FREE MUMIA!!!

[djdjdj]

Click. Read. Pass it on.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080327/ap_on_re_us/mumia_abu_jamal;_ylt=Ahwtn1T5ClJg5uyV7Ly0wHZvzwcF

[DroppinScience]

I really do not know that much about Mumia and his case, but the little I do know is that Mumia seems to be really articulate in his points, and it's been suggested that he's more imprisoned not so much for whether he committed murder, but more for his Black Panther tendencies. I don't know whether he shot that police officer, but it feels clear he hasn't been given a fair trial either way. And whether he's guilty or innocent, the death penalty shouldn't be used. Period.

That's kind of in a nutshell how I've felt about the issue. I definitely should do some reading on the guy, though.

[alien autopsy]

i miss hearing his weekly radio adresses. he's a powerful mofo- his voice...it cuts right through you, and his words make a lot of sense. i totally support a retrial for mumia, with all the evidence presented. i dont know if he shot the cop or not- but from what it sounds, and based on the climate in PA at the time...it doesnt suprise me one bit that this is controversial, that his trial was bullshit, and that he might not have actually done it.
FREE MUMIA!

[QueenAdrock]

See, alien, that's one thing I don't get. A lot of people who care deeply about this issue say two things:

i dont know if he shot the cop or not

FREE MUMIA!

I don't get that mentality. Maybe it's just people unaware of what they're saying and they're just repeating the popular phrase the pro-Mumia crowd has chosen, but whenever I read stuff like that it makes my head want to explode.

I do agree he should have a retrial, though.

[RobMoney$]

his voice...it cuts right through you, and his words make a lot of sense.

^^That's what Manson's followers used to say too.



SURE, Why not go ahead and give him a retrial, in fact I think we should give a retrial to everyone in prison who says "...but I'm innocent".


Just because Mumia has a voice with the media and Ramona Africa organizing protests for him doesn't mean he's innocent.

[RobMoney$]

I do agree he should have a retrial, though.

Fortunetly, Philadelphia City Court, the State Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court of the United States of America disagree with you.

[QueenAdrock]

Too bad. I've heard new evidence has come out that he could use in his defense. How do people who have DNA evidence proving their innocence reopen their trials? I'd like to know exactly what you need to reopen your case.

Where's Bob?

[pshabi]

"At least five witnesses said they saw Abu-Jamal kill the policeman. A gun registered to Abu-Jamal was found by the suspect’s side. Abu-Jamal was wearing a holster. The gun at his side contained five spent shells. Five bullets were extracted from the slain officer that matched the shells found in Abu-Jamal’s gun. The journalist was hit with a return round from Officer Faulkner’s service revolver. Even William Cook, Abu-Jamal’s own brother, has never denied the guilt of his sibling."

There will be someone a lot cooler to put on a t-shirt soon, so let's get over this one. That attorney in the yahoo story is just a glory hound and he should be put in jail too.

Let Mumia rot. He deserves it. I don't care how cool he sounds or if he was a black panter or starred in the Pink Panther. What the fuck ever. Fuck him.

[Bob]

i don't know how exactly you reopen a case after it's been decided, and i don't know exactly how exculpatory that DNA evidence is, but

"At least five witnesses said they saw Abu-Jamal kill the policeman. A gun registered to Abu-Jamal was found by the suspect’s side. Abu-Jamal was wearing a holster. The gun at his side contained five spent shells. Five bullets were extracted from the slain officer that matched the shells found in Abu-Jamal’s gun. The journalist was hit with a return round from Officer Faulkner’s service revolver. Even William Cook, Abu-Jamal’s own brother, has never denied the guilt of his sibling."


that evidence is pretty overwhelming, as evidence goes. people have been denied new trials for less, nobody makes catchphrases about them

i dunno though, it all seems very complicated to me and i'm really not familiar with the facts at all. i refuse to have an opinion on the matter

[alien autopsy]

i say free mumia because i believe he is innocent. i have no proof of it, i wasnt there. but i do know he received an unfair trial, and he deserves a retrial that they are denying him. i am extremely skeptical of the whole case for many reasons.

free mumia means much more to me though. mumia is a political prisoner, and its just as much "free leonard peltier", or "free the panchen lama" or any other political prisoner everywhere. guilty because you oppose establishment is a very sad story.

if he did kill the officer....then he deserves to be put in jail. but when you understand the atmosphere in philidelphia at the time, of cops actually bombing african american's homes, and shooting innocent blacks in the streets...you realize that all is not fair, and that it would be really hard not to get violent or shoot back. it was literally warfare. and mumia and faulkner are casualties of that war. i think mumia is a freedom fighter, even if he did kill that officer.

[RobMoney$]

i say free mumia because i believe he is innocent. i have no proof of it, i wasnt there. but i do know he received an unfair trial, and he deserves a retrial that they are denying him. i am extremely skeptical of the whole case for many reasons.

free mumia means much more to me though. mumia is a political prisoner, and its just as much "free leonard peltier", or "free the panchen lama" or any other political prisoner everywhere. guilty because you oppose establishment is a very sad story.

if he did kill the officer....then he deserves to be put in jail. but when you understand the atmosphere in philidelphia at the time, of cops actually bombing african american's homes, and shooting innocent blacks in the streets...you realize that all is not fair, and that it would be really hard not to get violent or shoot back. it was literally warfare. and mumia and faulkner are casualties of that war. i think mumia is a freedom fighter, even if he did kill that officer.

Hey Genius, did you happen to know that it was a BLACK Mayor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_Goode)who made the call to bomb that row house in 1985?
Did you know that the militant group that called themselves MOVE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE) that occupied the home had a bunker built on top of the house where they had a stockpile of weapons that could be heard exploding for hours when the place was on fire? Also, keep in mind this was a Row House on a street with probably 50 other homes and countless kids on the street. The Police were called to the home because of the repeated complaints by the neighbors, that also happened to be a predominantly black neighborhood.
The MOVE situation had a lot less to do with race than the "media" will have you believe, it was about a neighborhood that was literally being held hostage by a fundamentalist group.



If anyone is interested in educating themselves further on this topic, go here
Officer Daniel Faulkner.comhttp://www.danielfaulkner.com/

[alien autopsy]

yeah, awesome bro. they dropped bombs on a house and destroyed an entire block leaving 240 people homelss and killing 5 children and 6 adults. not too many cities can stake the claim that they bombed their own people. i never said it was a white guy who bombed the block and killed all the people. the fact that it was a black man makes the situation all the more outrageous.

black or white, when you are in a seat of power, and groups of people seek to take the system into their own hands because it is failing the population...

Philadelphia has spent $42 million in financial settlements, investigation and rebuilding to try to fix what happened that day. It was a law enforcement failure so spectacular that it would not be equaled until the siege near Waco eight years later. A month ago, 24 homeowners won a $12 million suit against the city for the botched rebuilding and repairs of their homes.
A commission that investigated found that Goode and two other officials, police commissioner Gregore Sambor and fire commissioner William Richmond, had been "grossly negligent." The deaths of the MOVE children "appeared to be unjustified homicide," it said. Police had not taken them out of the house when they had the chance. They had used excessive force in firing 10,000 rounds of ammunition into the house. The plan to drop explosives was "reckless" and "unconscionable." And they let the fire burn until it was too late to control.


now you might be able to disassociate and remove your self from such an incident happening to your own people, your own cause and your own neighborhood. but i can understand why this would only make things worse, and not help the situation at all. and i can see how it would justifiably lead to more tension and protests and rioting.


DONT EVER QUOTE WIKI. its a weak source. it is not journalism, it is not even cited half the time...

Did you know that the militant group that called themselves MOVE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE) that occupied the home had a bunker built on top of the house where they had a stockpile of weapons that could be heard exploding for hours when the place was on fire

an investigative commission ruled:
They had used excessive force in firing 10,000 rounds of ammunition into the house. The plan to drop explosives was "reckless" and "unconscionable." And they let the fire burn until it was too late to control.

USA TODAY (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-05-11-philadelphia-bombing_x.htm)

it might be convenient for yourself to say that it was MOVE's fault the neighborhood went up in flames, but its not the truth.


in order to see the facts, you have to look at the bigger picture of what happened in philadelphia and the larger movement for freedom and equal rights in this country. this bombing didnt just occur out of the blue. mumia's trial didnt just occur out of the blue. its interconnected with the larger struggle from oppression that african americans (who were brought here as slaves and had to fight for their lives to gain their freedom) have gone through.
you and i might be so fortunate to not have to deal with these sorts of issues, but it doesnt mean we shouldnt be mindful of them. they are our history, as americans, as human beings.

[RobMoney$]

yeah, awesome bro. they dropped bombs on a house and destroyed an entire block leaving 240 people homelss and killing 5 children and 6 adults. not too many cities can stake the claim that they bombed their own people. i never said it was a white guy who bombed the block and killed all the people. the fact that it was a black man makes the situation all the more outrageous.

black or white, when you are in a seat of power, and groups of people seek to take the system into their own hands because it is failing the population...



now you might be able to disassociate and remove your self from such an incident happening to your own people, your own cause and your own neighborhood. but i can understand why this would only make things worse, and not help the situation at all. and i can see how it would justifiably lead to more tension and protests and rioting.


DONT EVER QUOTE WIKI. its a weak source. it is not journalism, it is not even cited half the time...



an investigative commission ruled:


USA TODAY (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-05-11-philadelphia-bombing_x.htm)

it might be convenient for yourself to say that it was MOVE's fault the neighborhood went up in flames, but its not the truth.


in order to see the facts, you have to look at the bigger picture of what happened in philadelphia and the larger movement for freedom and equal rights in this country. this bombing didnt just occur out of the blue. mumia's trial didnt just occur out of the blue. its interconnected with the larger struggle from oppression that african americans (who were brought here as slaves and had to fight for their lives to gain their freedom) have gone through.
you and i might be so fortunate to not have to deal with these sorts of issues, but it doesnt mean we shouldnt be mindful of them. they are our history, as americans, as human beings.


I have lived in Philadelphia almost my entire life, I watched the entire MOVE situation unfold on television that day. I quote Wiki because it's the most accessable source for me to quote to support the point I make from the way I personally remember it happening. I didn't read 3 paragraphs on USAtoday.com about this and form my opinion, I saw it happen.

To be honest with you, it makes me sick that some fucking arrogant self-righteous piece of shit reads some slanted story on the internet and now thinks they're some kind of authority on the issue and they want to tell me the facts of the case and how it somehow relates to slavery.

Fuck off.


The bottom line is, there's a widow of a slain police officer who has to keep reliving the nightmare of going to court and facing the patchouli-oiled, dreadlocked burnouts shouting protests in her face to have her husbands' murderer freed, and having to sit in a courtroom yet again and hear the FACTS of the murder of her husband told. This woman has been put through hell more than a few times. Enough is enough, let the man rest in peace and let Mrs Faulkner move on with her life.

[alien autopsy]

ROBMONEY- calm down nervous brethren.

vomit if you have to.

your opinion is based on your account of the story. you lived in philly and you remember it on tv, and you feel sorry for mrs faulkner. established.

my opinion is based on the news reports and commission testimony that the police used excessive force and were acting homicidal. i am unsure if mumia was guilty, but im on the bandwagon that supports a retrial because he was unfairly tried to begin with. established.

im not trying to insult mrs faulkner.

and yes, the belief of inequality led to slavery which led towards the civil rights movement which led towards MLK, the black panthers, and MOVE amongst many other groups and events. its the struggle for freedom we are talking about here. whether its a group of people fighting for equal rights and freedom, or one man who is in jail and deserves a retrial.

administer a chill pill before you blow your lid

[alien autopsy]

and MOVE had guns because black people were being gunned down all over the city. they were protecting themselves. they werent going around murdering people all over town like the cops were during that time period.

[RobMoney$]

What exactly would lead you to believe he deserves a retrial?

[RobMoney$]

and MOVE had guns because black people were being gunned down all over the city. they were protecting themselves. they werent going around murdering people all over town like the cops were during that time period.

You're just making a fool of yourself now.

[alien autopsy]

its true rob.


heres AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL (http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/020/2000/en/wqPtvK8HoPoJ):

Document - USA: Mumia Abu-Jamal - Amnesty International calls for retrial






News Service: 025/00
AI INDEX: AMR 51/20/00
EMBARGOED UNTIL 1700 HRS GMT 17 FEBRUARY 2000

USA: Mumia Abu-Jamal -- Amnesty International calls for retrial

New Amnesty International report highlights inadequate legal representation, legal proceedings that fail to reach minimum international standards for fair trials, and possible bias of the appeal courts.

New York City -- Amnesty International today called for a new trial in the case of Mumia Abu Jamal on the basis that his original trial was deeply flawed.

"This is not about an issue affecting the life of just one man. This is about justice -- which affects us all. And justice, in this case, can only be served by a new trial," said Pierre Sané, Amnesty International's Secretary General.

After many years of monitoring the case and an exhaustive review of the original documents, Amnesty International has concluded that the proceedings under which Mumia Abu-Jamal was tried, convicted and sentenced to death fail to reach the minimum international standards for fair trials.

Speaking at a press conference in New York to launch the report A Life in the Balance - The case of Mumia Abu-Jamal, Mr Sané explained that Amnesty International has chosen this moment to publish the results of their painstaking review of the case because "Abu-Jamal's life and the fairness of the judicial system are now, more than ever, in the balance".

Without a new trial, the federal courts are Mumia Abu-Jamal's final opportunity to have many of the troubling issues in his case addressed. However, the 1996 Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act severely limit the federal courts' ability to guarantee a defendants' rights.

Amnesty International fears the act has increased the number of executions that were in violation of international laws and standards governing the use of the death penalty.

The organization is also alarmed that the Philadelphia Fraternal Order of Police Officers is actively campaigning for the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal.

"Police officers and their representatives should be impartial enforcers of the law. Amnesty International understands the anguish officers must feel when a fellow officer dies in the line of duty but their attempt to pressure the judicial system to execute Mumia Abu-Jamal is inappropriate," stressed Mr Sané.

Abu-Jamal's case illustrates broader problems in the judicial system, particularly those that involve the administration of the death penalty.

"Given the contradictory and incomplete evidence in the trial transcript, Amnesty International cannot take a position on Abu-Jamal's guilt or innocence," said Pierre Sané. "In calling for a new trial we are not ignoring the pain of the relatives and colleagues of Officer Daniel Faulkner, for whom we have the greatest sympathy."

"Nevertheless, Mumia Abu-Jamal's inadequate legal representation at his 1982 trial, the fact that the judge appeared more concerned with expediting the trial than with ensuring justice, the politisation of the judicial process, and the possible bias of the appeal courts has lead Amnesty International to conclude that only a new and fair trial could prevent the execution of a man who has not been proved guilty in a fair trial," stressed Mr Sané.

The prosecution of Mumia Abu-Jamal was built upon three pillars: the testimony of
eyewitnesses; ballistics evidence; and an alleged confession by the accused. After a thorough study of original trial documents, Amnesty International has determined that the veracity of each of these three pillars is in sufficient doubt to make a new trail essential.

Key concerns

The three prosecution eyewitnesses substantively altered their description of what they saw between their original statements to police and their trial testimony.
The witnesses were confused and unclear about the height of the shooter, what clothes he was wearing, in which hand he held the gun, and whether he ran away from the scene.
The alleged confession, reportedly crucial to the jury's decision and sentencing, was first reported more than two months after the shooting.
It directly contradicted the contemporaneous notes of one of the alleged witnesses to the confession (a police officer) that "the negro male made no comments." This evidence was not put before the jury.
There is also evidence that witnesses were offered inducements to alter their testimony in favour of the prosecution's version of events. This evidence was not put before the jury.
Lack of adequate ballistic tests to determine whether Abu-Jamal's gun had recently been fired. It was not determined, for instance, whether there was residue on his hands from firing a gun.

Additional information and background
Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases as a violation of human
rights. The organization is therefore calling for a new trial in which should preclude the re-imposition of a death sentence.

Mumia Abu-Jamal, black, was convicted and sentenced to death in July 1982 for the murder of white police officer Daniel Faulkner on 9 December 1981. He has consistently maintained his innocence.

Amnesty International can take no position on the guilt or innocence of Mumia Abu-Jamal. The organization has expressed concern however, over the activities of a government counter-intelligence programme which appeared to list Abu Jamal among its targets. Amnesty International is also concerned that political statements attributed to him as a teenager were improperly used by the prosecution in its efforts to obtain a death sentence against him.

[RobMoney$]

Mrs Faulkner's statement
March 27th 2008


“Today, after 26 years of waiting, my family and I can finally say that Mumia Abu-Jamal is officially a ‘murderer.’ No longer can Abu-Jamal’s life may be spared due to a legal technicality- the wording on a standardized jury form- all of his arguments about judicial bias, prosecutorial misconduct, and police malfeasance have been rejected as lies and nonsense by the second-highest and most impartial court in the land. In the end they have ruled that Abu-Jamal is a common killer who is guilty of murdering my husband. While we still hope to one day see Mumia Abu-Jamal executed for the heinous and cowardly crime he committed, we are heartened by the decision made today by the Third Circuit Court, bringing my family and me one giant step closer to this painful journey. There will undoubtedly be more appeals and more ridiculous claims made by Abu-Jamal and his band of attorneys, but we are committed to staying the course until we are finally afforded the closure promised to us by a jury 26 years ago."

[alien autopsy]

*wipes tear from eye. beautiful rob, thank you.



...After many years of monitoring the case and an exhaustive review of the original documents, Amnesty International has concluded that the proceedings under which Mumia Abu-Jamal was tried, convicted and sentenced to death fail to reach the minimum international standards for fair trials...

...The three prosecution eyewitnesses substantively altered their description of what they saw between their original statements to police and their trial testimony.
The witnesses were confused and unclear about the height of the shooter, what clothes he was wearing, in which hand he held the gun, and whether he ran away from the scene.
The alleged confession, reportedly crucial to the jury's decision and sentencing, was first reported more than two months after the shooting.
It directly contradicted the contemporaneous notes of one of the alleged witnesses to the confession (a police officer) that "the negro male made no comments." This evidence was not put before the jury.
There is also evidence that witnesses were offered inducements to alter their testimony in favour of the prosecution's version of events. This evidence was not put before the jury.
Lack of adequate ballistic tests to determine whether Abu-Jamal's gun had recently been fired. It was not determined, for instance, whether there was residue on his hands from firing a gun....


i have also heard that mumia's brother who remained silent during the original trial because of certain threats made against him, has agreed to come forward to testify in a retrial.

[RobMoney$]

its true rob.


heres AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL (http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/020/2000/en/wqPtvK8HoPoJ):

Document - USA: Mumia Abu-Jamal - Amnesty International calls for retrial






News Service: 025/00
AI INDEX: AMR 51/20/00
EMBARGOED UNTIL 1700 HRS GMT 17 FEBRUARY 2000

USA: Mumia Abu-Jamal -- Amnesty International calls for retrial

New Amnesty International report highlights inadequate legal representation, legal proceedings that fail to reach minimum international standards for fair trials, and possible bias of the appeal courts.

New York City -- Amnesty International today called for a new trial in the case of Mumia Abu Jamal on the basis that his original trial was deeply flawed.

"This is not about an issue affecting the life of just one man. This is about justice -- which affects us all. And justice, in this case, can only be served by a new trial," said Pierre Sané, Amnesty International's Secretary General.

After many years of monitoring the case and an exhaustive review of the original documents, Amnesty International has concluded that the proceedings under which Mumia Abu-Jamal was tried, convicted and sentenced to death fail to reach the minimum international standards for fair trials.

