heard a noise.

Q: What kind of a noise?

A: It was a big bang.

Q: Could you tell where that noise was coming from that you heard?

A: The tavern.

Q: By "the tavern", you mean the tavern downstairs?

A: Yes.

Q: What did you do after you heard that noise?

A: Well, I got up. As I got up, I heard two more noises; the same thing.

Q: What room were you in then?

A: Living room.

Q: What did you do then?

A: I went to the front window, I thought it was Jim closing the tavern.

THE COURT: The last statement of that paragraph bill be stricken, but it will remain up to the point, "I went to the front window."

MR. HULL: If your Honor please, may I have this photograph marked S-1 for identification? I believe this is the one the Defense Counsel has a copy of.

MR. BROWN: It represents the corner of 18th and Lafayette. We will stipulate that this is apparently a photograph of that corner.

THE COURT: Then mark it S-1 in evidence. (The photograph referred to is received and marked in evidence as Exhibit S-1)

THE COURT: Continue, Mr. Hull.

BY MR. HULL:

Q: Where did you go after you heard these noises?

A: To my front window.

Q: I show you this photograph and ask you if you recognize that?

A: Yes.

Q: What does that photograph contain?

A: This is my apartment right here.

Q: Please mark the window that you went to.

A: (The witness complies).

Q: What did you do after you went to that window?

A: Well, I heard someone say, "Oh, no." So I ran from the living room into the bedroom. What that, I looked out my window on Lafayette.

Q: Before that, did you see anything when you looked out the window which you have marked on S-1 in evidence?

A: Yes, the neon light was still on, which meant that the tavern was open.

MR. HULL: May I have this photograph marked for identification?

THE COURT: Show it to Counsel so that it may be marked directly into evidence.

MR. BROWN: No objections, your Honor. There is no reason why it shouldn't be marked into evidence.

THE COURT: This photograph will be marked S-2 in evidence.

(The photograph referred to is received and marked in evidence as Exhibit S-2)

BY MR. HULL:

Q: I show you S-2 in evidence and ask you have you ever seen that photograph before?

A: Yes.

Q: What does it show in the photograph?

A: My view out the living room window.

Q: What is this object in the right upper corner?

A: The neon sign that I could see.

Q: What was the condition of the neon sign?

A: It was lit.

Q: What did you do after you observed that the neon sign was lit?

A: Well, I left that window and went to the bedroom window on Lafayette.

Q: All right.

Would you mark that window also, as it is contained in Exhibit S-1 in evidence?

A: (The witness complies)

THE COURT: I gather from that photograph that the building is located on a corner, is that correct?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Your living room window faces what street?

THE WITNESS: East 18th.

THE COURT: Your bedroom is facing Lafayette?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

BY MR. HULL:

Q: Now, did you observe anything when you went to the bedroom window which you have marked with an "X"?

A: Yes, I saw two men running away from the side of the building and get into a white car.

Q: Can you describe the men that you saw?

A: They were colored men.

Q: Where did they go to?

A: One got into the drivers side and one got into the passengers side.

Q: Can you on that same photograph, S-1 in evidence, indicate approximately where it was that you first saw the two men?

A: Well, coming out. They were running away from the building, this way towards the car. I was looking out this window and they ran from here.

THE COURT: Indicating from the sidewalk on Lafayette Street to a car parked on Lafayette out away from the curb?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

BY MR. HULL:

Q: What did these two men do?

A: They got into the car and they started to take off.

Q: In which direction?

A: Down towards Graham Avenue.

Q: When you say that, do you mean away from East 18th Street?

A: Yes.

Q: In which direction was the car facing when you first saw it?

A: Away from East 18th towards Graham Avenue.

Q: How fast were the men going when you saw them before they got into the car?

A: They were running to the car.

Q: Now, can you describe the car that you saw the men get into?

A: Well, it was white and it had like two triangles starting at the outside of the car and narrowing into the center.

THE COURT: Where?

THE WITNESS: The taillights.

BY MR. HULL:

Q: Did you observe anything else about the car?

A: Well, the way they took off, I figured there was something wrong.

MR. BROWN: I object.

THE COURT: Just tell us how they took off.