Speaking at a press conference in New York to launch the report A Life in the Balance - The case of Mumia Abu-Jamal, Mr Sané explained that Amnesty International has chosen this moment to publish the results of their painstaking review of the case because "Abu-Jamal's life and the fairness of the judicial system are now, more than ever, in the balance".

Without a new trial, the federal courts are Mumia Abu-Jamal's final opportunity to have many of the troubling issues in his case addressed. However, the 1996 Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act severely limit the federal courts' ability to guarantee a defendants' rights.

Amnesty International fears the act has increased the number of executions that were in violation of international laws and standards governing the use of the death penalty.

The organization is also alarmed that the Philadelphia Fraternal Order of Police Officers is actively campaigning for the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal.

"Police officers and their representatives should be impartial enforcers of the law. Amnesty International understands the anguish officers must feel when a fellow officer dies in the line of duty but their attempt to pressure the judicial system to execute Mumia Abu-Jamal is inappropriate," stressed Mr Sané.

Abu-Jamal's case illustrates broader problems in the judicial system, particularly those that involve the administration of the death penalty.

"Given the contradictory and incomplete evidence in the trial transcript, Amnesty International cannot take a position on Abu-Jamal's guilt or innocence," said Pierre Sané. "In calling for a new trial we are not ignoring the pain of the relatives and colleagues of Officer Daniel Faulkner, for whom we have the greatest sympathy."

"Nevertheless, Mumia Abu-Jamal's inadequate legal representation at his 1982 trial, the fact that the judge appeared more concerned with expediting the trial than with ensuring justice, the politisation of the judicial process, and the possible bias of the appeal courts has lead Amnesty International to conclude that only a new and fair trial could prevent the execution of a man who has not been proved guilty in a fair trial," stressed Mr Sané.

The prosecution of Mumia Abu-Jamal was built upon three pillars: the testimony of
eyewitnesses; ballistics evidence; and an alleged confession by the accused. After a thorough study of original trial documents, Amnesty International has determined that the veracity of each of these three pillars is in sufficient doubt to make a new trail essential.

Key concerns

The three prosecution eyewitnesses substantively altered their description of what they saw between their original statements to police and their trial testimony.
The witnesses were confused and unclear about the height of the shooter, what clothes he was wearing, in which hand he held the gun, and whether he ran away from the scene.
The alleged confession, reportedly crucial to the jury's decision and sentencing, was first reported more than two months after the shooting.
It directly contradicted the contemporaneous notes of one of the alleged witnesses to the confession (a police officer) that "the negro male made no comments." This evidence was not put before the jury.
There is also evidence that witnesses were offered inducements to alter their testimony in favour of the prosecution's version of events. This evidence was not put before the jury.
Lack of adequate ballistic tests to determine whether Abu-Jamal's gun had recently been fired. It was not determined, for instance, whether there was residue on his hands from firing a gun.

Additional information and background
Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases as a violation of human
rights. The organization is therefore calling for a new trial in which should preclude the re-imposition of a death sentence.

Mumia Abu-Jamal, black, was convicted and sentenced to death in July 1982 for the murder of white police officer Daniel Faulkner on 9 December 1981. He has consistently maintained his innocence.


Amnesty International can take no position on the guilt or innocence of Mumia Abu-Jamal. The organization has expressed concern however, over the activities of a government counter-intelligence programme which appeared to list Abu Jamal among its targets. Amnesty International is also concerned that political statements attributed to him as a teenager were improperly used by the prosecution in its efforts to obtain a death sentence against him.


I contest that perhaps Amnesty International's interest in releasing this was to get Amnesty International's name on a headline.

[RobMoney$]

The bullet that killed Officer Faulkner was a .44 caliber bullet, while Jamal's gun was a .38 caliber.


MYTH #1
Those who support Mumia Abu-Jamal often allege that the bullet removed from Officer Faulkner's brain was .44 caliber. Jamal's gun -- found on the ground next to him at the crime scene -- was a .38 caliber revolver. Therefore, his supporters argue, Jamal couldn't have fired the shot that killed Officer Faulkner.
When asked to provide proof to support this allegation, Jamal's supporters point to a handwritten note made by Assistant Medical Examiner, Dr. Paul Hoyer. Dr. Hoyer's note said, "shot 44 Cal".
Dr. Hoyer testified at the 1995 PCRA Hearing and explained that his 1981 note merely reflected his speculation at what caliber the bullet might be, made when he first saw the wound and before he started the autopsy. The note was written on a piece of scrap paper, and was not a part of (and was never intended to be a part of) his professional findings.
Some of Jamal's supporters, including his attorneys, have now altered this ".44 caliber" myth, and now argue that that there may be several fragments of the bullet "missing," and that if these fragments were the correct size and weight, they would prove that the bullet was .44 caliber. They have never offered any evidence, of any kind, to support this theory.


BRIEF REBUTTAL
Official ballistics tests done on the fatal bullet verify that Officer Faulkner was killed by a .38 caliber bullet, not a .44 caliber bullet. The fatal .38 slug was a Federal brand Special +P bullet with a hollow base (the hollow base in a +P bullet was distinctive to Federal ammunition at that time). It is the exact type (+P with a hollow base), brand (Federal), and caliber (.38) of bullet found in Jamal's gun. Additionally, tests have proven that the bullet that killed Officer Faulkner was fired from a weapon with the same rifling characteristics as Jamal's .38 Caliber revolver. Further, Jamal's own ballistics expert, George Fassnacht, conceded in his 1995 PCRA testimony that the fatal bullet was not .44 caliber, and that it was most "likely" a .38. Although the D.A.'s officer offered in open court to let Jamal's attorneys test the fatal bullet, they refused this offer, and have never offered any alternative test results to counter the above evidence. Dr. James Hoyer's handwritten notation on a piece of scrap paper certainly does not constitute such evidence. Dr. Hoyer, a medical doctor who has had no formal ballistics training, has never claimed that he was able to determine the caliber of the bullet. He plainly testified in 1995 that what he wrote was a "guess." Furthermore, Dr. Hoyer testified that, after writing this guess, he had measured the bullet with a standard ruler. Although he acknowledged that this was not the accepted scientific method by which to gage the caliber of a bullet, his rough measurement was consistent with the slug being .38 caliber, and not a .44. Finally, Dr. Hoyer testified that, at the time he made his .44 caliber guess -- while looking at the horrendous wound to Officer Faulkner's head -- he was unaware that the killer had been using high-velocity +P ammunition. Had he known this, he would not have assumed that the slug was of an unusually large caliber.
So maybe the gun the police produced as evidence against Jamal was thrown there in order to frame him? No. The gun had been legally purchased by Jamal years prior to the shooting, and was registered in his name.


FACTS SUPPORTING OUR REBUTTAL
Despite the meaningless nature of Dr. Hoyer's notation, those who support Jamal often argue that the jury should have heard about it at the 1982 trial anyway. But had the defense introduced Hoyer's notation, there is no doubt that Hoyer would have been called to testify about it. What Jamal's supporters hide is the fact that this is exactly what happened in 1995.
At the 1995 PCRA hearing, Dr. Hoyer appeared as a defense witness. Leonard Weinglass asked Doctor Hoyer about his "44 cal" notation:
Weinglass, "What is it doctor?"
Dr. Hoyer: "It's a notation I made on a piece of paper that was normally, normally discarded."
N. T. 8/9/95, 186
Dr. Hoyer readily admitted that he had no formal ballistics training.
Fisk: "Am I correct sir, that you've never had training in the field of ballistics and firearms identification?"
Hoyer: "I've never had formal training in that, that is correct."
Fisk: "And am I correct that in 1981 you were by no means an expert in that field?"
Hoyer: "That is correct."
Fisk: "Would I be correct that any statement by you as to the caliber of any projectile would merely be a lay guess and not that, not the valuation of an expert in the field of ballistics?"
Hoyer: "Correct."
N.T. 8/9/95,191-192


WHAT DID THE BALLISTICS REPORTS
REVEAL ABOUT THE GUN AND BULLET?
In the 1982 trial, the prosecution Firearms Examiner, Anthony Paul, was asked if the bullet removed from Officer Faulkner's brain was consistent with having been fired from a Charter Arms .38 caliber revolver (the type of gun owned by Jamal and found next to him at the scene). Paul states that it is.
Paul: "It's possible to say that it [the bullet which killed Officer Faulkner] was fired from a revolver with that type of rifling, with the Charter Arms type of rifling."
N.T. 6/23/82, 6.110
Later at trial, defense attorney Anthony Jackson asks Anthony Paul if the general rifling characteristics etched of the bullet removed from Officer Faulkner's brain matched the pattern found in the barrel of Jamal's gun. Mr. Paul states that they clearly do match Jamal's gun.
"The general characteristics being part of the eight lands and grooves and a right hand direction of twist, you have a part of that still exposed with sufficient quantity to be able to say that a firearm rifled with eight lands and grooves with a right hand direction of twist discharged that projectile."
N.T. 6/23/82, 6.168
Anthony Paul goes on to state that there are many .38 caliber handguns with eight lands and grooves and a right hand twist, and that the fatal bullet was so deformed that it could not be scientifically matched to Jamal's gun to the exclusion of all other firearms. However, he stresses the fact that there was one, and only one, gun with all of these characteristics at the crime scene -- the gun owned by Mumia Abu-Jamal. This is the same gun that was registered in Jamal's name and that was found next to him at the crime scene less than a minute after the shooting. By any rational standard, these facts show that the fatal bullet was fired from Jamal's gun.
In addition to matching the general rifling characteristics of the gun used to kill Officer Faulkner, Jamal's five-shot Charter Arms handgun contained five spent casings from hollow-base .38 caliber high velocity Special +P ammunition. Of the shells found in Jamal's gun, all were +P ammunition, (4 were Federal brand and 1 Remington). In 1981, Federal was the only brand of +P ammunition that had a hollow base. Additionally, Anthony Paul acknowledged that the +P bullet was a type of ammunition that was rarely seen in 1981. Anthony Paul commented that the +P is a unique bullet, with an extra heavy load of gunpowder. It so devastates its target that police departments are restricted from using it.
This extensive ballistics evidence clearly ties Jamal's gun to the murder. But his attorneys and supporters simply ignore this evidence, hide it, or act as if it doesn't exist.


[B]MAYBE THE GUN ON THE
GROUND NEXT TO JAMAL WASN'T HIS?
Anyone who doubts that the gun found next to Jamal was actually his gun should have a look at the trial evidence. The gun was purchased by Mumia Abu-Jamal and registered in his name. A storeowner, Joseph Kohn, testified in 1982 and stated that he sold Jamal this exact gun on July 17, 1979. (Two years before Jamal became a cab driver.) He produced a purchase receipt with Jamal's signature on it and a serial number that matched Jamal's gun. Additionally, Jamal was wearing an empty shoulder holster when he was apprehended. Even Jamal's own lawyers admit that he was carrying a gun that morning -- though they have never explained what he intended to do with it, other than murder Officer Faulkner.


SURELY THE DEFENSE HAS PRODUCED
ALTERNATIVE BALLISTICS INFORMATION?
It sounds absurd. But to date, Jamal's ballistics expert George Fassnacht -- the same ballistics expert Jamal had at the 1982 trial -- has refused to even look at the bullet that killed Officer Faulkner, much less run tests on it himself. There is no doubt that if the bullet was not .38 caliber, as Jamal's supporters so vigorously proclaim, it would have been a simple matter for Jamal's ballistics expert to verify this. But that, of course, would require Jamal's expert to at least look at the physical evidence. Yet when offered the opportunity to do exactly that at the 1995 PCRA hearing, Jamal's expert flatly refused to look at the bullet, and Jamal's lawyers stood by and said nothing. Jamal's refusal to test the bullet gives us all the insight we could ever need into the validity of his ballistics claims.
In July 1995, Assistant District Attorney Joey Grant asked Fassnacht:
Grant: "Well, you have opined that since you didn't have a chance to look at the evidence, test the evidence [in 1981], all you did was read a report. Well, we [now] have what you didn't have in 1981. Would you be willing to try a hand at it now?"
Fassnacht: "Would I be willing to reexamine this evidence? No, I wouldn't"
N.T. 8/2/95, 150
Further exposing the myth that the fatal bullet was .44 caliber is the fact that George Fassnacht has never stated that he believes the bullet is .44 caliber. Instead, while testifying in 1995, Fassnacht actually agreed with the prosecutions findings.
ADA Grant: "In any event, no matter whether that explains it or not, you know from your own expertise that this is in no way close to being a .44 caliber bullet, don't you?"
Mr. Fassnacht replies, "Yes."
N.T. 8/2/95, 158
Fassnacht again repeated his belief that the bullet was not .44 caliber when he was cross examined by the Assistant DA Grant and asked the following:
ADA Grant: "Considering what you read, [the ballistics reports], you must admit to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that a .44 caliber that was not?"
Fassnacht: "Yes."
N.T. 8/2/95, 160


[B]THE MYTH, EXPOSED, LIVES ON
The 1995 hearing completely refuted the .44 caliber myth. Yet outside the courtroom, lawyer Leonard Weinglass continued to use this .44 caliber Myth to drum up public support for a convicted killer. Despite the fact that his allegation that the bullet was .44 caliber was contradicted by his own ballistics expert, Weinglass still shamelessly repeats this myth at his public presentations on the alleged "facts of the case."


JAMAL'S LAWYER GETS CAUGHT
After a four month investigation of the facts of this case, the ABC News program 20/20 aired a broadcast that looked into this and other myths offered up by Jamal's lawyers as evidence of his alleged innocence. While being interviewed by Sam Donaldson, Leonard Weinglass's sham regarding the caliber of the fatal bullet was captured on film for all to see. Cornered by Donaldson, Weinglass was forced on nationwide television to publicly back away from his .44 caliber claim -- though he continues to say the opposite, to this day, in his off-camera lectures.
SAM DONALDSON: The police say that that slug has the lands and grooves consistent with being a .38 slug.
LEONARD WEINGLASS: It does.
SAM DONALDSON: But if it's a .38, then your contention that it was a .44 is wrong.
LEONARD WEINGLASS: Well, I think that issue is very much something that should be played out in front of a jury.


THE NEW DEFENSE BULLET THEORY
Because the testimony of their own ballistics expert publicly refuted the idea that the fatal bullet was .44 caliber, the defense has now added a new spin on the .44 caliber theory. They now claim that there may be a "fragment" or even multiple fragments of the fatal bullet that are supposedly "missing." Though they have never offered any evidence to prove this in court, they claim that if this supposedly missing fragment just happened to be the right size, it would verify that the bullet was .44 caliber.
But the new myth continues to be plagued by the problems of the old one -- as so often happens when the truth intrudes on fantasy. Like the old myth, the new one directly conflicts with all of the ballistics tests, as well as the expert testimony from both the defense and the prosecution.
Further, it is plainly dishonest for Jamal to claim that something is "missing" when he never looked for it. Since Jamal's expert refused to examine the physical evidence, his lawyers are simply lying when they pretend to know that part of it is "missing."


CONCLUSION REGARDING
THE CALIBER OF THE BULLET
Officer Faulkner was killed by a .38 caliber bullet from Jamal's .38 caliber gun.

[RobMoney$]

Several "eyewitnesses" saw someone else shoot Officer Faulkner and then escape up an alley.

MYTH #2
According to Mumia Abu-Jamal's lawyers and supporters, several "eyewitnesses" saw somebody else shoot Officer Faulkner and then run off into the night.
In an article written by Jamal lawyer Leonard Weinglass, The Trial of Mumia Abu Jamal, Weinglass states:
"In all, four witnesses situated in four separate locations on the street, none of whom knew each other or Mumia, reported seeing the shooter flee, and all had him going in precisely the same direction."
The four individuals that Weinglass regularly labels as "eyewitnesses" are: Deborah Kordansky, Robert Chobert, Veronica Jones and Desie Hightower. Each will be discussed later in this section.
In his book, "Race For Justice" Mr. Weinglass writes:
"Due to Commonwealth misconduct and the court's rulings, the true facts of the case that Mr. Jamal was shot by Officer Faulkner as Mr. Jamal approached the scene, and that a third black man then shot Officer Faulkner and fled the scene were suppressed and not established".
Weinglass' theory that another man shot Faulkner and then ran from the scene is supported and promoted by lawyer Stuart Taylor in his article, "Guilty and Framed". Taylor writes:
"The defense theory seems more plausible. Weinglass' theory is, "At that moment, Officer Faulkner faced a life threatening situation. He had one suspect who allegedly struck him, bent over the hood of a car with another individual running towards him. He was alone. It was 4A.M. It was dark. The neighborhood was unsettling."
Taylor goes on to state that Weinglass "believes" that Faulkner fired first, hitting Jamal in the chest. And then, another man, who had been driving with William Cook, exited Cook's car and shot Faulkner in the back, then in the face, and ran away into the darkness before police arrived.
Stuart Taylor also writes:
"No fewer than five eyewitnesses have made statements at one time or another that support the defense theory that someone ran away from the scene. These accounts also raise at least a suspicion that police were so bent on nailing Jamal that they have shunned, or even suppressed, evidence supporting this defense theory. Taking the eyewitness testimony as a whole, it seems more likely than not, that somebody had been in Cook's car with him and had run away before police arrived. It's also at least conceivable that this mystery man killed Faulkner."
In Weinglass' public presentations, as well as in his writings, he states that Cook's passenger, the "phantom shooter," ran down Locust Street and entered a small alleyway before police arrived. As Taylor states, the basis for Weinglass' theory is his allegation that the four individuals -- each of whom Weinglass claims was an "eyewitness" and "on the street in different locations" -- testified to seeing another man do the shooting and running away.
NOTE:
The "Commonwealth misconduct" referred to by Weinglass and Taylor are their allegations that, in order to get testimony detrimental to Mumia Abu-Jamal, Assistant District Attorney Joe McGill organized and agreed upon "deals" for legal leniency with two of his eyewitnesses (Cynthia White and Robert Chobert) in 1982. Weinglass alleges that these "deals" were not disclosed to the court or to Jamal's attorney. Both Leonard Weinglass and Jamal's original attorney, Anthony Jackson, argue that the District Attorneys Office and members of the Philadelphia Police Department conspired to keep these "deals" from Mr. Jackson in 1982. Additionally, Weinglass and Jamal's supporters contend that there is clear evidence of police intimidation of witnesses who would have offered testimony favorable to Jamal. (For more information on the alleged coercion of witnesses, go to Myth #6).


BRIEF REBUTTAL
Of the four supposedly exculpatory eyewitnesses, three are not eyewitnesses at all -- they admit that they did not see the shooting, and did not see the shooting scene until well after the shooting was over. The other is an eyewitness for the prosecution, who has consistently said that Jamal was the killer.


DISCUSSION
Outside the courtroom, Jamal's attorneys and supporters have offered numerous alternative scenarios of what "really happened" on December 9, 1981. It's important to note that, to date, this theory (which we have labeled the "Running Man Myth") is the one and only explanation ever presented by Jamal's lawyers inside the courtroom that purports to show his innocence.
Despite the fact that Jamal's lawyers have never produced any credible evidence to support the "Running Man Myth" in the courtroom, HBO chose to promote this sham in their 1996 docudrama, "Mumia Abu Jamal, A Case for Reasonable Doubt." When the testimony of the four individuals the defense has labeled as "eyewitnesses" is reviewed, it becomes apparent that the "Running Man Myth" is quite simply, a hoax.
In reality, the record reflects that only one of the individuals that Leonard Weinglass has labeled an "eyewitnesses" has ever stated or testified that they actually witnessed the shooting. That individual, Robert Chobert, was a prosecution witness. In his original statement, which was given to police only 1/2 hour after the shooting, Chobert stated:
"I looked up and saw the black male start running towards 12th St. He didn't get far, maybe thirty or thirty-five steps and then he fell."
Robert Chobert Statement, 12-9-81
Further discrediting Weinglass' fraud is the fact that Robert Chobert has consistently identified Mumia Abu Jamal as the killer, and did so both at the scene and in court, under oath.
The other three individuals alleged by Weinglass to have been "eyewitnesses" who were "on the street in different locations" when the fatal shot was fired, have each testified that they did not see the shooting, and indeed, that they were in locations that made it impossible -- by their own admission -- for them to see what happened. They have also stated that they have no idea whether the person(s) they later saw running were simply bystanders who were simply going (much like themselves) to see what happened.
The three individuals are:
1. Debra Kordansky
Ms. Kordansky stated that she was in her bedroom watching TV when the shooting occurred. In her original statement to police she said that she "didn't go to her window until drawn there by the flashing lights of the police cars that had already arrived on the scene". She also stated while looking out her window, she saw "someone run." While being questioned by Leonard Weinglass at the 1995 PCRA hearing, Kordansky specifically stated that this person "was not the shooter" and that "they ran after police had already arrived". (N.T. 8/3/95, 248-249)
2. Desie Hightower
Mr. Hightower stated that he was down the street, behind a building in a parking lot, getting into a car when the shooting occurred. When asked by police at the scene if he could identify Jamal as the shooter Hightower told them, "I couldn't say, because I didn't see the officer actually shot." (N.T. 6/28/82, 28.131)
3. Veronica Jones
Ms. Jones has always stated that she was over 2 blocks away, around a corner and behind a building, when Officer Faulkner was shot. In 1996 she testified that she "waited for a few minutes" before looking around the corner to see what happened and that she then saw two men approach Officer Faulkner's body. She further stated, "I was not there, I did not see him [the shooter]." (N.T. 10/1/96, 24)
Equally revealing is the fact that the actual testimony and signed statements of each alleged "eyewitness" is reviewed, they show that -- directly contrary to lawyer Weinglass's public statements -- they each saw different people running at different times, in different directions.
Debra Kordansky stated that she waited to look upon the scene until she was drawn to her window by the flashing lights of police cars. She then saw a person running on the south side of Locust Street in a direction she couldn't remember. This was after "police and news crews" had already arrived on the scene. (N.T. 8/3/95, 248-249)
Desie Hightower said he saw a single person, possibly a woman, running east on the south side of Locust Street before police arrived. (N.T. 6/28/82, 28.131)
Veronica Jones said she saw two black men "sort of jogging" across Locust Street (12/11/81 Statement)
Robert Chobert, of course, specifically stated that he saw Jamal shoot Faulkner. He said that Jamal ran, "but he didn't get far, maybe thirty or thirty-five steps and then he fell." (12/9/81 Statement)
Additionally, tests for primer lead residue on Officer Faulkner's jacket verify that the person who shot him in the back did so from less than 2 feet away. Similar tests on Jamal's jacket verify that he was shot by the officer from less than 2 feet away. Powder marks on Officer Faulkner's face show that the fatal shot was fired from less than eighteen inches. The testimony of no less than 5 actual eyewitnesses -- including Robert Harkins, a witness called by Jamal in 1995 -- establishes that the only persons who were actually seen to be less than 2 feet away from Officer Faulkner were Mumia Abu-Jamal and his brother, William Cook.
Not one, single, solitary eyewitness has ever stated that they saw a third person exit Cook's car. Is it really "plausible" -- to use Stuart Taylor's word -- that each of the 5 eyewitnesses to the crime, who were situated no more than 60 feet from the shooting, all failed to see this supposed third person? Did he have the power to turn himself invisible?
Despite all of the testimony and physical evidence discrediting his theory, in his 1995 closing argument Leonard Weinglass again outlined the "Running Man Myth". Having just heard the testimony of the four individuals listed above, Weinglass still tried to pass his "Running Man Myth" off as fact. To this day, he still insists that each was an "eyewitnesses" to the killing. This is Weinglass' distortion of the testimony of the individuals shown above:
"... As soon as the police arrived that night, first thing he [Chobert] says to the police, the guy ran away. The guy ran away. Mr. Jamal is lying on the sidewalk, practically near his cab. But the guy ran away. He [Chobert] repeats it within an hour in a written statement in the Police Department saying the guy ran away 35 steps down the street on the south side going east on Locust. The same that Debbie Kordansky says, the same that Veronica Jones says, the same that Desie Hightower says. Four people. And then added to by Singletary as the fifth."
N.T. 9/11/95, 59
The last witness Weinglass mentioned, William Singletary, was featured in the HBO broadcast. But even Weinglass described him in court as "not entirely accurate" (N.T. 8/11/95, 9-10); he now mentions Singletary, if at all, only in passing. Singletary's 1995 testimony described events that simply could not have happened. For example, he described the already dead officer speaking, calling for his children (he had no children), and even firing his weapon. Singletary described a shooting in which the victim was not shot in the back, even though he was. He described Jamal being beaten virtually to death and having his skull fractured, even though Jamal's own treating physician testified that there were no signs of any beating. Singletary was the only witness to see an orbiting helicopter shining its light on the scene (the helicopter did not exist), the only witness who claimed to see police captains and lieutenants who appeared and disappeared, and the only witness to see Jamal dressed as an Arab(!) Mr. Singletary claimed he told all of this to a mysterious "Detective Green," who tortured him by repeatedly forcing him to write down his account, which "Green" would then tear up or throw away and make him start over. "Green" also supposedly threatened to have Singletary "beaten up" and his business "destroyed" (N.T. 8/11/95, 9-279).
In 1995 the prosecution called two witnesses, Officer Vernon Jones and Detective Edward Quinn. Officer Jones knew and was friendly with Singletary, and encountered him at the shooting scene on December 9, 1981. Singletary walked up to Officer Jones and asked him what happened. Jones said that a police officer had been shot. Singletary replied, "I heard some shots but I thought they were firecrackers. Then that's when I started seeing all those police cars" (N.T. 8/14/95, 20-21; see 8/11/95, 224). Officer Jones asked Singletary if he had seen the shooting. Singletary said "no" (N.T. 8/14/95, 21). Detective Edward Quinn testified that he interviewed William Singletary at the homicide unit in the police administration building. ("Green" was supposedly black; Detective Quinn is white). He typed Mr. Singletary's statement -- Singletary did not write anything down and was not asked to do so. No other detective questioned Singletary (N.T. 8/14/95, 48-52). The typewritten statement signed by Mr. Singletary indicated that he was interviewed by Detective Quinn. In his signed statement to Detective Quinn Singletary again said that he did not see the shooting. He added however, that after the shooting he could see three figures: the victim officer and two other men, one of whom was sitting on the curb. The latter individual had "dray locks" and green pants (N.T. 8/14/95, 52-57). This information, especially the description of one man sitting on the curb, was (as already explained) corroborative of other witnesses who testified to Jamal's guilt.


FACTS SUPPORTING OUR REBUTTAL
NOTE:
Please read the information below slowly and carefully. It's critical to understand the distinction between the four individuals Jamal's attorneys label as "eyewitnesses" and the five actual eyewitnesses to the shooting.
When espousing the "Running Man Myth", Jamal's supporters simply ignore the fact that five actual eyewitnesses to the shooting -- each deemed credible by the court -- have offered extensive and consistent testimony stating that they witnessed the following sequence of events regarding the murder of Officer Daniel Faulkner on December 9th, 1981.
Michael Scanlan, Robert Chobert, Cynthia White, Robert Harkins and Albert Magilton stated, in whole or in part, that they saw the man who murdered 0fficer Faulkner run from the parking lot across the street, the same lot Jamal's empty taxi cab was found in. The murderer then shot Officer Faulkner in the back from close range. Faulkner then fell to the ground and the killer stood over him, fired several more times, bent down, put his gun inches from Officer Faulkner's face and fired the fatal shot. The killer then staggered a short distance and collapsed on the curb. Moments later, two of the eyewitnesses saw the shooter apprehended by police and placed in a police van.


THE PLOY
To counter the devastating amount of actual eyewitness testimony delivered against their client by the "credible" eyewitnesses, it was necessary for Jamal's lawyers -- labeled "The Scheme Team" by local Philadelphia media -- to cast doubt on the prosecution's scenario of what actually happened on December 9th.
To accomplish this, the "Scheme Team" has manufactured an alternative scenario about a third man at the crime scene. Though easily refuted, this "Running Man" theory has become the lynch pin of Jamal's case both inside and outside the courtroom.
The defense's formula for deception is quite simple and very clear to anyone with access to the court transcripts (which are posted in their entirety on our web site at danielfaulkner.com) and the statements made to police immediately after the shooting. The foundation for this ploy is a sly half-truth. True, several people, though not witnesses to the shooting, have actually stated they saw somebody running. Aside from Singletary and his physically impossible story, however, none of them has said that the "somebody" was the shooter, or that the somebody "running" was running "away."
To fill in the holes in their bogus but attractive story of a phantom shooter, Jamal's lawyers throw in a little sinister speculation and innuendo; they refer to their "belief" that some of the prosecution's witnesses "might have been susceptible to police coercion or intimidation," and say that the prosecution "appears to have" benefited from false testimony. (For more information on the alleged coercion of witnesses go to Myth #6.)
Knowing they would rarely be challenged outside the courtroom, Jamal's current attorneys preach this lie to anti-Death Penalty advocates and college students on campuses all over the country. The story is then repeated and elaborated upon by countless "journalists" and various fringe groups supporting Jamal. (HBO bought into the Running Man Myth without ever contacting the Philadelphia District Attorney's office or reviewing the trial transcripts to verify its factual validity. Amnesty International USA, a noted opponent of the Death Penalty, produced a detailed "report" on the case that was riddled with factual inaccuracies and outright error. AIUSA also never contacted our organization or the District Attorney's office. A detailed rebuttal to the AIUSA report is posted on our web site.)
When the trial transcripts and the original statements given to police are reviewed in context, they clearly reveal that not one of Weinglass' alleged "eyewitnesses" has actually said what he and Jamal's supporters claim they said.
The lies behind the bogus "Running Man Myth" are beginning to be exposed. In a recent book written by Jamal lawyer Dan Williams, it is revealed that Jamal's lawyers knew all along that two of the alleged "eyewitnesses" produced by them at the 1995 PCRA hearing to support the Running Man Myth, (William Singletary and Robert Harmon) never actually saw the shooting. Williams reveals in his book that these two witnesses -- who told mutually contradictory stories -- were admittedly presented by the "Scheme Team" against his advice in order to create a smoke-screen that would allow the media to announce that there were actual eyewitnesses who had seen a "phantom shooter". (Apparently, Williams was ethically satisfied with merely advising against presenting evidence he knew to be false; he had no problem with going ahead and presenting it in court when his colleagues disagreed with his recommendation).
In order to promote the "Running Man Myth" the defense also had to come up with an explanation for why four people -- none of whom had an ax to grind with Jamal -- would supposedly lie about what they had seen. To accomplish this a two-pronged approach was employed. To discredit White and Chobert, a case was fabricated to allege that police had worked with the District Attorney to coerce and intimidate them into giving favorable testimony against Jamal. To attack Michael Scanlan, who did not identify Jamal in court but described actions consistent with what others saw Jamal doing, Jamal's lawyers were content to simply twist his testimony or disregard it altogether. The defense ignores Scanlan's detailed description of the shooter which matches that of Jamal, and instead focuses on several minor errors made by Scanlan regarding details about things like Jamal's height and hair-style - things not often remembered explicitly by witnesses who have just seen another person murdered. Then they too allege that Scanlan was "confused" about what he had seen. Jamal's lawyers pretend that they can dismiss the fourth eyewitness, Albert Magilton, because, though he had seen the entire scene unfold before him, he had admittedly not seen the fatal shot fired.
This sham strategy was severely damaged by the testimony of one of Jamal's own witnesses at the 1995 PCRA hearing, Robert Harkins. Announced as someone who supposedly had failed to pick Jamal out of a photo array, Mr. Harkins complained that Jamal's lawyers had twisted his words, and proceeded to testify to seeing the shooter act in a manner identical to that described by the prosecution's allegedly "confused" and "coerced" eyewitnesses at trial.


ALLEGED "EYEWITNESS" #1
VERONICA JONES
The first individual that the defense has labeled as an "eyewitness" is Veronica Jones. She was a 21-year-old prostitute working the neighborhood around 13th and Locust that morning.
Ms. Jones testified as a defense witness at the 1982 trial and again in a 1996 supplemental PCRA hearing, which was convened specifically to hear her new testimony.
Jones own repeated and admitted lies about the case, as well as her personal background, cast doubt on her credibility as a witness. Evidence produced by the prosecution verified that, in addition to her numerous aliases, Veronica Jones has used several false social security numbers and that she is a two-time felon, convicted of welfare fraud, and a weapons violation. At the time she testified in 1996, Jones had a pending warrant for her arrest, having been charged with passing a bad check in New Jersey. Additionally, Jones has repeatedly stated that she was a heavy drug user and a self-admitted alcoholic throughout the 1980's.
The prosecution also produced information at the 1996 PCRA hearing indicating that Veronica Jones was very likely paid by someone to give her newest testimony. At this same hearing, the Assistant District Attorney managed to catch Jones in several lies as she testified about her 1981 arrest and pending trial for armed robbery.
But most important, is the fact that Veronica Jones has changed her story regarding what she saw that morning no less than four times since 1981. Yet, throughout the numerous revisions to her story, Jones has always placed herself around a corner from the shooting, behind a building, nearly 2 blocks from the scene. Jones has steadfastly stated that she did not see the shooting of Officer Daniel Faulkner. And in direct contradiction to Leonard Weinglass' dishonest portrayal of her testimony, Veronica Jones has never stated that she saw the shooter run away from the scene before police arrived.
NOTE: Jamal's attorneys argue that police coerced and intimidated Veronica Jones into giving false testimony against Mumia Abu-Jamal. For more information on the alleged coercion of Veronica Jones go to Myth #6 and the 1998 Supreme Court ruling.


VERONICA JONES' INITIAL STATEMENT TO POLICE
Veronica Jones gave her initial statement to police less than a week after the killing. The interview was conducted at her mother's home at 9:45 PM on 12-15-81. Jones reviewed this statement for accuracy then signed each page. The portion of her statement pertaining to the shooting is listed below.
Question: Veronica, will you go in your own words and tell me what you know about the shooting death of Officer Daniel Faulkner?
Answer: I was in a little restaurant called Rocky's it's on Chancellor Street. We were drinking beer. We came out of the restaurant and went down the alley towards 12th St. We joked around on the corner for a while. We walked around the high-speed line and she [Candy] started back around the corner to Locust St. As I was walking away from the high-speed line entrance I heard firing, I heard three shots. I looked down Locust St. towards Johnny Dee's and I saw a policeman fall down. After I saw the policeman fall I saw two black guys walk across Locust Street and then they started sort of jogging. The next thing I saw was a wagon coming. There was one other black guy standing by the entrance of the speed line by Johnny Dee's.
Question: Did you see a Volkswagen parked on Locust Street that night?
Answer: I saw a green Volkswagen go around the block a couple of times that night before the shooting. It was driven by a black guy.
Question: Did you see who shot the police officer?
Answer: No.
Question: Did you see anyone with a gun?
Answer: No.
Veronica Jones Statement, 12-15-81


VERONICA JONES' 1982 TESTIMONY
At the 1982 trial, Veronica Jones reluctantly appeared as a defense witness. While being cross-examined, Jones admitted several times to having been drinking heavily and smoking marijuana immediately prior to the shooting in 1981.
Jones: "Like I say I'd been drinking ..."
N.T. 6/29/82, 114
When asked by the prosecutor how much marijuana she had smoked that day she stated:
Jones: "I wasn't counting when they passed it."
N.T. 6/29/82, 155
In reference to what she was doing immediately before shooting, Jones further stated:
Jones: "If you smoke marijuana all day by the end of the day, you be tired and you don't really be high."
ADA McGill: "Were you in fact smoking marijuana all day?"
Jones: "On and off."
ADA McGill: "So over the entire day on and off you were smoking marijuana?"
Jones: "Yes."
N.T. 6/29/82, 156
In her trial testimony -- as in her 12-15-81 written statement -- Jones again confirmed that she was not an eyewitness to the shooting as Jamal's attorneys contend. While looking at a diagram of the area, Assistant District Attorney Joe McGill asked Jones where she had been standing when she heard the first shots fired. Jones replied:
"I can't say I was directly on the corner, but if the Speedline is here, I was like a little behind the building that was on the corner."
N.T. 6/29/82, 98
Jones own 1982 testimony positions her around the corner from the shooting, behind a building, where 12th Street and Locust Street bisect each other: over 100 yards from the actual shooting.
When asked what she did after hearing the final shot fired, she replied:
"I just came around the corner and looked."
N.T. 6/29/82, 98
On direct examination, when asked by Jamal's attorney, Anthony Jackson, what she saw when she looked around the corner, Jones stated:
Jones: "All I seen was two men and a policeman. I seen a policeman on the ground and -- what else can I say? I was kind of intoxicated. They knew that."
Jackson: "Who knew that?"
Jones: "The policeman that I talked to. When they came to my house."
Jackson: "Now do you recall being interviewed by the police on December 15th, 1981?"
Jones: "Yes."
Jackson: "Do you remember talking to either Detective Bennett or Detective Harmon?"
Jones: "It was three detectives at my house."
Jackson: "Now are you telling us today that you didn't see the men move at all?"
Jones: "I didn't say I seen anyone running."
(Jones reviews her written statement.)
Jones: "That's my signature, but the way they have [written] the statement I did not say this, because I do not know anyone by the name of Candy."
N.T. 6/29/82, 99-102
Anthony Jackson pointed out to Jones that she had signed each page of her statement. Ms. Jones then proceeded to claim that she "signed five blank pages"!
Jackson then specifically asks Jones -- his own witness -- about the two men who, in her original statement, she said started "sort of jogging," after the shooting.
Jackson: "By the way, so I understand you clearly you are saying that you never saw two men walk across Locust Street, or jog?
Jones: "No, I didn't."
Jackson: "When you saw the two men at Locust Street -- did you see the two men on Locust Street?"
Jones: "There was two men where the policeman was at. A man by the soda machine. A soda machine on 13th Street. Almost, you know, near the Speedline entrance."
N.T. 6/29/82, 109-110
Veronica Jones was then asked how close these two men had come to the fallen Officer Faulkner -- who had died instantly from his head wound.
Jackson: "How close did the two men who jogged across Locust Street get to the fallen officer?"
Jones: "Not close enough. Maybe two or three steps away."
N.T. 6/29/82, 112
To further cloud the waters, Jones admitted to Jackson that she was "high" while she gave her statement to police on December 15, 1981.
"Jackson: "By the way, on I guess it was the 15th of December where you intoxicated when the detectives interviewed you?"
Jones: "I was high."
Jackson: "You were high?"
Jones: "Yes."
Jackson: "How high?"
Jones: "How high?"
Jackson: "Yes."
Jones: "Say half a nickel bag high."
Jackson: "How high that is I don't really know. I mean you knew what you were saying?"
Jones: "I wanted to know how they knew where I lived."
Jackson: "That was your primary concern?"
Jones: "Yes."
Jackson: "Aside from wanting to know that the question is, did you know what you were saying to them?"
Jones: "According to this right here, it is a bunch of bull."
Jackson: "Again, did you know what you were saying to them?"
Jones: "Somewhat, yes."
N.T. 6/29/82, 122-3
If one reads Veronica Jones twisted 1982 testimony in its entirety, (Due to space considerations, it cannot be displayed here, though it can bee seen on our web site.) it is clear that she was not only confused about what she had seen, she was also confused by many of the questions asked of her by Anthony Jackson, prosecutor Joe McGill and the three detectives who questioned her on December 15, 1981.
Her convoluted and half-baked answers, either by accident or by design, tend to run in circles. Her confusion begs the question: did she ever understand and provide clear and honest answers to any of the questions that were asked of her, either in her statement, or in her testimony?
The contention that she signed five blank pages seems patently ridiculous. She was admittedly "half a nickel bag high," both when she looked around the corner at the crime scene, and while she gave her statement to police. It is also clear that Jones didn't care to cooperate with either the defense or the prosecution. Instead apparently wanting to get off the witness stand as quickly as possible. At one point, when Mr. Jackson asks her about the person she called "Candy" in her statement, Jones replies:
"Let me put it this way, I'm a hooker, I don't know nobody's name."
Veronica Jones' account only became less credible when she resurfaced 14 years later.