THE WITNESS: They took off quite fast, in a hurry. So, I tried to get the license plate number, but I couldn't see the lettering or make out the numbers or anything, but I saw that they were dark plates with yellow or gold lettering. It wasn't a Jersey plate.

BY MR. HULL:

Q: Now, where did the car go?

A: Towards Graham Avenue.

Q: When?

A: After the police came to the tavern and everything, they had brought the car back two police cars brought the car back to the scene.

THE COURT: What time was that?

THE WITNESS: I would say about 15 minutes to a half hour later.

BY MR. HULL:

Q: Did you see the car?

A: Yes.

Q: Where was it when you saw it?

A: Like on the corner, more on the Lafayette side.

Q: What kind of a car was that that you saw then?

A: The same car that I had seen pull away.

Q: Did you tell the police anything when the car returned to the scene?

A: I told them that was the car, because they told me to look at the car.

Q: You told the police about what car?

A: The car I seen pull away.,

Q: From where?

A: From the house, from my window.

THE COURT: Do you know what police officer you told that to?

THE WITNESS: Officer Greenough.

BY MR. HULL:

Q: Was Lieutenant Lynch with Officer Greenough when you said that?

MR. HULL: Your Honor, may I have this photograph marked S-3 in evidence?

MR. BROWN: I couldn't stipulate on that, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. That will be marked S-3 for identification.

(The photograph referred to is received and marked for identification on Exhibit S-3)

BY MR. HULL:

Q: Now, I show you S-3 for identification and ask you if you have ever seen the contents of that photograph?

A: Yes.

Q: On what occasion?

A: That's the kind of a car that was leaving by the house.

Q: Now, with reference to the taillights, does that photograph contain the same type of taillights that you saw?

A: Yes.

Q: And with respect to the license plates?

A: Well, it was a dark plate with yellow lettering.

MR. HULL: At this time I offer Exhibit S-3 for identification into evidence.

MR. BROWN: I object, your Honor, because the witness had very candidly stated this to be the same kind of a car and that what she saw was a yellow and gold dark plate with yellow and gold lettering which, of course, does not identify this particular automobile either from a photograph or any other syntheses that I know of.

I believe it is a car, possibly similar to the car shown to here as she has pointed out. She obviously cannot identify that car.

THE COURT: For the purpose of this exhibit, we will mark it S-3 in evidence.

(Exhibit S-3 previously marked for identification is received in evidence.)

MR. BROWN: Your Honor, I have a second objection to this photograph.

Time has not been established. Time and place has not been established to this car.

THE COURT: Time and place of what?

MR. BROWN: Of the taking of the photograph and the exposition of the witness to the photograph itself before the day of the incident.

THE COURT: Suppose its a year after the incident? How does that affect the admissibility?

It affects weight perhaps, but not admissibility.

MR. BROWN: If that is so, it has not been established either.

THE COURT: It will be admitted into evidence after the most consideration of your last objection.

MR. HULL: I have nothing further.

MR. BROWN: At this time, your Honor, I would like the official statement of the witnesses which relate to the testimony on cross-examination. I believe Mr. Hull has such a statement.

MR. STEIN: Your Honor, we are entitled to the witnesses testimony who testified before the Grand Jury.

MR. BROWN: Your Honor, within the same category, I would like to have the statement also.

THE COURT: One step at a time, please. Mr. Hull, do you have a statement to present?

MR. HULL: Your Honor, let the record show that I am turning over to Defense Counsel a statement of Patricia Graham Valentine dated June 17, 1966, time 6:35 P.M., and a second statement dated October 20, 1966, time 1:40 P.M. The first statement contains two pages. The second statement contains three pages. To the best of my knowledge, these are the only written statements taken from the witnesses outside of the Grand Jury testimony.

MR. BROWN: Your Honor, I now ask to be allowed to examine the Grand Jury transcript of these witnesses.

THE COURT: Mr. Hull, did these witnesses testify before the Grand Jury?

MR. HULL: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you have that testimony in written form?

MR. HULL: I have it attached to some other testimony. I believe I can take it apart. The only reservation is that I am not aware of any case on the subject of Grand Jury testimony. As a general rule, your Honor, it is not admissible up until the time of trial.

THE COURT: I understand, and this creates a problem. I will conceive of this proceeding as having the same importance equal to the trial and, therefore, I feel the same principle would be applicable. In other words, if this witness testified at trial, it would be permissible for me to compel the Grand Jury testimony to be submitted to the other Counsel. I think we should do it at this time as well.

MR. HULL: I am bound by the Courts decision. Your Honor, I have in my possession transcript of the Grand Jury testimony given by Patricia Graham Valentine before the Grand Jury on October 29, 1966. The testimony was taken by Leo L. Weberman, an official stenographic reporter. Let the record also show that I am giving to Defense Counsel her testimony which consists from the bottom of Page 53 up to Page 84.

THE COURT: Staple that together, please.

MR. HULL: Your Honor, also contained in this testimony, as well as dates for Defense Counsel, are matters far in excess of direct examination of this witness, which will be more extensive at trial.

THE COURT: We understand that, of course, and Counsel should be made aware that we are not here for a full-dress trial. Limit your cross-examination to our problem here.

MR. BROWN: One more thing. Is there any oral testimony that could be produced in any form, such as written from the memory of the police? I have my problems with statements.

THE COURT: If it is a resume by a member of the Prosecutors staff, or otherwise that certainly would not be admissible. I think you have plenty from the Grand Jury.

MR. BROWN: Your Honor, there is never plenty in a case like this.

THE COURT: In any event, there is nothing further in writing from this defendant?

MR. HULL: Not that I am personally aware of, your Honor.

MR. BROWN: Your Honor, would you give us about ten minutes to read this? It is about 30 pages.

THE COURT: All right. We will take a ten-minute recess.

MR. HULL: I want the material back.

(A recess is taken.)

THE COURT: Proceed, Mr. Brown.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. BROWN:

Q: Mrs. Valentine, you just told us that this car looked like the car that you saw. Is that correct?
Yes.
Q: And you spoke to the police early in the morning about 6:30, I think you said?

A: Yes.

MR. BROWN: It appears I forgot to mark it for identification, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Mark it D-1 for identification.

(The statement referred to is received and marked for identification as Exhibit D-1.)

BY MR. BROWN:

Q: Now, actually you gave me an oral statement to Officer Greenough early in the morning at approximately 6 A.M.?

A: No, Detective Lawless.

Q: Do you recall testifying that you gave a statement early in the morning to Officer Greenough?

A: About three oclock.

Q: About three oclock.. But what time did you first speak to any police officer with respect to the car and its identity?

A: At the scene.

Q: Approximately what time was that?

A: Three oclock.

Q: Would that be 3 A.M., meaning three in the morning?

A: Yes.

Q: This officers name was what?

A: Greenough.

Q: Then you did tell Officer Greenough at approximately 3 A.M. in the morning how you would describe the car, is that right?

A: Yes.

Q: Then at approximately 6:35 P.M. you spoke to Lieutenant Lawless, is that correct?

A: A.M.

Q: I show you D-1 for identification and ask you to examine the time at the upper left part of the sheet.

A: It is supposed to be A.M.

Q: That should not be P.M., but A.M.?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, after you spoke to Officer Lawless at approximately 6:35 A.M., you had already spoken to Greenough at three, and you had already seen the car exhibited to you by Greenough or another officer before you spoke to Lawless at 6:35 A.M., is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, when you spoke to Greenough, what did you tell him you recalled about the automobile?

A: That the taillights looked like two triangles, starting wide at the outside and tapering into the center.

Q: Now, when you told Lynch about those lights tapering into the center, did you also tell him what color you thought the plate was?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, is it a fact that you told the police only that the license plate was dark?

A: Dark.

Q: That's all you told them, right?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you at that time tell either Officer Greenough or Officer Lawless that they were yellow or gold numbers?

A: I don't recall. I was very nervous that morning.

Q: Nervous or not, the fact is that you did not tell these officers that the numbers were yellow or gold?

A: I think I told Greenough that the numbers were yellow or gold.

Q: Do you recall signing a statement for Lieutenant Lawless at 6 A.M.? I call your attention to a point in this document marked for identification, and ask you if this is a description you gave to Officer Lawless as I have given it to you?

A: Yes.

Q: There is no mention there of any number or color?

A: Just a dark plate.

Q: And that is all you recall prior to seeing the car, isn't that true?

A: No.