VERONICA JONES' 1996 PCRA TESTIMONY
The Pennsylvania appeal process allows each convicted defendant one Post Conviction Collateral Relief (PCRA) proceeding. In the summer of 1995, Jamal received the first of what would ultimately become three separate PCRA hearings. The 1995 hearing lasted nearly 7 weeks and received extensive media attention, both nationally and, more extensively, in the local Philadelphia area. Despite this massive and continuous coverage, Veronica Jones -- who was living across the river from Philadelphia in Camden New Jersey -- claimed that she had not heard about Jamal's 1995 PCRA hearing.
Jamal's attorneys petitioned the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to grant Jamal an unusual second PCRA hearing. In 1996, the Supreme Court agreed to a second PCRA hearing in order to afford Jamal the opportunity to present the testimony of a "newly found witness" that he and his attorneys alleged was unknown to them in 1995. This "newly found witness" was none other than Veronica Jones.
The 1996 supplemental PCRA hearing was convened specifically to hear the fourth, and newest, version of what Veronica Jones claimed to have seen. With great fanfare, Leonard Weinglass billed Jones to the media as the "eyewitness" that would prove Jamal's innocence. To this day, Weinglass and Jamal's supporters allege that Jones "recanted her original 1982 testimony." In actuality, the transcripts clearly show that Veronica Jones changed just one minor portion of her extensive 1982 testimony. The change, not surprisingly, favored Jamal's brand-new "Running Man" theory.
When she testified in 1996, a lachrymose Veronica Jones was never actually permitted by Jamal's lawyers to re-tell her version of events the morning of the murder. Instead, Leonard Weinglass carefully led Jones to vaguely admit that she had been "untruthful" about one portion of her lengthy 1982 testimony. In so doing, Jones admitted that she was "untruthful" when she told Anthony Jackson that the two men she had seen, "just stood there". By agreeing with Weinglass' leading questions, Jones conveyed to the court that, contrary to her 1982 testimony, she had actually seen the two men, "run from the scene."
Weinglass: "And do you recall in what respect the testimony that you gave was untruthful?"
Jones: "I told them that I didn't see two men leave the, umm, scene."
Weinglass: "And, Miss Jones, in fact did you see two people run from the scene?"
Jones: "Yes, I did."
N.T. 10/1/96, 21
This change, however, was consistent with Jones original statement (albeit that she had given that statement while "half a nickel bag high"). It has been twisted by Jamal's attorneys to allege that Jones witnessed the shooting and saw the real killer run from the scene, just as several other alleged "eyewitnesses" had. But of course, Jones never actually said that.
Compliant and agreeable when examined by Mr. Weinglass, Jones became evasive when questioned by the prosecution. When asked about her signatures on the bottom of each page of her 1981 statement, Jones again admitted to lying on the stand by stating, in a roundabout way, that she had in fact reviewed and signed each page of her 1981 statement after the interviewing officers recorded what she said.
ADA Fisk: "Are those your signatures?"
Ms. Jones: "They are my signatures."
ADA Fisk: "And did you place your signature on each of those pages after these words were written?"
Ms. Jones: "Evidently: They're there."
ADA Fisk: "My question is, did you place your signature --"
Ms. Jones: "Yes, ma'am I did."
ADA Fisk: "Prior to placing your signature on those pages, Miss Jones, did you review these pages, did you read them to make sure they were accurate?"
Ms. Jones: "I don't recall if I reviewed them or not, I don't recall.
ADA Fisk: "So, you didn't know whether you were signing as a witness to the Kennedy killing--"
N.T. 10/1/96, 77
In her signed 12/15/81 statement to police, Jones -- who admitted that she had been "drinking and smoking marijuana all day" prior to the shooting and that she had looked at the crime scene up an unlit street from a distance of over 100 yards away -- said:
"After I saw the policeman fall down, I saw two black guys walk across Locust Street and then they started sort of jogging."
Veronica Jones Statement, 12-15-81
Then, in her 1982 testimony, Jones stated that she had seen two men near the fallen body of Officer Faulkner and that these two unidentified men "just stood there."
Now in 1996, Veronica Jones changed one small detail of her extensive and confusing 1982 testimony, and stated that these two men had not "just stood there." Instead she agreed with the words provided for her by Jamal's attorney, Leonard Weinglass, and stated that the two men "ran from the scene."
No other substantive portion of Jones 1982 testimony was changed at the 1996 PCRA hearing.


DID VERONICA JONES SEE
TWO MEN RUN FROM THE SCENE?
It is entirely possible that Veronica Jones saw two men "run" or "jog" to or from the crime scene that morning some minutes after the shooting was over. As stated by most of the witnesses, there were several different people running around the crime scene after the shooting stopped. Jones has always admitted that she waited "a few minutes" before looking around the corner to see what had happened. There is no doubt that from Jones position -- which was admittedly over 2 city blocks away -- she would have seen no less than 6 other witnesses (if you count the questionable defense witnesses) standing within 60 feet of the crime scene. (Please refer to the map of the crime scene on our web site.)
It is far more likely that the two men seen by the admittedly-intoxicated Veronica Jones were Desie Hightower and Robert Pigford (Each of whom will be discussed later in this section), who ran across Locust Street to the scene after hearing the shots. In their signed statements both Hightower and Pigford said that they were entering Pigford's car, which was parked in a lot located behind a bar about 200 feet to the north west of 13th and Locust. When the first shot was fired, Pigford and Hightower were roughly the same distance away from the shooting as Jones, on the opposite side of 13th Street from Jones. (Refer to attached map.) Both Hightower and Pigford stated that when they heard the first shots fired they sought cover behind a wall in the parking lot. They waited there "for the shooting to stop for a short time," before looking around the wall, and then they ran over to the scene.
In his statement that was given to police at 5:20 AM, Pigford stated:
"When I didn't hear any more shots, I ran from the wall and ran over to where the police officer was."
Robert Pigford Statement, 12-9-81
In his statement, which was given to police at 5:10 AM, Hightower stated:
"When I first heard the shots I ran, then I looked and I seen the cop on the ground after the officers got there."
Desie Hightower Statement, 12-9-81
While testifying as a defense witness, Hightower repeated this statement.
Anthony Jackson: "After hearing the shots, you came back too. I guess, to what would be Locust Street, facing east on Locust Street?"
Hightower: "Yes, east on Locust on the corner of the Whispers Club."
N.T. 6/28/82, 28.125
After they ran to the scene, Hightower and Pigford (who are both black) would have been standing in the exact spot, at precisely the same instant that Veronica Jones saw the "two black men walk across Locust Street, then start sort of jogging." But Veronica Jones did not claim to have seen the "real killer," as Leonard Weinglass conveniently states. It appears that if Veronica Jones saw anyone, she saw Desie Hightower and Robert Pigford.
Additionally, 13th and Locust was an area of downtown Philadelphia that housed several after-hours clubs that were frequented by an assortment of prostitutes, drug dealers and other individuals who might have had any number of reasons to run away when police arrived after the shooting. This is confirmed by the considerable number of eyewitnesses to the crime. There is no doubt that there were several people present and who saw the shooting occur. Their accounts, however, unanimously point to Jamal as the gunman.


ANOTHER TWIST TO THE VERONICA JONES STORY
When attempting to grasp the importance (or lack thereof) of Veronica Jones to this case, it must be understood that Veronica Jones has never offered any testimony that incriminated or exonerated Jamal in any way. The only pertinent testimony Jones offered at the original trial in 1982 was to say that minutes after the shooting stopped she saw two unidentified men "kinda jogging". At the 1996 PCRA hearing, after repeated prompting from Weinglass, Jones changed her testimony and said that she saw the two men "run from the scene". It may seem odd that Jones would thus change her story after 14 years of silence. However, at the 1996 hearing some light was shed on Jones motivation for doing so.
Evidence presented by the prosecution in September of 1996 verified that Veronica Jones first meet with Mumia Abu-Jamal's well-financed attorneys in the spring of 1996. At the 1996 PCRA hearing, the prosecution verified that Jones and a person she described as her "man" had, for two years, failed to pay the rent on the apartment where they cohabitated. Soon after her first meeting with Jamal's attorneys, Jones and her friend began making regular rent payments totaling several thousand dollars. These payments continued to be made in various amounts up to the day of Jones 1996 testimony. Not only were Jones and her male friend suddenly able to begin making the rent payments after being delinquent for nearly two years, they were able to pay their back rent as well.
When asked by Assistant DA Arlene Fisk to explain this unusual situation, Jones said her boyfriend had received some "life insurance money." An alternative answer to Ms. Fisk's question was offered by one of Jamal's supporters from the back of the courtroom, when she taunted police who were sitting across from her in the gallery by stating, "We got money coming in bucketful's and Veronica is gonna be taken care of." By 1996, Mumia Abu-Jamal and his attorneys had amassed a considerable war chest to mount Jamal's defense. Additionally, Jamal is supported by various organizations that have used his case to build large bank accounts. Though there is no direct proof that Jones was paid for her testimony, the fact that her financial situation dramatically improved just as she was being announced by Weinglass as a "dramatic new witness" is difficult to accept as sheer coincidence. This is especially true in that, after meeting with Jamal's lawyers in 1996, Jones' recollection of events 14 years earlier dramatically changed.
After Jones had talked to Jamal's lawyers, 14 years after the fact, she remembered that unidentifiable police officers had tried to pressure her to falsely incriminate Jamal. Prior to 1996, Veronica Jones had never made any allegations of police intimidation to anyone -- not even her own lawyer, the Public Defender who was representing her in her pending armed robbery case in 1982.


CONCLUSION REGARDING VERONICA JONES
The 1982 testimony of Veronica Jones was not orchestrated by the police or the prosecution. If anything, it was influenced by her own, admitted state of drug-induced intoxication. She was called as a defense witness by Jamal's counsel. Her story -- which to this day, remains consistent only in that she still denies looking at the crime scene until several minutes after the shooting was over -- was never of any real significance to either side. In short, Jones' 1982 and 1996 versions are equally meaningless. Such was the finding of the Supreme Court when they reviewed the record in 1998.


ALLEGED "EYEWITNESS" #2
DEBRA KORDANSKY
The second individual misleadingly labeled an "eyewitness" by the defense is Debra Kordansky.
Prior to the 1982 trial, Anthony Jackson interviewed Kordansky by telephone. At that time, Kordansky told him that she did not want to testify for the defense because she had recently fallen in a bicycling accident and sustained considerable facial injuries. She also told Mr. Jackson that she had at one time, "been raped by a black man and was uncomfortable around black men," as a result of this attack. Most importantly, according to Mr. Jackson, Debra Kordansky told him that she "had not seen anything that would be helpful to his case".
According to her original statement to police and her 1995 testimony, Debra Kordansky was in her apartment, down the street, sitting in her bedroom watching TV when the shooting occurred. Kordansky has never placed herself "on the street" as Weinglass dishonestly pronounces.


DEBRA KORDANSKY'S ORIGINAL STATEMENT
In her original statement given to a Detective Morton at 4:56 AM on 12-9-81, approximately an hour after the shooting, Kordansky stated:
"I was watching TV and I heard about five gunshots some time between 3:45 and 4AM. The gunshots seemed to be in succession. I thought that it was fireworks. I didn't look out the window at first. I heard sirens a short time later. I saw about ten squad cars and two vans at 13th and Locust. I saw a man running on the south side of Locust Street."
Debra Kordansky Statement, 12/9/81, 4:56 AM
From this statement it is crystal clear that Debra Kordansky was not an eyewitness to the shooting, and that the man she saw running was not the killer. (Unless the defense would have us believe that the "real killer" stayed around until after the police arrived at the scene.)


DEBRA KORDANSKY'S 1995 PCRA TESTIMONY
In 1995, Leonard Weinglass called Debra Kordansky as a defense witness. He immediately began to accuse her of being a racist (based on her statement to Anthony Jackson that she was uncomfortable with black men after having been raped by a black man), and seemed to believe that he could bully her into making statements that would aid in his "Running Man" ruse. However, Kordansky testified that although she saw a man "running," she had never said that he was running "away," and that she did not see this man until after the police had already arrived. Weinglass tried and failed to put words in the mouth of the witness:
Weinglass: "It would help the police, would it not, and make sense that it would help the police, by saying, in effect, you saw someone running away who was probably the shooter and you were telling the police right then and there the shooter ran away?"
Kordansky: "I didn't say away."
Weinglass: "You saw him running?"
Kordansky: "I saw someone running."
Weinglass: "...you were directing them [the police] that the shooter ran away, and as a good citizen you are telling the police, you were directing that the shooter ran away, and as a good citizen, you are telling them I saw him run away and you ought to try to catch him. Isn't that why you told the police that?"
Kordansky: "No, I think the runner was part of the flow of the whole situation. There was a man killed, there's panic. Someone was running, maybe two people are running, maybe three people are running, you know. There's police, there's news crews, Et. Cetera."
N.T. 8/3/95, 248-249


JAMAL'S LAWYERS MISSTATE THE RECORD AGAIN
In her 1995 testimony, which was given a month before the defense presented their closing argument, Debra Kordansky sends a clear message to Weinglass that "several minutes after the shooting stopped" she saw "a man (not the shooter) running" in a direction she couldn't remember "after police and news crews had already arrived". Debra Kordansky's own testimony directly refutes Leonard Weinglass' notion that she saw the "real shooter" run away, going east on the south side of Locust Street. Yet, Weinglass and Jamal's supporters insist that she stated otherwise. In their 1995 closing argument, the defense ignored her actual statements and characterized Debra Kordansky's testimony as follows:
"She [Ms. Kordansky] came in here and testified that in fact she had seen somebody run away. Run away down Locust Street going east on the south side of the street."
N.T. 9/11/95, 31
The plain fact that Ms. Kordansky had simply never said this made absolutely no impression on the "scheme team."


THE DEFENSE ATTACKS
DEBRA KORDANSKY'S CREDIBILITY
When Ms. Kordansky failed to support his "Running Man Myth," Mr. Weinglass found appropriate to attack her -- his own witness -- as a supposed liar and racist. Hardly appropriate conduct toward an "eyewitness" who supposedly confirms Jamal's innocence:
Weinglass: "But in April of 1982, more than 13 years ago, you told the police who interviewed you why you couldn't remember it, and you said I have prejudice that affects my memory against and for police and black people. Is that right?"
Kordansky: "Can I tell you something else about my character? Because you seem to want to defame my character in implying that I would conspire to not reveal evidence because of prejudice. I was raped and I did have some problems, I felt discomfort with black people - with black men. But my honesty and my sense of what was true would preclude that. I would never lie and conspire. I don't know this man (indicating the Defendant) I just wouldn't do it."
N.T. 8/3/95, 243-44
In their factually flawed and inaccurate docudrama, "A Case for Reasonable Doubt," HBO-TV incorrectly tries to use Debra Kordansky's statement to corroborate the testimony given by Desie Hightower, alleged eyewitness #3. As noted below, the two versions simply do not match up.


THE DEFENSE PLOY
Outside the courtroom Kordansky receives from Jamal's lawyers the same treatment as many other witnesses. Her testimony is completely ignored. In its place, Jamal's attorneys and supporters extract a few key words from her written statement to police ("I saw a man running.") which are twisted to enhance the distorted picture of the phantom shooter story.
To this day, in his public presentations Weinglass refers to Ms. Kordansky as "Debbie" -- as if they were old friends -- and alleges that Kordansky stated she was an "eyewitness" to the shooting and that she saw another man shot Officer Faulkner and that this supposed shooter ran away. Leonard Weinglass persists in his lie despite knowing that Debra Kordansky has stated in her testimony that she was in her bedroom watching TV when the shooting occurred, that she never saw the shooting, and that she simply saw a man running long after the police and news crews had already arrived.


ALLEGED "EYEWITNESS" #3
DESSIE HIGHTOWER
The third individual labeled an "eyewitness" by Jamal's attorneys is Dessie Hightower. Mr. Hightower states that he knew Mumia Abu-Jamal prior to the killing. Hightower gave a written statement to police immediately after the shooting and testified as a defense witness at the 1982 trial. In his written statement and his 1982 testimony, Hightower stated that at the time of the shooting he was located down the street over 60 yards away, behind a building in a parking lot, getting into a car with his friend, Robert Pigford. According to both his statement and his testimony, Hightower was initially unaware that what he heard were gunshots, saying to Pigford, "I think it's firecrackers." (N.T. 6/28/82, 28.122) He has always maintained that he never saw Officer Faulkner shot and that he has no idea what happened.


DESIE HIGHTOWER'S INITIAL STATEMENT
Desie Hightower gave his original statement to police the morning of the shooting at 5:10 AM, just an hour after the shooting. These are pertinent excerpts from Hightower's statement to police.
Question: Mr. Hightower, will you go on in your own words and tell me what you know concerning the shooting of Officer Faulkner in the 1200 block of Locust Street a short while ago?
Answer: We, Robert Pigford and myself, were going to the club Whispers, to see if was still open. It was closed when we got there, around 3:35 AM. I turned the corner on 13th Street and I got to the parking lot entrance and I heard four or five shots go off. I went back around and peeked around the corner. I seen a blue Volkswagen with one black male sitting in it, possibly Jamaican. I seen a male run away wearing a red and black sweater. There was another male standing over the Police Officer, and he looked like he was in shock. I don't believe he was the male that shot the Officer cause he just stood there. When I heard the gunshots I first ran, then I looked back and I seen the cop on the ground after the Officers got there. I did see the guy that ran and he looked Jamaican too. There was a guy in the blue Volkswagen and when the Police got there, they pulled him out and struck him and threw him in a wagon. The guy is in here now, he's the one who was standing over the cop after he was shot. When the police got there that guy just backed off and stood against the wall. They, the police, took custody of him too. But I know he was not the guy who shot the cop.
Question: "The guy that you saw run off, did you see a gun in his hand?"
Answer: "No, I just seen him running."
Question: "Which way did he go?"
Answer: "He ran down Locust Street, where the hotel is."
Question: "Did you see the Officer pull his own gun?"
Answer: "No, he didn't have time Officer. It was like a blind side hit. He was pulling this guy out of the car, that's the last thing I seen. Evidently, he was so intent on this guy that he didn't see the other guy run up.
Question: "Did you see the guy who shot the cop again?"
Answer: "No, I didn't. I don't even know if they got him or not."
Question: "Do you think you will be able to identify the male you saw run off if you see him again?"
Answer: "I just seen the back of him. He had on dark colored pants and a red and black sweater, that's all I seen. He was about 5'11'' or 6'. The guy who was driving the car had to know him cause I don't think he would just run over and shoot the cop. The guy that they brought in, in handcuffs, was just walking by. He was just like standing there in shock. I think he had to be just walking by."
Desie Hightower Statement, 12-9-81, 5:10 AM
Later in his statement Desie Hightower identified the "guy who was just standing there" as William Cook.
It is clear from his statement, that Desie Hightower was not "on the street" and that he did not "see the real shooter run east on the south side of Locust Street to where an alleyway bisects Locust Street," as Weinglass states in his writing and at his public presentations. In fact, Desie Hightower specifically states that he does not know who shot Officer Faulkner. Like Veronica Jones and Debra Kordansky, Desie Hightower simply states that he saw an unidentified man running after the police were already present.