Q: Well, that is all you told Lawless after you have even examined the car, isn't that true?

A: It says that.

Q: Well, I am asking you. Did you give the statement?

A: I know it was a dark plate with yellow or gold letters.

Q: Hardly enough. You signed a statement in which you said it was a dark plate. You cannot identify the plates on the car I am showing you in S-3 in evidence as the car you saw. You cant do that, can you?

A: Its not in color.

Q: Because it is not in color you cant identify that car, is that right?

A: Yes.

Q: When Mr. Hull, the Prosecutor, showed you this car and you referred to it, you meant that you couldn't identify this car from this photograph,S-3?

A: The picture of the car, itself, was the same.

Q: How can you identify it? You said you cant identify it.

A: It was a white car. The taillights were exactly the same.

Q: Can you identify this car in S-3 as the same car that you saw on the night of June 17th?

A: Yes.

Q: How can you identify it? It is a white car with taillights at the outside and tapering to the center. That is all you can identify of it, right?

A: Right.

Q: So now as far as this car is concerned, if there were a thousand like it and if you saw any one of them that was a white color with tapering headlights, you would say that was the car. Is that correct?

A: It looked like it.

Q: So if another car looked like it from the photograph used, you would say that looked like it, right?

A: I don't know.

MR. HULL: Objection. Counsel is arguing with the witness.

THE COURT: She says she doesn't know because they don't have the other thousand photographs. You made your point.

BY MR. BROWN:

Q: With respect to the men you saw running to the car, you cant identify those men, can you?

A: Not by face, no.

Q: Well, by what features can you identify them? What manner or what characteristics? What clothing or whatever?

A: Just that they were two colored men running to a white car.

Q: That would be your total identification?

A: Right.

Q: Two Negro men running for a white car?

A: Yes.

Q: The fact is that you cannot state that those men had a weapon in their hands, is that right?

A: Yes.

Q: The fact is that you didn't see where these men came from, is that also true?

A: They ran from the building.

Q: You saw them run from the building?

A: Away from the building.

Q: You gave a statement to Lieutenant Lawless, didn't you? I call your attention to D-1 and ask you if these sentences that I am speaking about describe what you saw. "I went to the window. The tavern sign was still on. I then went to my side window at Lafayette Street. That's correct, isn't it?

A: Yes.

Q: "There were two colored men running to a white car"?

A: Yes.

Q: Is there anywhere in that statement anything that you told the police to the effect that you saw them running from the building or any other place whatsoever?

A: No.

Q: That statement was given within three hours after you had seen the men, is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: So it is a fact that you cannot say they were running from a building, can you?

A: They were running from under my window.

Q: "They were running from under my window." That's quite a different thing.

MR. HULL: Objection.

THE COURT: That's argumentative.

BY MR. BROWN:

Q: They were running under your window. The fact is you didn't see these men until they were in the street near the car, is that right?

A: Yes.

Q: So when you first saw them, they were in the street near the car which was parked near the center of the street. Is that correct?

A: Yes.

THE COURT: Was that the first time you saw them or did you see them on the sidewalk?

THE WITNESS: I saw them running off the sidewalk and into the street.

THE COURT: You did see them on the sidewalk?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. BROWN:

Q: Now, you heard your Honor put a question to you, and you said you saw them like running from the curb. Is that right?

A: Yes.

Q: I will put it more precisely. When you say you saw them running from the curb, you saw them in the street leaving the area of the curb?

A: They were running off the curb into the car.

Q: Then you saw them on the curb?

A: Yes.

Q: You saw them on the concrete?

A: Yes.

Q: That's as far as you saw them in terms of distance from the building. "I saw them on the concrete of the sidewalk, then step off and then run into the car."

A: Yes.

Q: You described two windows. One of your windows is on Lafayette Street and one of your windows is on 18th Street, am I correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you see these men at any time on 18th Street?

A: No.

Q: That's the side where the neon sign is, right?

A: Yes.

Q: That's the side which is shown in the photograph that's marked S-2, and I show you this, is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And I assume your window is the window from which this photograph was taken, where the bars cross the front of it?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you see the men there?

A: No.

Q: Now, with respect to the photograph marked S-1 in evidence, I believe you described for Mr. Hull the location of the car as being parallel to the third car from the corner, one, two, three, am I correct?