WHAT DID DESIE HIGHTOWER'S
FRIEND ROBERT PIGFORD SEE?
As stated by Mr. Hightower, he was in the parking lot with his friend Robert Pigford when they heard shots fired. Pigford also gave a statement to police on the morning of the shooting. However, Robert Pigford was not called by either side to testify at the 1982 trial.
Robert Pigford gave his statement to Detective Raleigh Wicher at 5:20 AM, just 1 1/2 hours after the shooting. This is an excerpt from that statement pertinent to where Mr. Pigford was located and what he saw.
Question: "Where were you at the time of the shooting?"
Answer: "I was on Locust Street and I was going to the club Whispers. It was about 3:30 AM. I went to the door and tried the door but I couldn't get in. That is when I looked and saw the cop car pulling over a blue Volkswagen. I didn't pay it any attention at the time. I remember seeing the cop get out of his car and approach the Volkswagen. After he approached the Volkswagen I didn't pay it much attention after that. I started going toward my car. My car was parked in the parking lot in the back of Whispers and on the side of the other club. The other club is Sizzlers. I was with my friend Desie Hightower. Both of us went back and I got in my car and turned on the ignition. Then I heard three shots at first. Then about four seconds after that I heard another one. Then about two seconds later I heard another shot. I got out of my car when I heard the three shots. Desie asked me what was that? Both of us went to the wall of the parking lot on the Locust Street side. I got to the wall first. I looked over the wall and I seen the police officer's car. The lights were still flashing just like when he first pulled up. When I didn't hear any more shots I ran from the wall and ran over to where the police officer was. I was right across the street from it all. I didn't see the officer at first. He must have been lying on the ground and the car was blocking him. All I saw was the guy that police brought in here in handcuffs and wearing a big scarf, knitted hat that hangs over his hair and down the back. This guy [William Cook] was standing over the police officer. He looked like he was concerned and was trying to help. Then a police officer pulled up coming up a one-way street, Locust Street, from 12th. He yelled for everybody to get away from the police officer. He yelled this a few times. Then the guy that was bent over the police officer got up and stayed right there. Then other police officers came from all over. They put the police officer in the back of the wagon and rushed him to the hospital.
After that I noticed this other guy lying on the ground and the police was around him and was hitting him with black jacks. Then they drug him to a wagon and put him in the back and kept him in the wagon. Then they brought this white guy with the trench coat on to the wagon and let him look inside. They let us all look inside. Then they closed the door and told us not to go anywhere that they needed us.
Robert Pigford Statement, 12-9-81, 5:20 AM
Robert Pigford's statement clearly supports the location that Desie Hightower placed them in. They were in a parking lot, behind a building, entering Pigford's car. They were not, "on the street" as Weinglass claims. Nor did they see "the real shooter run away."


DESIE HIGHTOWER'S 1982 TESTIMONY
Desie Hightower was called as a defense witness in 1982. When asked where he was when the shooting started Mr. Hightower stated:
"I was in the parking lot. It's an old wall there at the parking lot, and I was looking around the wall."
N.T. 6/28/82, 28.127
When asked to describe what he had seen Mr. Hightower stated:
"We were in the parking lot [around the corner] getting into the car. I heard a series of three consecutive gunshots, then a pause, and one. All together I guess, it was five bullets."
N.T. 6/28/82, 28.122
Having stated that he and Mr. Pigford didn't have a direct line of vision to the crime scene, because they had sought cover behind a wall when the shooting started and that they remained there until the shooting stopped, Assistant DA Joe McGill asked what they did after they realized shots were fired. Hightower testified:
"The fifth round went off, I looked around the corner to see if I seen anything happening."
N.T. 6/28/82, 28.122
Then prosecutor McGill asks Hightower if he saw anyone run form the scene.
McGill: "Before the police officers arrived did you see anyone leaving the scene?"
Hightower: "I had seen somebody with a red and black sweater on. It was so - it was a very brief - I'd say I glanced for maybe a second or two."
N.T. 6/28/82, 28.125
Hightower was asked about the person he saw running and he states that it could have been a woman.
"The first [person] was going in the opposite direction from where the incident happened at. It was apparently the friend had realized, it could have been a woman with braids in her hair. I really didn't pay that [person] much attention. The person looked to be about the height of five nine, five ten, somewhere around there."
N.T. 6/28/82, 28.125
While testifying in 1982 Desie Hightower stated that police at the scene asked him to look at Mumia Abu-Jamal as he lay in the police van and they asked if he could identify Jamal as the person who shot Faulkner.
Hightower: "[They asked], Is this the one who shot the officer?"
Hightower: "I couldn't say, because I didn't see the officer actually shot."
N.T. 6/28/82, 28.131


THE PIGFORD, HIGHTOWER, JONES CONNECTION
So, having waited for some time after the shooting stopped before looking around the corner towards the crime scene, Desie Hightower states that for a split second, he saw the back of "somebody" who was running from the general area of the shooting. Mr. Hightower never claimed that this person was involved in the crime in any way. None of the eyewitnesses saw the gunman run away -- they all saw him sit down on the curb, which is where Jamal was sitting when the police arrived.
Furthermore, that if the person that Desie Hightower claims to have seen running went -- as Weinglass writes -- "east on the south side of Locust Street to where an alleyway bisects Locust," then that person would have run directly into Veronica Jones.
Ms. Jones said that, like Hightower and Pigford, she too waited for several minutes after the final shots were fired, and then turned the corner and looked up Locust Street from east to west -- i.e., back at the location in which Hightower and Pigford place themselves. Therefore, she should have been face-to-face with the running person that Hightower claimed to have seen. But throughout all of her revised statements, Veronica Jones never claimed that she saw anyone running towards her.


DESIE HIGHTOWER'S RUNNING FIGURE
DESCRIBES MUMIA ABU-JAMAL
Something else is interesting about Mr. Hightower's account -- something that Leonard Weinglass and Stuart Taylor don't reveal. Desie Hightower's description of the person that he saw running, a "black man with dark colored pants, red and black sweater, 5'11, and dreadlocks," was an exact composite of Mumia Abu-Jamal.
Jamal did run from the scene -- that is, he tried to. As Mr. Chobert said, "he didn't get far." He ran a few steps and had to sit down on the curb as the gunshot wound to the chest from Officer Faulkner's gun took effect. Hightower, from his vantage point on the northwest corner of 13th and Locust, was looking over the top of the three cars parked along the south side of Locust Street, including Officer Faulkner's patrol car which still had its dome lights flashing. Hightower was in a position from which he could have seen Jamal begin to flee, but failed to see that he then sat down on the sidewalk. Three of the eyewitnesses to the shooting, who kept the gunman in sight (Chobert, White and Harkins, each to be discussed later in this section) testified that the gunman ran a short distance from the scene, going east on the south side of Locust Street, before he fell.
Ultimately, all of this only further undermines Hightower's credibility. The reason is that Hightower, by his own account, did not look at the scene in time to see Jamal try to flee. According to him, his first post-shooting view of the scene occurred only after additional police vehicles had arrived.


DESSIE HIGHTOWER WAS NOT AN EYEWITNESS
In 1995, Assistant District Attorney Joey Grant questioned Robert Greer, Jamal's investigator, about a tape-recorded interview he had conducted with Desie Hightower prior to the 1982 trial, at a time when the events surrounding the shooting would have been fresh in his mind. In that taped interview Hightower said that he saw a person running only after several police vehicles had already arrived:
ADA Grant: "Wait a minute. The crime scene is almost at the midpoint directly between 12th and 13th [streets]?
Greer: "Almost, yes."
Grant: "And he [the person Mr. Hightower saw running] is not even at 13th yet?"
Greer: "Okay."
Grant: "So he [the person Hightower saw running] is more than half-a-block away [from the crime scene]?"
Greer: "All right."
Grant: "All right. I walked towards Whispers and by then it was flooded with other police officers and I saw somebody running past the hotel. I don't know if they were running because of gunshots or what. Now he [Mr. Hightower] didn't say I saw somebody running from the crime scene did he?"
Greer: "Not in that description, no."
N.T. 8/1/96, 224-25
In his later testimony Desie Hightower changed his story and said that he saw someone running before police arrived. He claimed that he had been mistaken when he told Greer he had seen this person after police had already arrived. But Mr. Hightower did not realize his supposed "mistake" until after he had learned that the version he had given Greer was less than helpful to Jamal.


[B]JAMAL'S LAWYERS AGAIN
MISREPRESENT THE RECORD
Again we find Jamal's lawyers misrepresenting testimony to suit their needs by stating that Desie Hightower was "on the street" and that he "saw the shooter run east on the south side of Locust to where an alley bisects Locust." They simply ignore the facts contained in Hightower's statements and testimony.


ALLEGED "EYEWITNESS" #4
WILLIAM SINGLETARY
As noted earlier, Jamal's supporters, his attorneys and HBO-TV have conveniently adopted the testimony of a man who is the only witness who actually claims that he saw another man shoot Faulkner and run away.
William Singeltary gave a statement to police immediately after event, in which he said that he had not seen the shooting. He was not called by the defense to testify at the original trial.
Singletary was the featured "eyewitness" in the 1996 HBO-TV docudrama, "A Case for Reasonable Doubt". Months before they went to production, Leonard Weinglass, Jamal's own attorney, had stated that William Singletary was not a credible witness. Yet HBO chose to use Singletary's absurd comments to support their mistake-riddled docudrama anyway.
While addressing the court in 1995, Leonard Weinglass actually admitted that William Singletary was a witness who was not to be believed.
"There is one additional witness who is referred to in the Petition [for appeal] which Counsel has had now for two months. And this is a witness [William Dales Singletary] who is a person whose recollection of what happened on the night in question we believe to be not entirely accurate. We believe his recollection today is not entirely accurate. We believe his recollection which was given in a sworn statement in 1990 was not entirely accurate..."
N.T. 8/11/95, 9-10
Despite his admitted knowledge that Singletary is just not believable, Weinglass, as well as HBO and Jamal's supporters, are happy to embrace selected segments of Singletary's incredible story as key "evidence" to further their myth that someone else shot Officer Faulkner and ran away.


WILLIAM SINGLETARY'S 1995 PCRA TESTIMONY
At the 1995 PCRA hearing, Singletary did, in fact, state that he saw another man shoot Officer Faulkner then run away. There are however, numerous impossibilities to the events of December 9, 1981 as Singletary describes them. Additionally, Singletary's 1995 sworn testimony deviates significantly from a sworn statement he had given to Jamal's attorneys in 1990.
According to Singletary's version of events, Officer Faulkner had already been shot "in the eye" by another man when Jamal approached him to "offer assistance". Singletary states that the shooter had exited the car Officer Faulkner had pulled over, making the "real killer" a passenger in the car that was being driven by Jamal's brother, William Cook. Singletary claimed that Cook's mystery passenger approached Faulkner, fired one shot "into his eye", then threw the gun back into Cook's car and ran away down the street before police arrived.
According to Singletary, as Jamal approached "to offer assistance," Officer Faulkner -- who had already been shot in the head and was lying on the sidewalk against a wall -- suddenly raised his hand and shot Jamal in the chest. Singletary claimed that he personally approached Officer Faulkner at this point and heard him speak. He claims he heard Officer Faulkner say,
"Get Maureen, and get the children."
N.T. 8/11/95, 270
While "Maureen" was Officer Faulkner's wife, Officer Faulkner and his wife had no children.
In his 1995 testimony, Singletary also stated that he saw Jamal that night wearing a long and flowing Arab-style "safari suit." (N.T. 8/11/95, 270)
He claimed that within seconds after the shooting stopped, he watched as "captains and lieutenants got there before the police," appearing from the shadows of the parking lot across the street where Jamal's cab was parked.
Amazingly, Singletary claims these Captains and Lieutenants appeared not in cars, but on foot, from the shadows of the parking lot across the street, where Mumia Abu-Jamal's taxi was parked. When regular police officers arrived, Singletary claimed, these captains and lieutenants "disappeared." (N.T. 8/11/95, 295)
Additionally, Singletary was the only person among dozens of people at the crime scene that night to witness a helicopter, "circling overhead" illuminating the area immediately after the crime. (N.T. 8/11/95, 294)


SINGLETARY'S TESTIMONY
IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
What HBO and Leonard Weinglass fail to discuss is the fact that the events testified to by Singletary defy physical facts.
Both the prosecution and defense medical experts agree that Officer Faulkner died instantly from his head wound. Therefore, Faulkner couldn't have spoken to anyone, nor could he have raised his arm and shot Jamal in the chest as he approached "to offer assistance," as Singletary claimed.
Singletary said that William Cook's passenger threw his gun next to the Volkswagen driven by Cook. But no such gun was found.
Singletary couldn't explain how Officer Faulkner was shot in the back.
Singletary said that Faulkner was shot in the face from a distance of five to ten feet. In fact, the ballistics evidence established that he was shot in the face from a distance of less than 18 inches.
Singletary saw Jamal wearing an Arab-style "safari suit." In fact, Jamal wore a pair of normal pants, a shirt and a jacket.
Singletary saw a helicopter shining a spotlight on the scene. Out of well over a dozen people who saw the shooting or its immediate aftermath, Singletary alone was the only one who claimed to have seen this. There was, in fact, no helicopter.
If you chose to accept Singletary's version of events, as HBO does, one other amazing point is evident. According to Singletary, Officer Faulkner's "real killer" was actually a third person who got out of the car driven by Jamal's brother, William Cook. If this were true, do you think Cook would have mentioned it some time in the past nineteen years in which his brother has been waiting to be executed for the murder?


WHAT SINGLETARY SAID AT
THE TIME OF THE SHOOTING
At the 1995 PCRA hearing Highway Patrol Officer Vernon Jones stated that he saw Singletary at the scene that morning. Singletary had admitted that Officer Jones was a friend of his that he knew from his work as a tow truck operator. Officer Jones testified that, after police had already secured the crime scene, Singletary approached him and asked him what had happened. Officer Jones told Singletary that a cop had been shot. Singletary commented to Officer Jones, "I heard some shots but I thought they were firecrackers." (N.T. 8/14/95, 21) Officer Jones asked Singletary "if he had seen the shooting and he answered no." (N.T. 8/14/95, 21) This testimony verifies that William Singletary never saw Officer Faulkner being shot.
NOTE: Jamal's supporters and William Singletary claim that the police intimidated Singletary so that he would not offer his helpful testimony. For more information about the alleged intimidation of William Singletary go to Myth #6.


ROBERT CHOBERT --
WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION
The final person who supposedly "saw the shooter run away, east on the south side of Locust Street", was Robert Chobert. Both the defense and the prosecution agree that Chobert was one of the closest individuals to the shooting. Both sides also agree that Chobert was an actual eyewitness to the shooting. Robert Chobert gave an initial statement to police just minutes after the shooting. Chobert testified at the original trial and again at the 1995 PCRA hearing.
But Chobert was a prosecution eyewitness. He has consistently and unequivocally said that he saw Jamal shoot the officer to death.
For Jamal's supporters to try to use Robert Chobert to bolster their "Running Man Myth" borders on the comical.


ROBERT CHOBERT'S
FIRST STATEMENT TO POLICE
From the first moments of the case, Mr. Chobert identified Jamal as the killer. This is demonstrated by the testimony of Inspector Alphonse Giordano at the 1982 pretrial suppression motion:
McGill: "Was anybody outside, any civilian, taken to the wagon?"
Giordano: "Oh, yes. There was a cab driver, a white cab driver."
McGill: "All right. And, tell us about that. What did you observe there?"
Giordano: "The white cab driver stated that the man that shot the policeman ran away, and he was a Move member, and I said, "What do you mean, a MOVE member?" He said, "He had the hair, the funny hair." And at that point, somebody said, "We have in the back of the wagon a man with dread locks."
McGill: "OK, and did he identify this defendant?"
Giordano: "Yes, he did."
McGill: "All right. And what did he say?"
Giordano: "As soon as the doors were opened up and he saw this gentleman, he said, "That's the man. He shot the policeman."
N.T. 6/1/82, 70-71


ROBERT CHOBERT'S FIRST
RECORDED STATEMENT TO POLICE
Robert Chobert gave a written statement to Detective Raleigh Wicher at 4:25 AM, which was approximately 30 minutes after the shooting. At that same time, Michael Scanlan and Cynthia White were separately giving their statements to different police officers out of each others presence. This is what Mr. Chobert said:
Question: "Were you present when P/O Faulkner was shot?"
Answer: "Yes."
Question: "Did you see who shot him?"
Answer: "Yes."
Question: "Who shot him?"
Answer: "A black male. He has knotty hair like the MOVE members and its long, he is dark complexioned and he is kind of heavy set. He was about six feet tall and he was wearing a light tan shirt and jeans."
Question: "Will you go on in your own words and tell me what you know about this shooting?"
Answer: "I was coming from the direction of Broad Street and I crossed 13th. I was in the right hand lane. I stopped as soon as I crossed 13th Street and I was letting out a fare, it was a lady. She got out and walked back toward 13th and Broad St. I was writing down on my pad how much the fare was. Then I heard a shot. I looked up and I saw the cop who was on the pavement next to his car, his car was parked a little in front of my car. I saw the cop fall to the ground when I looked up and I saw this black male stand over the cop and shoot him a couple more times. Then I saw the black male start running towards 12th Street. He didn't get far, maybe thirty or thirty-five steps and then he fell. I got out of my cab and started walking over to the cop. When I got up to him, all of the sudden all of the cops came and told me to get back. Then I got back in my cab and I was getting ready to leave, but they had me blocked in."
Question: "Did you see what happened to the black male that you saw shot the cop?"
Answer: "Yes, they got him. The cops got him and stuck him in the back of a wagon."
Question: "Did you see the gun the a man used to shoot the cop?"
Answer: "No, I was too far away. I just saw him stand over the cop and pointing and I heard shots."
Question: "Did you see anyone else do anything to the cop?"
Answer: "I saw another guy running, but the cops got him too. I'm not sure he was involved."
Question: Describe the male that you saw running and then being grabbed by the cops?"
Answer: "He was about 5'6''. He was wearing a red and green hat, a beanie, a long heavy dark colored coat. He had like a full beard."
Question: "Did this male run along with the male that did the shooting?"
Answer: "No. He started running as soon as the shots were fired and then he got about half a block away. Then all the cop cars came and he just stopped."
Robert Chobert Statement, 12/9/81, 4:25 AM
At the scene Chobert identified the man who tried to run, but fell, and was then put in the back of the wagon -- Jamal -- as the shooter. The other man, who began to run but stopped when the police came, was Cook.
There was no fleeing phantom.