A: It was about right here.

Q: At the end of the station wagon, would you put a circle as opposed to a cross where you say you saw it?

A: (The witness complies.)

Q: Now, were they any cars parked at the curb at the time you were looking out the window?

A: No.

Q: There were no cars parked whatsoever?

A: No.

Q: Were there any cars parked across the street?

A: I don't know.

Q: Now, could you tell us approximately how far from the curb the car was which you described as being parked in the middle of the street?

A: There could have been a car parked by the curb.

Q: There could have been a car, another car from the white car you described?

A: There could have been another car parked there. That's how much room there was.

Q: I see. Your window is marked with an "X", is that right.

A: Yes.

Q: And I suppose that is your bedroom window?

A: Yes.

Q: You say you saw those men as they stepped off the edge of the curb?

A: Right.

Q: And you say that they were under your window, under the overhangin that general direction? Would you say that?

A: Coming from that direction.

Q: As far as you know, they were on the curb?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, do you know a little more about these men? Do you know what they were wearing?

A: Sports jackets. One had a hat.

Q: Each had on a sports jacket?

A: One had a hat.

Q: One had a hat. Can you describe either of the sports jackets or the hat?

A: The hat was like a fedora hat.

Q: By a "fedora", do you mean a hat with a brim running around it?

A: A thin brim.

THE COURT: Do you mean a narrow brim?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

BY. MR. BROWN:

Q: Would you accept "narrow" as meaning the same thing as thin?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, do you recall the color of the hat?

A: No.

Q: You don't recall the color of the jackets I take it?

A: No.

Q: As you saw these men running from the curb to the car, you say one got in the passengers side and one got in the drivers side?

A: Yes.

Q: Which side was facing you? The drivers side or the passengers side?

THE COURT: Nearest to you.

THE WITNESS: The passengers side.

BY MR. BROWN:

Q: The passengers side?

A: Yes.

Q: Which one got into the passengers side which was nearest you?

A: I don't know.

Q: Was it the one that wore a hat?

A: The one that wore a hat got into the passengers side.

Q: He got in the passengers side?

A: Yes.

Q: The man who didn't wear a hat got into the drivers side?

A: Yes.

Q: You saw them open the door to get in?

A: Yes.

Q: When you saw them open the door you had to be looking in the area of their hands to see them?

A: Yes.

Q: Isn't it a fact that you don't know whether either of those men had a weapon?

A: No.

Q: They did not have a weapon?

A: I don't know.

THE COURT: Well, she doesn't know. Incidentally, was your window open or were you looking through the window?

THE WITNESS: I don't remember. It was June. It must have been open.

THE COURT: But you don't know definitely?

THE WITNESS: No, your Honor.

BY MR. BROWN:

Q: You don't know whether the window was open or closed?

A: I don't remember.

Q: Well, did you lean out of the window or did you stay within the room while you were observing?

A: Stayed in the room.

Q: How far were you from the window inside the room when you saw these things?

A: Right at the window.

Q: Yet, you don't know whether it was open or closed?

A: I don't remember.

Q: You don't remember. Now, when you looked out of the window when you were inside the room at the window, did you remain at the window or did you leave it after you observed the men running from the curb?

A: When they got into the car and took off, then I went away from the window.

Q: Starting from the middle of the street, the fact is you couldn't see the license plate? Isn't is a fact that this street was light enough to see that this was not a Jersey plate, but that it was a dark plate and that's all you saw?

A: Yes.

Q: As a car went down the street, could you tell me whether the license plate was under the bumper or over the bumper?

A: It was right on the bumper.

Q: Were there any lights near it other than the taillights that you described?

A: No.

Q: When you say "on the bumper", do you mean suspended from the bumper?

A: No, it was right in the bumper.

Q: Right in the bumper?

A: Yes.

Q: In other words, if it was in the bumper, then the license plate sat right in there?

A: Yes.

Q: As you say, you saw the car screeching down the street

THE COURT: She didn't say screeching.

MR. BROWN: I withdraw that.

BY MR. BROWN:

Q: Would you say that you saw the car screeching down the street?

A: Speeding away.

Q: Well, actually you told the officer that it went screeching down the street, isn't that right? Do you recall saying that?