CHOBERT'S TESTIMONY AT
THE 1982 MOTION TO SUPPRESS
After giving his statement and prior to the start of the 1982 trial, Robert Chobert testified at the Motion to Suppress. At this hearing, Mumia Abu-Jamal was representing himself and he personally questioned many of the witnesses who would later testify at the trial. While Jamal was questioning Robert Chobert, the following exchange took place:
Jamal: "You did see the cop being shot - the man shoot the cop?"
Chobert: "Yeah, I said I did, didn't I?"
Jamal: "Well, you sure did. And you saw me in the back of the wagon didn't you?"
Chobert: "Yes, I did."
Jamal: "What made you certain it [I] was the same man?"
Chobert: "Because I saw you, buddy. I saw you shoot him!"
Jamal: "You saw me --"
Chobert: "I saw you shoot him, and I never took my eyes off you until you got in the back of the wagon."
N.T. 6/2/82, 2.74-5


ROBERT CHOBERT'S 1982 TRIAL TESTIMONY
Robert Chobert was sitting in his taxicab, parked approximately 30 feet behind Officer Faulkner's police car. While testifying at the 1982 trial, Mr. Chobert's description of events was as follows:
"I heard a shot. I looked up, I saw the cop fall to the ground, and then I saw Jamal standing over him and firing some more shots into him."
N.T. 6/19/82, 210
Chobert further stated:
"Then I saw him [Jamal] walking back about ten feet and he just fell by the curb."
N.T. 6/19/82, 211
The curb is where the police apprehended Mr. Jamal only moments after the shooting.
Chobert is also asked to physically identify Mumia Abu-Jamal as the shooter in the courtroom:
McGill: "Would you look around the courtroom and tell me if you see if he is in here the Courtroom?"
Chobert: "Yes, he is."
McGill: "Will you point him out?"
Chobert: "He's right there. (Indicating Jamal)"
McGill: "Is there any doubt in your mind at all that that man is the man who shot the officer?"
Chobert: "That's the man all right. I got no doubt."
N.T. 6/19/82, 213
In 1982, Chobert was asked if there were any people involved besides Jamal and Cook:
Joe McGill: "Other than those two males [Jamal and William Cook] and the Police Officer, was there anyone [else] there?"
Chobert: "No."
N.T. 6/19/82, 213
Chobert was also asked if he watched Jamal from the time of the shooting, until he saw him in the police wagon:
McGill: "From the time you saw the defendant [Jamal] shooting the Police Officer until the time that the defendant was placed in the [police] wagon, did you ever lose sight of the defendant?"
Chobert: "No, I didn't."
N.T. 6/2/82, 2.59
Despite what Jamal's attorneys and Stuart Taylor portray outside the courtroom, on cross-examination, Anthony Jackson did an outstanding job of trying to attack Chobert's credibility regarding the differences in his June 1982 testimony, as it compared to his December 1981 statement to police. Jackson questioned Chobert about his description of the shooter, what the shooter did after the police arrived, about William Cook and what he did, and finally about his ability to identify the person who shot Officer Daniel Faulkner. Chobert acknowledged that he might have been unsure about minor details, such as the distances each person ran, the exact color of clothing worn by each man, precise height, size, and weight, and so on. However, he repeatedly told Jackson that he had clearly seen Jamal shoot Faulkner, that he focused most of his attention on Jamal during and after the shooting, and that he never lost sight of Jamal until the police arrived, struggled with him, handcuffed him and carried him away. Chobert was unwavering:
Jackson: "Did you see a gun?"
Chobert: "No, I didn't see the gun."
Jackson: "Did you see a gun?"
Chobert: "No."
Jackson: "Did you see the flash of a weapon?"
Chobert: "No, but I heard shots."
Jackson: "You heard shots?"
Chobert: "And I saw him pointing."
Jackson: "Pardon me?"
Chobert: "I saw him pointing his hand, too."
Jackson: "So you assume the shot must have come from the man with his hand out?"
Chobert: "Because there were only two guys there."
N.T. 6/19/82, 229-30


ROBERT CHOBERT -- MYTH VERSUS REALITY
Despite his damning testimony, Leonard Weinglass still pretends to embrace Robert Chobert outside the courtroom as supposedly having said that the real shooter ran away. Inside the courtroom, however, Mr. Weinglass argues that Mr. Chobert can't be believed because he had a "deal" with the District Attorney. At another point, Jamal's lawyers have actually argued that Robert Chobert didn't see the shooting at all! In the 1995 closing argument, Jamal's lawyer states:
"...there is no evidence in the record that supports that he [Chobert] actually saw either Mr. Jamal being shot, or he actually saw Mr. Jamal, shooting, shooting Officer Faulkner."
N.T. 9/11/95, 27
Nothing could more clearly illustrate the fact that there is no outright lie which is so blatant, absurd, or inconsistent that Jamal's lawyers will not utter it. In his statements given immediately after the shooting, before the police could have had any opportunity to pressure him (and long before the police could have known what to pressure him to say), Mr. Chobert unequivocally said that there were only two men involved in the shooting, Mumia Abu-Jamal (the shooter) and William Cook (the driver of the Volkswagen). At all times, Chobert has said that police at the crime scene apprehended both the shooter and the other man. He never said that "the shooter fled up an alley" or that "the shooter ran away".
As Mr. Chobert said on cross-examination in 1982:
"I know who shot the cop and I ain't going to forget it."
N.T. 6/19/82, 256


WHAT THE EYEWITNESSES REALLY SAW
It is useful to contrast the various "running man" theories hatched by Jamal's "scheme team" with the testimony of the actual eyewitnesses to the murder.


MICHAEL SCANLAN
Michael Scanlan was visiting Philadelphia from out of state. He was sitting in his car at the intersection of 13th and Locust, just 70-80 feet away from the spot where Officer Faulkner fell. Mr. Scanlan witnessed the entire murder, beginning to end. He left the crime scene to find help for Officer Faulkner and returned to the scene after he found a police vehicle and told them about the shooting.


MICHAEL SCANLAN'S ORIGINAL STATEMENT
Michael Scanlan gave a written statement to Police Officer Margerum at 4:24 AM at the Police Administration building, about 30 minutes after the killing. He did so simultaneously with Cynthia White and Robert Harkins, who gave their statements to different officers in different locations.
These are the pertinent questions and responses taken from Michael Scanlan's 12/9/81 statement.
Question: "Will you please go in your own words and tell me what if anything you know concerning the shooting of a Police Officer which occurred a short time ago this evening?"
Answer: "I was coming down Locust St. in my auto, having just dropped a friend off at the Academy of Music at Broad and Locust. I had just stopped at the red light where the club Whispers is located. I noticed the Officer approach a black guy standing outside a car, in front of it. The Officer asked him a few questions and then he spread the guy across the car with his arms out, and the guy turned back around and swung at the Officer. The Officer pulled his billy club out and swung hard at the guy, hitting him several times on the arm and the back. The guy was bigger than the Officer. Then I noticed another black guy come running across the street towards the Officer and the guy he was hitting. Then the guy running across the street pulled out a pistol and started shooting at the Officer. He had the gun pointed at the Officer. He fired while he was running at the Officer once, and the Officer fell down. Then he stood over the Officer and he fired three or four more shots point blank at the Officer on the ground. I looked around for another Policeman and didn't see one, so I took off in my car to look for one. I found one on Walnut Street about a block towards Broad. I told them I had just seen an Officer get shot and told them where. I followed them down in my car. I lost them but I just went back down there."
Michael Scanlan Statement, 12-9-81, 4:24 AM
When asked to describe the killer, Scanlan said:
"He did have the same type of hair style, like the "Move" hair style. The guy that shot the Officer [had] an either red and yellow, or red yellow and black bright colored sweater on. He had a cap on too. The sweater was very distinguishable."
Michael Scanlan Statement, 12-9-81, 4:25 AM
This is an exact description of the clothing and hairstyle worn by Mumia Abu-Jamal when he was found sitting on the curb near Officer Faulkner's body.


MICHAEL SCANLAN'S SECOND STATEMENT
On December 11, 1981, Michael Scanlan was interviewed a second time. He again gave an accurate physical description of William Cook, who was repeatedly described by Scanlan as "the driver of the car stopped by the officer." In addition to correctly identifying William Cook, Scanlan also described the clothes the shooter was wearing, and described how he had run from the parking lot across the street:
Question: "Can you describe the second male who ran from the parking lot?"
Answer: "I really only saw him from the side. Negro male, about 5'11'' maybe about 180lbs. I couldn't say if he had a beard, I saw long sideburns, dark skin, wearing a black knit cap, like over the back of his head, holding his hair in. He had a long-sleeved sweater on. I think it was red and black, or yellow and black."
Michael Scanlan Statement, 12-11-81


MICHAEL SCANLAN'S 1982 TESTIMONY
Michael Scanlan testified extensively at the 1982 trial. He first testified to seeing William Cook attack Officer Faulkner (See Myth #8).
McGill: "What did you observe the officer and this man [William Cook] do?"
Scanlan: "They were talking. The black man spread-eagle on front of the car, [the Volkswagen] and while he was spread-eagle, he swung around and struck the officer in the face with his fist."
McGill: "All right. And at that time what then did you observe?"
Scanlan: "At that point the officer reacted, trying to subdue the gentleman, and during that time another man came running out from the parking lot across the street towards the officer and the gentleman [William Cook] in front of the police car."
McGill: "And what happened?"
Scanlan: "I saw his [Jamal's] hand come up, like this, and I heard a gunshot when the man got to the policeman and the gentleman he had been talking to. Then the officer fell down on the sidewalk and the man [Jamal] walked over and was standing at his feet and shot him twice, I saw two flashes."
N.T. 6/25/82, 8.6-7
Then Mr. Scanlan offered his most compelling testimony. When asked by the prosecutor, Joe McGill, whether or not he thought the shots hit Officer Faulkner, Mr. Scanlan replied:
McGill: "Do you know whether or not any of those shots hit the officer?"
Scanlan: "Yes, sir. I could see that one hit the officer in the face. Because his body jerked, his whole body jerked."
McGill: "His body jerked?"
Scanlan: "Yes, sir."
McGill: "Where was he then, when his body jerked, after the shot?
Scanlan: "Where was the officer?"
McGill: "Yes."
Scanlan: "He was lying on the sidewalk, face up."
N.T. 6/25/82, 8.8
Also during his 1982 testimony, Scanlan stated that in response to William Cook's punch to the face, Officer Faulkner had struck Cook on the shoulders:
"Three times at the most".
N.T. 6/25/82, 8.25
Scanlan was asked which direction Officer Faulkner was facing when the first shots were fired. He replied that Faulkner had his back turned to Jamal as he fired.
McGill: "Now, what did you do after you saw the officer shot? First of all, if you recall, in what direction was the officer's back to the man who was running across the street, and who shot him?"
Scanlan: "His back was towards him."
McGill: "Was towards the man who shot him?"
Scanlan: "Yes, sir."
N.T. 6/25/82, 8.11
Scanlan acknowledged that he was too far from the scene to see the actual gun in the shooter's hands. However, he also stated that he saw him with his hands clasped together, the motion of the shots being fired, and the flash from the gun.
Jackson: "...You didn't see a gun in his hands?"
Scanlan: "Not until he got over -- all I saw was the hands together, the motion like this."
Jackson: "OK."
McGill: "Indicating the index finger pointed forward, your Honor, sweeping motion from his leg, throughout the front of his body."
Jackson: "Fine."
N.T. 6/25/82, 2.27


"CREDIBLE BUT CONFUSED?" YOU BE THE JUDGE.
In his article written for The American Lawyer, Stuart Taylor championed the "theory" that Officer Faulkner saw Jamal coming, shot Jamal, and then turned his back, after which Jamal shot him. The one, small difficulty with this "theory," of course, is that it is contradicted by the testimony of every person who saw the event.
Taylor tries to dismiss Michael Scanlan as "credible but confused" about what he had seen the morning of December 9, 1981. But Scanlan testified that he was not confused in the least. He stated that he was quite clear about what he had seen, and was not "confused about the events," despite the chaos occuring in front of Officer Faulkner's patrol car when Jamal arrived and started shooting:
Jackson: "So would it be fair to say, with refreshing your recollection with that [written] statement, that the officer did indeed fall after the first bullet, after the first shot?"
Scanlan: "He didn't fall immediately down on the sidewalk. It was a few seconds. There was confusion when all three of them were in front of the car. He didn't fall directly down, as a result of the first shot."
N.T. 6/25/82, 8.33
To support his "confusion" argument, Taylor points out that, in his second interview with police on December 11, 1981, Michael Scanlan said:
"One of the two black males [Cook or Jamal] was standing over the officer, I don't know which one it was, then I saw two or three flashes, and heard the shots, I saw the gun in one of the males' hands, but don't know which male it was."
Taylor argues that this statement -- in which Scanlan merely states that he did not know the identities of the two men involved, who were obviously Jamal and his brother -- shows that Scanlan was "confused" about which of them shot Officer Faulkner. Therefore, Taylor infers, Scanlan's entire account should be disregarded. Taylor rejects Scanlan's later testimony at trial, which perfectly clarified this point, as simply the result of coaching by the prosecution. He writes, "By the time of his June 25, 1982 testimony, however, Scanlan's account was less messy: he said that a man (concededly Jamal) had run at Faulkner from behind, and that "I saw a hand come up, like this, and I heard a gunshot. There was another gunshot when the man got to the policeman, and the gentleman he had been talking to. And then the officer fell down on the sidewalk and the man walked over and was standing at his feet and shot him twice, I saw two flashes." Taylor goes on to write, "The man walked over ... and shot him twice? Which man? How could Scanlan, who admitted on 12-11-81, that he had no idea which man it was - be sure in June 1982 that it was Jamal?"
But either it is Taylor who is confused, or he is deliberately playing dumb to bolster his theory. It is perfectly clear even from Scanlan's [I]pretrial account who did what. Even if Scanlan did not know their identities, his statements specify that one man was being arrested by the officer (Cook), and that the man who "ran up" (Jamal) shot him. Unless Taylor wants to pretend that Scanlan was claiming that Cook did the shooting (something no one has ever suggested as a rational possibility), there is simply no ambiguity at all. This is made all the more clear from Scanlan's testimony on cross-examination:
Scanlan: "Yes. I couldn't give either of the two names."
Jackson: "Did anyone ask you for names?"
Scanlan: "No. The night of the shooting when I gave my statement I believe I said that the guy who ran across the parking lot. But then a few days later after it being all in the papers and on TV, I couldn't give the name, I couldn't identify anybody and still can't . That's why I wasn't sure which --"
Jackson: "Did the police ever ask you for a name?"
Scanlan: "No."
Jackson: "What made you think they wanted you to identify them by name?"
Scanlan: "I guess so that I could identify that particular person. See, I could only identify them as to clothing."
N.T. 6/25/82, 8.50-3
Taylor forgets to note that in his December 11, 1981 statement (i.e., the same one that Taylor says shows Scanlan was "confused"), Scanlan correctly identified the shooter by the clothing Jamal wore. On 12-11-81, having just asked Scanlan to identify "the driver of the Volkswagen," the interviewing officer asks the following question:
Question: "Describe the second male that ran [from the parking lot] towards the officer?"
Answer: "I really only saw him from the side. Negro male, about 5'11'' maybe about 150 pounds, I couldn't tell if he had a beard, dark skin, wearing a black knit cap like over the back of his head, holding the hair in. He had a long sweater on I think it was red and black, or yellow and blue. I don't remember what the color of his shoes and pants were.
Michael Scanlan Statement, 12/11/81
Scanlan testified at trial consistently with his statement:
Jackson: "By the way, do you know whether it was the driver [Cook] or the man who ran from the parking lot who fired the shots?"
Scanlan: "It was the man that ran from the parking lot."
Jackson: "Do you remember telling the police -- and you can refer to your [12-11-81] statement, sir. Could I see it and point it out for you? Page 7 of the hand-written statement. Please read out loud, the question and answer."
Scanlan: "[Question:] Did you see this male shoot the officer?" "[Answer:] No, I didn't follow the flash back to the gun, but when I saw the guy running across the lot towards the cop, I knew he was going to help the guy that was getting hit from the billy club."
Jackson: "Okay, So would it be fair to say based on the fact that you gave that statement on December 11, 1981, when you were asked specifically did you see who fired the shot, you said no?"
Scanlan: "Well, what I meant, I couldn't identify them. I was worried about identifying the person [in the second interview]. As of now, I still can't identify them , only by clothing."
Jackson: "You were asked earlier in that interview, as well as on December 9th, if you could identify anybody and you told them no, right?"
Scanlan: "Right."
Jackson: "That question specifically asked, "did you see who fired," not if you could describe, not if you could identify [them]. It said, "Did you see who fired the shot."
Scanlan: "Well, I saw -- I saw the firer of the shot, because I saw the right hand extended, and I saw two flashes, and the officer's body jerk."
Jackson: "All right."
N.T. 6/25/82, 8.34-36
Stuart Taylor might be confused, but Michael Scanlan was not. Scanlan has consistently stated that the shooter was "the man who ran from the parking lot" who "was wearing a red and blue striped sweater." Only one man on the face of the earth fits that description -- Mumia Abu Jamal.


[B]MICHAEL SCANLAN'S MAP
In his article, "Guilty and Framed," Stuart Taylor displays how ridiculous support for Jamal's innocence and the Running Man Myth can get when he writes, "Scanlan then drew a diagram that clearly showed Faulkner facing Jamal as Jamal approached the scene." Again we find one of Jamal's supporters building a case out of thin air, in order to support the Running Man Myth. Taylor clearly misinforms his readers. The diagram he refers to is reproduced in Leonard Weinglass' own book, "Race For Justice." Weinglass too argues that this diagram clearly shows Faulkner facing Jamal, as Jamal ran at him from the parking lot. But the crude, hand-drawn diagram drawn by Scanlan was done for the simple purpose of showing where each person was standing in relation to the entire crime scene. It does not purport to show where each person was facing moment by moment, any more than it purports to be drawn to scale, or to accurately show distances or compass headings. In fact, the drawing uses stick figures. There is no way to tell which way any of the little stick-people is "facing."
In contending that this drawing "clearly shows that Faulkner was facing Jamal," Weinglass was simply indulging in one of his usual whoppers. He, at least, has the excuse of being Jamal's lawyer. Taylor, a journalist, was either incredibly gullible or just unwilling to take the trouble to look at the drawing. Michael Scanlan's diagram in no way establishes which way Officer Faulkner was facing when Jamal approached him. Scanlan's statements and testimony, which Taylor totally ignores, leave no doubt that Jamal came from behind and shot his victim in the back.


[B]CYNTHIA WHITE
Cynthia White, a black woman, was in the area while working as a prostitute and saw the shooting from beginning to end. She identified Jamal as the shooter at the scene and gave a written statement at 4:15 AM, some twenty minutes after the murder.


CYNTHIA WHITE'S 12-9-81 STATEMENT TO POLICE
In her original statement to police Cynthia White said:
"I saw a Police Officer pull over a Volkswagen. One guy was in the Volkswagen. The Police Officer got out of the car and went over to the Volkswagen. When he got to the Volkswagen, the driver of the Volkswagen got out. They both walked towards the Police car. They got to the front of the car. Another guy came running out of the parking lot on Locust St. He had a hand gun his hand. He fired the gun at the Police Officer about four or five times. The Police Officer fell to the ground. I started screaming. The guy who shot the Police Officer was sitting on the curb. The guy who got out of the Volkswagen was standing there. A Police wagon came from 12th St. over Locust St. One of the Officers got out of the wagon and went over to the Police Officer. Other Police Officers arrived. I was trying to tell them who shot the Officer, but they wouldn't listen. The Police handcuffed the man who was sitting on the curb, the man who shot the Officer. Then they took the man who got out of the Volkswagen."
Cynthia White Statement, 12-9-81, 4:15AM
Cynthia White is asked to describe the man who shot Officer Faulkner.
Question: "Can you describe the man who fired the gun?"
Answer: "He was a black male, short, in his 20's, and he also wore his hair in dreadlocks."
White was asked how close the killer had come to Faulkner before he fired, and -- less than an hour after the shooting -- correctly identified what ballistics tests would later confirm. The killer had fired from a distance of less than two feet. and that Jamal's five shot revolver had been fired five times. Cynthia White's account paralleled what the four other eyewitnesses saw, including that Jamal ended up sitting on the curb after firing the fatal shot.
Question: "How far away from the police Officer was the man, when he fired the gun?"
Answer: "A couple of feet."
Question: "How many times did he fire the gun?"
Answer: "Four or five times."
Question: "What did the man do after he fired the gun at the Police Officer?"
Answer: "He sat down on the curb."
Cynthia White statement, 12-9-81


CYNTHIA WHITE'S 1982 TESTIMONY
Cynthia White's 1982 testimony spanned nearly two full days. Anthony Jackson subjected White to lengthy cross-examination regarding most of the issues argued by Leonard Weinglass today, some 19 years after the killing. Hour after hour, Jackson split hairs with White over her statements and her testimony. He went over her many past arrests for prostitution, and claimed that she had a "deal" with the DA and the police. Her testimony was unwavering.
In her 1982 trial testimony, Cynthia White stated:
"The policeman got out of the car and walked over --- started walking over towards the Volkswagen. The driver of the Volkswagen got out of the car. A few words passed. They both walked between the police car and the Volkswagen up to the sidewalk. A few words passes again between them. The driver of the Volkswagen then struck the police officer with a closed fist to his cheek, and the police turned the driver of the Volkswagen around in a position to handcuff him.
I looked across the street in the parking lot and I noticed he [Jamal] was running out of the parking lot and he was practically on the curb when he shot two times at the Police Officer. It was in the back. The Police Officer turned around and staggered and seemed like he was grabbing for something. Then he fell. Then he [Jamal] came on top of the Police Officer and shot some more times. After that he went over and he slouched down and he sat on the curb."
N.T. 6/25/82, 8.75-7
Confirming that there was no phantom shooter, White also stated that Faulkner had his back turned, as Jamal approached, and that Jamal was within a few feet of Faulkner when he shot him in the back.
McGill: " How many times did you see him shoot at the police officer?"
White: "Two."
McGill: "And then at that time, where was the police officer's back in relation to the man who was running across the street?"
White: "His back was facing him."
McGill: "Indicating for the record pointing to the defendant, Mr. Jamal. And how close did he get to the defendant -- how close did the defendant get to the police officer when you heard those shots or saw those shots?"
White: "I'm not good at feet, but it wasn't too far away. It was very close."
N.T. 6/21/82, 4.99
Cynthia White also stated that she was able to see a gun in Jamal's hand, just as she had in her original statement.
McGill: "And what was it that you saw in his hand?"
White: "I seen something -- the gun, front part."
N.T. 6/21/82, 4.104
McGill: "You stated you saw a gun in the defendant's hand in the middle of Locust Street before he shot him in the back; is that correct?"
White: "Yes."
McGill: "Did you see anything in his hand, or were you able to see anything in his hand when he was over the Policeman?"
White: "I could tell something was in his hand, yes."
N.T. 6/21/82, 4.115
Cynthia White told the jury that she watched Mumia Abu-Jamal slump down on the curb after he shot Officer Faulkner in the face.
McGill: "Now Miss White, after the defendant shot the Police Officer when he was on the ground, what did he do then?"
White: "He went over and slumped down on the curb."
N.T. 6/21/82, 4.105
As she had just minutes after the shooting, Cynthia White physically identified Mumia Abu-Jamal as the man she saw shot Officer Daniel Faulkner.
McGill: "Okay, now you mentioned the name and also you pointed a few times. I'll ask you, the man who shot the police officer, Miss White, the man who shot the Police Officer both in the back and also when he was standing over him, is he in this courtroom?"
White: "Yes."
McGill: "Would you point him out? Would you tell me what he's wearing?"
White: "Striped shirt."
N.T. 6/21/82, 4.105
White stated that immediately after the shooting, she walked towards the two fallen men, Jamal and Faulkner.
McGill: "How close did you get to him then, when you walked up some more?"
White: "Very close."
McGill: "All right, indicating for the record approximately from where Miss White's feet are, I would estimate the most, ...I would say Your Honor, maybe ten feet, 12 feet."
N.T. 6/21/82, 4.108
Cynthia White also stated that Jamal was violently resisting police as they attempted to apprehend him. Both the written statement and the testimony of eyewitness Albert Magilton, who will be discussed later, corroborate Ms. White's 1982 testimony.
McGill: "Did you see them [the police] take this defendant anywhere?"
White: "Yes."
McGill: "What did they do to the defendant?"
White: "They took him to the wagon. When they approached him and they went over to him he was swinging his arms and kicking, and they was trying to get him under control to handcuff him."
McGill: "And there was a number of Policemen there doing that?"
White: "Yes."
N.T. 6/21/82, 4.109
While being cross-examined, White reiterated the fact that Jamal was violently resisting police as they attempted to handcuff him.
Jackson: "Before we get back to the specifics of your statement -- did you see Mr. Jamal beaten that night?"
White: "What I seen was Jamal sitting on the curb, swinging his arms with closed fists and kicking, and the police swinging back and trying to get him under control to handcuff him."
N.T. 6/21/82, 4.149
In his article, "Guilty and Framed," Stuart Taylor chastises Anthony Jackson, vaguely complaining that Jackson did not do "a very good job of attacking the prosecution witnesses on cross-examination". Yet the record shows that Anthony Jackson questioned each of the prosecution's witnesses for hours. He made sure the jury heard about each and every minor discrepancy between the witness' initial statements and their testimony. He questioned Cynthia White at length about the apparent changes to her observations in her testimony as compared to her written statements. He tried hard to create the impression that White's testimony was a result of coaching by the District Attorney and the police.
Though he criticizes Jackson for supposedly doing a poor job, Taylor lazily follows the same trial blazed by Jackson in attempting to attack Cynthia White's credibility. For instance, he points out that in her original statement Cynthia White said that Faulkner had not "struggled" with William Cook, but later testified that she saw Cook strike Faulkner "with a closed fist, to his cheek". Anthony Jackson pointed this out in 1982. Characteristically, Taylor ignores White's response:
Jackson: "Does your statement represent the truth?"
White: "Yes."
Jackson: "Are you certain of that?"
White: "Yes."
Jackson: "Okay, just one example, let me refer you to page three of your statement. Last question and answer, can you read it out loud, please?"
White: "Did you see any struggle between the officer and the two men?"
Jackson: "Your answer was?"
White: "No, there was no struggle."
Jackson: "Is that the truth?"
White: "I didn't see any struggle."
Jackson: "You didn't see any struggle?"
White: "No, because after he turned him around in the position to handcuff him, I looked across the street [at Jamal] so I didn't see any struggle."
Jackson: "What about you indicating that William Cook struck the police officer?"
White: "That's when [what] I did notice. Struck or struggled, same thing."
Jackson: "Okay. Struck or struggled are different. That's the reason you didn't tell him?"
White: "Yes."
N.T. 6/21/82, 4.156-7
White explained why she did not consider Cook's punch and Faulkner's response a "struggle." Taylor simply ignores Ms. White's testimony.
It might also be remembered that Cynthia White was a young, uneducated prostitute, who, only 20 minutes before giving her initial statement, had seen a police officer shot, point black, in the face. On several occasions during her initial interview, Ms. White was obviously unclear about what the interviewing officer had asked her. The questions asked of her in her initial statement were sometimes vague. Jackson covered every detail on cross-examination, for all the difference it made. But the jurors, who could observe White's demeanor, could see that she was telling the truth.
Jackson: "Just to be certain, is this the truth, what you told the police on December the 9th?"
White: "I said yes, in different words."
Jackson: "In different words it's the truth. How can we tell what's truthful in here if we can't go by these words?"
White: "Because it's all the truth, but it's in different words, that's all."
N.T. 6/21/82, 4.161
Jackson: "...on December the 9th. You went on in your own words and you described how it [the shooting] happened, not in response to any specific question, but you said that on your own; is that right?"
White: "Yes."
Jackson: "But what changed on the [December] 17th?"
White: "Nothing. They were asking me questions and they asked me in a different way to explain it."
Jackson: "They asked you in a different way?"
White: "I mean in a different question, you know. He asked me in a different question to explain it."
Jackson: "They asked you to explain it on the 9th, they asked you to explain it again it on the 12th. So why was your explanation different on the 17th?"
White: "I just told you."
Jackson: "Forgive my ignorance, could you explain to me again why it was different on the 17th?"
White: "Because they asked me in a different way to explain it more specifically."
N.T. 6/21/82, 4.177
It is clear to anyone who reads Cynthia White's testimony in its entirety that she was often confused by the questions asked of her, and that she was often inconsistent with respect to minor details. But the core of her testimony was entirely solid, and entirely consistent with her prior statements. She consistently identified Jamal as the shooter, and her account was fully corroborated by those of the other eyewitnesses. Despite Anthony Jackson's best efforts to impeach her, the jury found her to be credible.


ALBERT MAGILTON
Albert Magilton was walking across the intersection at 13th and Locust, roughly 80 feet from the scene, as the shooting occurred. At the moment of the first shot being fired, he was in the western crosswalk of 13th Street and Locust Street, near Michael Scanlan's car. Like the other eyewitnesses, he saw Jamal run across the street and, after the shooting, sit down on the curb.


ALBERT MAGILTON'S 12-9-81 STATEMENT
Mr. Magilton said the following in a signed statement following the shooting, at 5:35 AM:
Question: "Can you tell me anything about this shooting?"
Answer: "Yes, this Officer pulled a Volkswagen over at 13th and Locust. He got out of his car. The driver of the Volkswagen got out of his car, from the drivers side. The Officer walked the driver over to the pavement. I noticed a guy walking from the parking lot, across the street. I turned around and the next thing I know is, I heard some shots. I looked and saw the Officer on the ground. The driver of the Volkswagen just stood there. The Police came up and picked the Officer up. Other Officers stopped the driver of the Volkswagen. The Police placed the Officer that was shot in the back of the paddy wagon. The Police had the driver of the Volkswagen and another male handcuffed. They held the driver of the Volkswagen there and took the other male away in the wagon."
Question: "Where were you standing?"
Answer: "I was by the parking lot on the north side of Locust Street."
Question: "Did you ever see the male that you saw walk out of the parking lot again?"
Answer: "The police had him on the ground. Then they placed him in the back of one of the wagons."
Albert Magilton Statement, 12/9/81, 5:35 AM


ALBERT MAGILTON'S SECOND
STATEMENT TO POLICE
In a subsequent interview on 12/17/81, Magilton described the man he saw coming from the parking lot behind Officer Faulkner:
Question: "Can you describe the other male that you saw come from across the street?"
Answer: "He looked almost the same as the other guy, except he had the kind of hair like the Move people have; like it's all twirled around. He was in his mid 30"s I guess. His complexion was a little darker than the first guy [the driver of the Volkswagen, William Cook] I would say medium brown. He was about 5'11'', average weight, about what his weight class would be for his weight. I can't remember what he was wearing. I remember a striped shirt that he had on."


ALBERT MAGILTON'S TRIAL TESTIMONY
Little more need be said about Mr. Magilton's testimony in the 1982 trial, as it was perfectly consistent with his earlier statements. He testified that he saw Jamal -- who he identified in court -- quickly crossing Locust Street heading toward Officer Faulkner. He heard shots, and immediately looked and saw Jamal again, who sat on the curb after the shooting (N.T. 6/25/82, 8.75-8.78, 8.98-8.138) (Jamal was still sitting on that same curb when Officer Shoemaker arrived moments later and found him there -- at which point Jamal tried to shoot Shoemaker). The only thing that Jamal's lawyers can think to say about Mr. Magilton is that he "did not see who fired the shots" -- as if there were any possible doubt from his testimony who it was that fired the shots.


EYEWITNESS ROBERT HARKINS
This brings us to the final eyewitness -- a surprise defense witness who ended up being a witness for the prosecution.
Robert Harkins was called to the stand by Jamal's own lawyers in 1995. Supposedly, Mr. Harkins was going to testify about some vaguely-described police malfeasance, at least according to Jamal's lawyers. Harkins, to put it mildly, did not perform as advertised. First, he scolded Jamal's lawyers for lying about what he had told them. "[E]very time I say something you come back with something different than what I say to you, and I do not like that." Mr. Harkins then testified that, although he could not identify the gunman, immediately after the shooting he saw the gunman sit on the curb (N.T. 8/2/95, 205-228).
This testimony further corroborated Jamal's guilt. At trial Officer Shoemaker testified that he arrived moments after the shooting and found Jamal sitting on the curb, his gun inches from his hand (N.T. 6/19/82, 115). Robert Chobert testified that Jamal, after shooting the victim in the face, walked over to the curb and fell (N.T. 6/19/82, 211-212). Albert Magilton testified that, after the shooting, he saw the officer lying on the ground and someone else on the curb, whom he later identified as Jamal (N.T. 6/25/82, 6.75-8.79, 8.98, 8.138).


CONCLUSION
There were many eyewitnesses. Not one of them saw a fleeing phantom shooter. All of the eyewitnesses saw the same thing. They saw Jamal run at the Officer from behind. He shot the officer in the back and then shot him in the face as he lay face-up on the ground. Jamal then tried to run, but got only a few feet and sat down on the curb. That's where Officer Shoemaker found Jamal. He ordered Jamal to freeze, but Jamal instead tried to pick up his gun. Jamal's brother, meanwhile, stood by and insisted that he had "nothing to do with" what his brother had done.
Jamal's own brother has never pretended to have seen any fleeing gunman.
Jamal himself remains silent. He allows his lawyers to chant their "running man" lie to anyone who will listen.
But it is nothing more than that -- a lie.

[RobMoney$]

The jury that convicted Mumia Abu-Jamal was racially stacked against him by the prosecutor, who used eleven of his peremptory challenges to exclude qualified black jurors, solely because they were black.

MYTH #3
Jamal's supporters claim that prosecutor Joe McGill and Judge Albert Sabo conspired to "racially stack" the jury that convicted Jamal, in violation of his civil rights. Some supporters have gone so far as to claim that there was only one black juror at Jamal's original trial in 1982; others have said there were none. It is alleged that this "racially stacked" jury disregarded all the evidence and found Jamal guilty simply because he was black.
In his book "Race For Justice", Leonard Weinglass states, "During the course of the jury selection, the prosecution used eleven of fifteen peremptory challenges to excuse nearly 75 percent of the eligible black jurors." In his public presentations, Weinglass claims that the sole reason for the dismissal of these prospective jurors was the fact that they were black.
Jamal's lawyers also argue that his absence from an "in chambers conference," in which the Judge, the prosecutor, and Jamal's trial attorney (a black man) discussed and agreed upon the removal of a black juror who had violated sequestration, was a pretext to remove her because of her race.


BRIEF REBUTTAL
Though you wouldn't know it if you spoke to one of Jamal's supporters, the jury that convicted Mumia Abu-Jamal was not simply thrust upon him. Jamal represented himself throughout the jury selection process, and personally participated in the selection of each and every juror. He used his peremptory challenges (each side gets 20 of these, each of which allows them to reject one potential juror at their discretion) to remove an unknown number of white potential jurors -- although, at the time, no one thought to accuse Jamal of rejecting white people because of their race.
It is also of interest that prosecutor Joe McGill -- who was supposedly rejecting potential jurors solely because they were black -- accepted at least four black people for the jury. Further, Jamal personally used one of his own peremptory challenges to remove one of these black persons from the jury.
It is also known that McGill used ten (out of twenty) challenges to remove black potential jurors. But it is important to note that it is not unlawful to reject black potential jurors, any more than it is unlawful to reject white ones. What is unlawful is to reject a potential juror because of his or her race. Jamal has never offered any proof that McGill did that. On the contrary, the record shows a legitimate reason for McGill to have removed each of the black potential jurors he did:
1)Janet Coates. (Black) Indicated that she would be biased against police and that she had listened to Jamal on the radio. (N.T. 6/7/82, 129-30)
2)Alma Austin (Stipulated to being black at 1995 PCRA hearing.) Expressed strong feelings against the death penalty. (N.T. 6/8/82, 2.51-54)
3)Verna Brown (Black) Stated that she had listened to Jamal on the radio. (N.T. 6/8/82, 3.242-245)
4)Beverly Green (Race unknown. At the 1995 PCRA hearing Mr. Weinglass stated that he would verify that Ms Green was black, but later removed her from the witness list and withdrew the claim) Hesitant in answering the prosecutor's questions. (N.T. 6/8/82, 3.242-245)
5)Genevieve Gibson (Black) Listened to Jamal on the radio. (N.T. 6/10/82, 4.78)
6)Gaitano Ficordimondo (Race unknown) (N.T.6/10/82, 4.96)7)Webster Riddick (Black) Expressed "strong reservations" about the death penalty. (N.T.6/10/82, 4.222-224)
8)John Finn (Race unknown) Stated that he was a member of the clergy, and was very hesitant to answer the prosecutor's questions directly. (N.T. 6/11/82, 5.75-82)
9)Carl Lash (Black) Stated that he had formerly been a "prison counselor". (N.T. 6/11/82, 5.105, 110-111, 113-114)
10)Delores Thiemicke (Race Unknown) At age 24, she was unemployed. (N.T. 6/11/82, 5.192-193)
11)Gwendolyn Spady (Black) Stated that she had listened to Jamal on the radio. (N.T. 6/15/82, 111-13)
12)Mario Bianchi (Race not of record.) Stated he listened to Jamal on the radio and had difficulty understanding the presumption of innocence. (N.T. 6/15/82, 111-113)
13)Wayne Williams (Black) Stated that he had listened to Jamal on the radio. (N.T. 6/15/82, 171-173)
14)Henry McCoy (Black) Stated that his daughter worked at a radio station with Jamal. (N.T. 6/15/82, 223-225)
15)Darlene Sampson (Stipulated that she was black at 1995 PCRA hearing.) Stated that she had listened to Mr. Jamal on the radio, that she had strong feelings against the Death Penalty and that she "could not be fair if the trial was a long one". (N.T. 6/16/82, 276, 281-291, 293-297)
In Pennsylvania -- as in most states that employ Capital Punishment -- it is a legal requirement in capital murder cases that any person not willing to consider a death sentence be dismissed from the jury. Several prospective jurors in Jamal's trial were released from service because they expressed profound disagreement with the use of the Death Penalty and stated that they would not be willing to consider it as an option if they found Jamal to be guilty. Others were dismissed because they listened to Jamal on the radio, or knew someone who knew him personally, or because they were hesitant in answering questions or had difficulty understanding key concepts. There is nothing to suggest that the prosecutor was acting on the basis of anyone's race.
McGill, who started with 20 peremptory challenges, had five that he never used -- yet the first juror selected by McGill and Jamal (Jeannie Dooley, or Dawley) was black. Lacking any real evidence for their claims of racial animus, Jamal's lawyers now like to talk about statistics. But in the 1982 trial, Jamal -- who was representing himself -- failed to note the race of each prospective juror so it would become part of the official record. Today, there is no way to tell how many of the people on the panel of prospective jurors was black, or how many of them were rejected by Jamal (thus reducing the number of qualified black potential jurors available to McGill).
Weinglass' pronouncement that the blacks rejected by McGill made up "75%" of all of the black people in the jury pool is, quite simply, a lie. He made the figure up out of thin air.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has twice reviewed the court record in this case to determine if McGill used his peremptory challenges with discriminatory intent. Both times, it found that he had no such intent.