THE COURT: Why don't you show it to her in the statement?

MR. BROWN: Ill do that, you Honor. I believe that is in the Grand Jury testimony. I will withdraw that question.

BY MR. BROWN:

Q: "The tires screeched as the car pulled away." I show you D-1 for identification and ask you if you recall telling the officer as I read this to you, "The tires screeched as the car pulled away"?

A: Yes.

Q: Is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: So you could hear through the window, is that right?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you hear the men say anything?

A: No.

Q: Now, as the car screeched away, did you see where it went?

A: It went down Lafayette Street towards Graham Avenue.

Q: How far down Lafayette Street did it go as far as you could observe?

A: There was a tree by the house next door.

Q: There is a tree by the house and you couldn't see it?

A: Not past that.

Q: Would you show us the tree?

THE COURT: Indicating the left-hand side of the photograph.

BY MR. BROWN:

Q: This tree?

A: Yes.

Q: Well, you are familiar with the neighborhood. Where is that tree located?

A: Right in front of the house.

Q: So it was that tree which is in front of the house that obscured your view?

THE COURT: As the car went down the street?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. BROWN:

Q: Now, actually from your window, you look right over the top of the tree, don't you?

A: No.

Q: Would you mind just putting a mark where that tree is that obscured your view?

A: (The witness complies).

Q: So you could see it as far as the tree, and after the car left, you then went downstairs and you saw certain people down there?

A: Yes.

Q: You saw certain people down there, is that right?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, since you can't describe the jackets you say they wore, naturally you cant describe the trousers?

A: No.

Q: Now, in the terms of the shading of these colored people, colored people vary in shades of color from light to dark. Can you tell us, if you will, what their color was? Can you tell us, if you will, what their color was? Did you ever tell the police officer that?

A: Their color?

Q: You couldn't tell us anything about the variation of their color? They were just plain colored?

A: Yes.

MR. BROWN: That is all I have.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. STEIN:

Q: Mrs. Valentine, how much of the person of those two men did you have an opportunity to see at any time from the time that you looked out your window?

A: Their bodies?

Q: What portion of their neck was exposed on this particular evening?

A: Their neck.

Q: And is this all that you saw to determine the coloring or tint of the skin of these two individuals that went into the car?

A: Yes.

Q: That is all that you saw, is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: When did you make this observation, Mrs. Valentine, as they were entering the vehicle?

A: Yes, when they were running.

Q: When they were running. Can you tell us if they were on or off the curb when you were able to make the observation as to the back of their neck?

A: I don't know.

Q: You don't know?

A: No.

Q: Now, Mrs. Valentine, you have indicated on the drawing the location of where this car was parked, have you not?

A: Yes.

Q: Is that the circle?

A: Yes.

Q: All right. Now, where would you place that in reference to their entry to the car at that time? In other words, if you came down the stairs and you saw that car there by looking out the front door, would that car have been to your right, to your left or immediately straight ahead?

A: To my right.

THE COURT: Mrs. Valentine, is there a doorway to your building on Lafayette Street?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: And the position of those men was such that if you were standing in your doorway, they would be to your right, is that correct?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. STEIN:

Q: Now, were you able to at any time during your observation of those two gentlemen make an approximation as to the height of either or both of those gentlemen?

A: No.

Q: Were you able to at any time determine whether there was any similarity or difference in their height?

A: No.

Q: Were you able at any time to make any determination as to whether there was a difference between their skin coloring?

A: I don't understand.

Q: Well, you said that both men were colored, is that right?

A: Yes.

Q: But you couldn't determine the shade or coloring of either, right?

A: No.

Q: Were you able to determine if one was darker or lighter than the other?

A: No.

MR. STEIN: That is all I have.

MR. BROWN: Could you tell me whether the car lights were on or not?

THE WITNESS: I don't know.

MR. BROWN: Now, you said that you could hear through the window?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. BROWN: Was the car motor running or not?

THE WITNESS: I don't know.

THE COURT: All right. That is all, Mrs. Valentine.

----- Bello and Valentine described Carter's car to police BEFORE it was brought back to the murder scene.

----- Carter admits driving down 12th Avenue at virtually the same time as the escaping killers (2:35 a.m.), but wants you to believe the killers were in an identical car on the same deserted street heading in the same direction (away from the murder scene) at virtually the same time in the middle of the night.

----- The killers' car had out-of-state plates. Carter's car had out-of-state plates. No other white car stopped by police that night had out-of-state plates.

----- The butterfly taillights seen by two witnesses were unique to one model of car — Carter's car, a Dodge Polara.

----- Identification points matching Carter's car: Large, white, highly-polished, brand-new, butterfly taillights, out-of-state plates, black occupants, near crime scene.

----- Two live rounds that could have been fired from the two murder weapons were found in Carter's car 90 minutes after the murders and were logged that day. [Homicide report]

----- The live rounds were found long before ballistics determined the caliber of the handgun used in the crime.

----- Three witnesses — a citizen, a reporter and a detective — saw the live rounds minutes after they were found.

----- Carter testified in 1967 that he was shown the bullet on the morning of the murders, and Artis testified he saw both the shotgun shell and the bullet.

----- Pat Valentine told Cal Deal about the shotgun shell in September 1975 — more than a year before she testified about it (the defense strongly suggested she was lying). She repeated her story in an interview with Deal tape recorded in January 1976. (She did not testify about it at the first trial because it was not an issue.)

Excerpt from: Prosecutor's response to Judge Sarokin's decision

JOHN P. GOCELJAK
SPECIAL DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL-IN-CHARGE
ACTING PASSAIC COUNTY PROSECUTOR
Attorney For Respondents-Appellants
By: Ronald G. Marmo
Chief Assistant Prosecutor

There is no dispute in the evidence that at the time of the murders, defendant Carter had owned certain guns, including a 12-gauge shotgun. These guns had been missing for about a year. While these guns had been missing all that time, the evidence showed that the defendant Carter was searching for his guns, for the first time, in the space of the few hours from the time that Mr. Carter met Edward Rawls and learned of his fathers murder and the time of the Lafayette Grill murders (36aA 8339-49).

The district court states (1aD 24) that, ""the search [for Carters guns] may have occurred even before petitioners knew of the shooting of James Oliver (36T 140-145)." (Emphasis added). This statement by the district court apparently contains a typographical error. The court must have intended to say that the search may have occurred even before the petitioners learned of the death of Leroy Holloway who was Eddie Rawls stepfather. James Oliver was the bartender at the Lafayette Grill.

The appellants specifically submitted to the district court the pages of Rubin Carters Grand Jury testimony which correspond to the testimony read to the trial jury. This transcript was enclosed with a letter to the district court from First Assistant Prosecutor John P. Goceljak dated October 1, 1985. That letter and the relevant transcript has been included in the appendix as (1aD 335-345). The contents of page 140 of volume 36 of the trial transcript appear on page 150 of the Grand Jury transcript as indicated there.

On page 140, Rubin Carter momentarily says he and Mr. Morrison drove off from the Nite Spot without getting out of the car. However, he immediately takes this back and says that he (Carter) got out of the car, spoke to Eddie Rawls about his fathers death and then drove off to search for his guns. The pages of the testimony which follow do not support the district courts statement that "the search for guns may have occurred before the petitioners learned of Mr. Holloways death". This testimony cannot be made to read that way short of distorting what is clearly stated there.

In his Grand Jury testimony, as read to the jury in the retrial, defendant Carter testified that after he returned again to the Nite Spot there was talk of retaliation concerning the murder of Leroy Holloway, and "It was all around that there was going to be some shaking going on." At the time Eddie Rawls was at the Nite Spot with his brother (36aA 8352-57). Carter further stated that he met Eddie Rawls again at Richies Hideaway at about 1:20 a.m. (36aA 8370-72).

This drawing was made by Clifton Det. Edward Snack and was based on a description by Mrs. Hazel Tanis, a victim of the shootings. It was Published in The Herald-News, Passaic-Clifton, N.J., Oct. 22, 1975. Mrs. Tanis died July 14, 1966.

In the hospital bed, days before she died, Hazel Tanis had this to say about the sketch.

"I'll never forget his face," Mrs. Tanis was quoted as saying of the man in the drawing. "I looked right into his eyes and then he shot me."

(photos, documents, quotes and audio courtesy of Cal Deal, Graphic Witness and Lona Manning websites; used with permission)