THE AGREEMENT TO DISMISS
THE WANDERING JUROR
Jamal's supporters often note that Jamal was absent from an "in chambers" conference in which it was determined that one of the initial jurors should be removed. While it is true that Jamal was not present at this conference, lost in all the pro-Jamal rhetoric is the reason why Jamal was not present. The record shows that had Jamal wanted to present, he could have been. But Jamal had failed to heed the warnings given to him regarding his obstructive actions in the courtroom. He was not present at this "in chambers" conference because he had once again been removed from the courtroom as a result of his own disruptive and contemptuous actions -- not because of a plot to have him absent, as Jamal's supporters allege.
Jamal was represented by his counsel at the conference. Jamal's attorney -- Anthony Jackson, an experienced criminal defense attorney who was hand pick by Jamal and a black man -- agreed that, because she had deliberately violated sequestration, Dawley should be removed. This is exactly what would have happened to any juror who violated sequestration. Jackson had a further reason, moreover -- he felt that Dawley had been "very belligerent" towards Jamal. The argument of Jamal's new lawyers -- that Dawley was removed simply due to her race -- is discredited by Jamal's own lawyer.


FACTS SUPPORTING OUR REBUTTAL
The jury selection process in Mumia Abu-Jamal's trial was unlike that of most trials, because Jamal was in control -- he was representing himself. At one point Judge Albert Sabo took over the questioning for both sides for a short time, and later agreed to let the parties return to asking the questions if Jackson did the talking. The record verifies that at all times Jamal was making the decisions as to how his peremptory challenges were used.
Though Jamal's supporters choose not to mention it, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has twice (1989 and 1998) reviewed the notion that the jury in Jamal's trial was unfairly stacked with "white" jurors. The Justices of the Supreme Court found this argument to be baseless. Given the record, it's easy to see why they came reached this conclusion.


THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS
On May 13, 1982, two weeks before the trial began, Mumia Abu-Jamal abruptly chose to remove his hand picked attorney, Anthony Jackson and proceed "pro se" (as his own lawyer). Jamal represented during jury selection.
After three days in which Jamal personally questioned each prospective juror (venierperson), a full third of the entire jury panel was used up, while only one juror was selected. Prosecutor Joe McGill told the Court that he felt the jury selection process was taking an inordinate amount of time. He also noted that several prospective jurors appeared to be frightened by Jamal's appearance and his manner of questioning them. In fact, one prospective juror, Ruth Swenk, said that Jamal "scares me to death." (6-8-82 T.R. 2.138)
Jamal's supporters often point to an article printed in the Philadelphia Inquirer in which it is stated that Jamal was "intent and businesslike" as he questioned perspective jurors. But this argument diverts attention from the real issue raised by McGill, which went to the delay Jamal was causing and the fear being expressed by the potential jurors. McGill moved that Judge Sabo begin questioning prospective jurors for both the prosecution and the defense, as was authorized by the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure. McGill noted that this process would accomplish three things: quicken the pace of jury selection, ease the concerns of the prospective jurors, and protect Jamal from being judged by people who had adverse feelings towards him.
McGill: "I was going to make a motion. Judge, my motion is that your Honor take over the voir dire (jury questioning). That will, of course, mean taking over the voir dire for questions from both sides, not just Mr. Jamal's but also mine. I wouldn't be able to ask any [questions] either.
The authority your Honor, would be Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 1106D, where it says that the Judge may permit the defense and the prosecution to conduct the examination of prospective jurors or may itself conduct the examination. This is clear authority for Your Honor to do this.
The reasons for this request are twofold: The first reason is that I believe that the speed of the voir dire or should I say the pace of voir dire is extremely and deliberately, very slow. However, either because of Mr. Jamal's maybe inexperience in asking specifically framed questions or his decision to ask questions, not all I believe to be relevant for the purposes of voir dire, it has caused in the last two days only 20 jurors to be questioned and one to be chose. That means 30 in the first panel, and this will be the third day of panel one. There are 30, more than half, as a matter of fact, 60% remain to be questioned.
I believe, Your Honor, that if the Court would ask the questions, questions that would safeguard the rights of both the Commonwealth and the defendant, this would expedite the matter without in any way infringing upon the rights of the defendant.
The second reason is because of my own experience in past trials. I could say that in reference to what I have observed during the course of this voir dire, it appears to me and it will appear on the record, certainly on the last two witnesses, it appears to me that in many cases throughout the voir dire there is an unsettling effect when the defendant, who is charged with such a heinous crime, if the facts are accepted by the jurors, particularly that of shooting a policeman in the back and then shooting him in the face at close range, it tends to create in the venierperson an unsettling feeling, as a matter of fact in a few jurors outright fear.
Now, when we have a situation where an individual himself is asking questions and creating that type of anxiety, which would be different that the anxiety where another individual, his attorney, would be asking them, referring to a third party in the courtroom, the possibility for answers which are not clear, that are confused or that in fact unfortunately, I believe that these jurors in as much as some of them are fearful, will begin to find reasons that they don't want to serve. Even though they would be arguably good jurors, because of the emotion that is presented to them, they are not giving clear answers or are too upset to be able to answer correctly.
N.T. 6/9/82, 3.2 -8
Jamal objected to the court conducting voir dire, walked away from the sidebar conference where the matter was being discussed, and ordered his back-up counsel not to participate in the proceedings. He announced that he wanted a non-attorney, John Africa, to question the proposed jurors on his behalf. The court denied this and indicated that it would review proposed questions for its conduct of the voir dire. He announced that he considered court-conducted voir dire a "damned farce" (N.T. 6/9/82, 3.19-3.45).
The court then conducted the voir dire for both sides, questioning twelve prospective jurors in what was left of the morning session (N.T. 6/9/82, 3.46-3.105). After the luncheon recess, Jamal told Jackson to inform the court that he wanted John Africa to represent him, but that he had agreed to let Jackson ask the defense voir dire questions. Jamal petulantly refused to speak when the court asked him to confirm that he had agreed to proceed in this way. As if addressing a pouting five-year-old, the Judge invited Jamal to object if Jackson had not correctly represented his preference. Jamal did not respond. The court therefore allowed Jackson to ask the remaining voir dire questions (N.T. 6/9/82, 3.106-3.129). But while Jackson gave voice to the questions, Jamal continued to represent himself, and made all of the decisions regarding jury selection.
The resulting jury was one that Jamal personally picked out himself.


DID THE PROSECUTION USE 10 PEREMPTORY
CHALLENGES TO EXCLUDE BLACKS?
In his book "Race for Justice," Jamal's lawyer Leonard Weinglass states, "The prosecution used 11 of 15 peremptory challenges to exclude 75 % of the eligible black jurors." In his public presentations, Weinglass regularly states that prosecutor Joe McGill purposely and knowingly used 11 of the 15 peremptory challenges he exercised in 1982, to "exclude otherwise qualified black [African American] prospective jurors from serving on the jury, simply because they were black."
This attack on Joe McGill's moral and ethical standards is also one of the key issues raised on appeal by Mr. Weinglass. This allegation is also blindly repeated by many of Mumia Abu-Jamal's celebrity supporters, such as Tom Morello (Rage Against the Machine), Mike Farrell (M*A*S*H) and Ed Asner, each of whom regularly speaks out to the media offering allegedly "factual" support for Jamal.
The judges who hear Jamal's appeals will certainly have the last word on this matter. However, for the benefit of those interested in this case, we have listed the facts as they are shown in the court record.
In 1982, the jury cards filled out by prospective jurors did not require them to disclose their race. One of the responsibilities assumed by Mumia Abu-Jamal as he represented himself, was the task of asking each prospective juror their race and noting it for the record. Judge Sabo actually encouraged Jamal to do so. The record clearly reflects that Jamal chose not to follow Sabo's advice and failed to note the race of each prospective juror. Therefore, to this day, there is no definite way to tell what the race of each prospective juror was. It is thus easy for Weinglass to level his accusation against the prosecution outside the courtroom; there is simply no way to prove him wrong on this issue. However, inside the courtroom, where accusations must be backed up with fact, Mr. Weinglass has failed to support his myth. His accusation has twice (1989 and 1998) been reviewed by the State Supreme Court, and was dismissed as being without merit.


DID THE PROSECUTION RACIALLY FIX THE JURY?
The two facts that most undermine the defense allegation that the prosecution "racially fixing the jury" with discriminatory intent, is the fact that McGill accepted four African-American jurors and that he still had five (5) unused peremptory challenges when the final jury was seated. Had Joe McGill intended to racially "fix" the jury, as Weinglass suggests, he could have exercised these unused challenges to exclude the three black jurors that were seated, as well as James Burgess -- one of at least four black jurors accepted by McGill and peremptorily struck by Jamal. These facts also show that McGill was striking individuals, black or white, for their potential biases, not because of their race.
At the 1982 trial, each side began jury selection with 20 peremptory challenges. By definition, "peremptory challenges" afford both the prosecution and the defense the opportunity to strike any prospective juror without offering a reason to the Court. However, this system leaves open the possibility that either side might use their peremptory challenges to exclude qualified individuals solely because of their ethnicity. In 1986, the U.S. Supreme court established legal precedent forbidding this in Batson vs. Kentucky.
As stated in the 1998 Supreme Court decision (posted on danielfaulkner.com), to support a "Batson" claim the defense must establish that the prosecution chose to "purposefully discriminate" against blacks by excluding them "solely on the basis of race."
In 1989 and again in 1998, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that McGill had no such intent:
"We have examined the prosecution's questions and comments during voir dire, along with those of the appellant and his counsel, and we find not a trace of support for an inference that the use of peremptories was racially motivated".
There is no evidence at all to support Weinglass's claim that the prosecutor struck any black person "solely by virtue of the fact that they were black."


THE RACIAL MAKE UP OF THE JURY
When evaluating the validity of the racially stacked jury myth, it's important to understand that at the beginning of the 1982 trial, 3 of the 12 jurors seated were black. In Jamal's own Federal appeal, he states that four black jurors were accepted by the prosecution (Jamal habeas petition, p. 120), at least one of those black jurors, James Burgess, was struck from service by Mumia Abu-Jamal himself with one of his peremptory challenges. The record shows that the first two jurors accepted by prosecutor McGill were black. In the 1996 case, United States vs. Wills, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the prosecution's willingness to accept minority groups weighed against any claim that it was striking jurors solely for being members of that group.
It remains unknown exactly how many blacks (or members of other racial or ethnic groups) served on the jury. At the outset of the trial, one of the black jurors, Jennie Dawley, violated sequestration to attend to a sick cat. Both the defense and the prosecution agreed to her removal.
Jamal's supporters appear to argue that the white jurors who voted to convict Jamal did so simply because he is black; and that black jurors (excepting, apparently, those who actually served and heard the evidence) would have voted for acquittal simply because he is black. This argument strikes us as not only absurd, but demeaning to people of both races. The jurors (some of whom were white and some black) heard the evidence, and the evidence compelled them to convict. There is no reason to believe that an equally qualified jury composed of a different mix of races would not have done the same.


THE JENNIE DAWLEY INCIDENT
Leonard Weinglass now asserts that Judge Albert Sabo is a "racist," because he had earlier made special arrangements for a "white juror" to take a civil service exam, while he failed to display the same flexibility when a "black" juror, Dawley, asked to leave the hotel and attend to her sick cat.
To some, Weinglass' allegation of racial bias may appear to warrant concern. Yet the transcripts directly contradict this claim. The record shows that in 1995, Sabo noted that a juror (whose race is not of record) was allowed to leave the hotel by prearrangement with the court in order to take a civil service exam that required him to be present. On the other hand, Jennie Dawley simply got up and left without asking permission, even though she acknowledged that her husband was at home and could have seen to her cat. At the 1995 PCRA hearing Judge Sabo responded to Weinglass' allegation of racism on this ground:
"She didn't communicate with me Counselor, let's get that straight. I didn't know a thing about it until the Court Officer relayed the information to me [after she had already left the hotel]."
N.T. 7/12/95, 26
Assistant District Attorney Hugh Burns also addressed this issue in his 1995 opening statement:
"She [Ms. Dawley] didn't get the courts permission to go, she simply chose to go. And then the [court] crier reported it to you [Judge] and this is a part of the record-when he [the court crier] told her that she should not leave, she [Ms. Dawley] said, "I don't care what Judge Sabo or anybody says, I do what I have to do, nobody is going to stop me."
N.T. 7/12/95, 49
Contrary to what Jamal's supporters allege, there is no doubt that Jennie Dawley chose to violate sequestration without bothering to inform the Judge or ask permission to leave. Neither the prosecution or the defense wanted a person on the jury who was so clearly unwilling to follow the directions of the court or submit to the requirements of jury service. The record shows that both the prosecution and the defense agreed to Dawley's removal from the jury, with Anthony Jackson stating, "I thought it was a matter of whose side she ended up on, but she was definitely belligerent." (N.T. 6/18/82, 2.43) Jackson, not unreasonably, did not want to risk that Dawley might end up on the prosecution side and direct her belligerence against his client.
Jamal's supporters bitterly complain that, by random selection, the alternate juror selected to replace Ms. Dawley was "white." Now who's being racist?
In his writings, Weinglass claims this new juror was biased against Jamal and that he said that he would not be able to fairly judge him. This is a simply untrue. Had he done so, he never would have been accepted as an alternate.


WHY WASN'T JAMAL PRESENT WHEN
JENNIE DAWLEY WAS REMOVED?
The day after Jennie Dawley had left the hotel to attend to her sick cat, and subsequently returned to her hotel room, an "in chambers" conference was held at which Jamal was not present. It was during this meeting that the judge, the prosecutor and Jamal's attorney, Anthony Jackson, who was representing Jamal at the time, reached a consensus that Ms. Dawley should be removed as a juror, because she had violated sequestration, and because she had displayed adverse feelings towards Jamal.
Mumia Abu-Jamal's supporters and his attorneys often imply that he was barred from attending this allegedly critical meeting as part of a conspiracy to cull Dawley from the jury simply because she was black. The actual facts contradict this silly allegation. Jamal was not present because he had previously been removed from the courtroom due to his disruptive and contemptuous actions, prior to the topic of Ms. Dawley's violation ever being mentioned. As prescribed by law, Anthony Jackson was representing Jamal as defense counsel during this conference. As was appropriate, Jackson, along with McGill and Sabo agreed to Dawley's removal.
Jamal's supporters and his attorneys place great weight upon Jennie Dawley because she was black and because "she was the only juror personally selected by Jamal." But through his self-representation in the selection process, all of the jurors -- an unknown number of whom were black -- were selected by Jamal. To single out Dawley as "Jamal's choice" is absurd, as McGill too agreed to her acceptance while he still possessed numerous peremptory challenges.
Jamal's lawyers also argue that his being "barred" from attending this conference was a violation of his right to "due process". But in two cases called Snyder vs. Massachusetts (1934) and United States vs. Gagnon (1985), in which the court ruled that:
"Whenever his presence has a relation, reasonably substantial, to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charge, [the] presence of a defendant is a condition of due process to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence, and to that extent only."
Jamal's absence at the time Jennie Dawley was being discussed -- a juror who, according to Jamal's own attorney, was "very belligerent" towards Jamal -- did not "thwart" a fair and just hearing."


CONCLUSION
If one reviews the trial record, all the far-flung allegations of conspiracy to racially fix the jury in Mumia Abu-Jamal's trial are exposed as inaccurate misrepresentations of what actually occurred. Yet, despite the Supreme Court's ruling stating that the "racially stacked jury" myth is "without merit," Jamal, his lawyers and his supporters continue to twist the facts and argue this myth outside the courtroom.
Despite Jamal's propaganda to the contrary, the simple fact is that, even more than most defendants, Mumia Abu-Jamal was given every opportunity to be personally involved in the selection of his jury.

[RobMoney$]

Mumia Abu-Jamal is a political prisoner who was convicted and sentenced to death because of his political beliefs and his past membership in the Black Panthers.


MYTH #4
Mumia Abu-Jamal is a "political prisoner," who received his death sentence, because of his political ideology. The basis for this argument, according to Jamal and his attorneys, is the fact that prosecutor Joe McGill, brought up Jamal's political beliefs and his prior membership in the Black Panther Party, in front of the jury.


BRIEF REBUTTAL
Mumia Abu-Jamal was sentenced to death by a jury that heard the monumental amount of evidence pointing to his guilt as a remorseless murderer. It was Mumia Abu-Jamal, not the judge or the prosecutor, who openly and frequently chose to proclaim his political ideology before the jury. The record verifies that there was not a single occasion during the trial in which any reference to Jamal's political ideology was made by the prosecutor or the judge. It was not until the sentencing phase of the trial, after Jamal had already been convicted, that prosecutor Joe McGill addressed, for the first and only time, what Jamal chooses to describe as statements of his "political ideology." In response to character witnesses who said that Jamal was a "peaceful man" and that violence was alien to his nature, the prosecutor asked Jamal if he had written that "All political power grows from the barrel of a gun." The prosecutor's questions went to Jamal's violent nature, not his political ideology.
It is clear to anyone who reads the trial record that the basis for Jamal's sentence was not his politics. Mumia Abu-Jamal was sentenced to death for a violent, cowardly and premeditated act of murder.


FACTS SUPPORTING OUR REBUTTAL
The record reveals that, from the first day of jury selection and throughout the trial, it was Mumia Abu-Jamal, not prosecutor Joe McGill, who, in full view of the jury, attempted to politicize his trial by making the courtroom a forum for his political ideology. Virtually every day of the 1982 trial, Jamal demanded to be "represented by" John Africa, the leader of a violent anti-government group called Move. (In a previous highly publicized trial, several Move members had been convicted of murdering another police officer, James Ramp, in 1978.)
In 1982, Move was an organization that was well known throughout Philadelphia for its violent clashes with its neighbors and the police, and for its civil disruptions. Wearing their distinctive dreadlock hairstyle, dozens of Move members crowded the 1982 courtroom, taking every opportunity to disrupt the trial proceedings. The Move members that attended the 1982 trial -- many of whom would later die in the 1985 Osage Avenue conflagration -- refused to stand when the judge entered the courtroom. When forced to do so, under threat of removal, they stood with their backs turned to the judge, or thrust their arms out in a Nazi salute. Several Move members were involved in fistfights in the courtroom, and regularly shouted out insults at the judge and at witnesses. Additionally, the record reflects that several Move members were used as "legal runners" by Jamal, often conferring with him at the defense table. All of this was done in full view of the jury.
Mumia Abu-Jamal's incessant demands to have John Africa, the leader of this group, "represent" him, was a clear statement to the jury of his political affiliation with Move. With repeated loud outbursts in the courtroom, in full view of the jury, Jamal openly fought with the judge, questioned the authority of the U.S. legal system to try him, insulted the prosecutor and openly ridiculed his own handpicked defense attorney. It's not hard to imagine the negative impact these voluntary actions by Jamal and his friends had on the jury.
In the transcripts we find that Jamal informs the court that he doesn't care what the jury hears, and that he will interrupt the proceedings again and again, as he sees fit, until John Africa is permitted to represent him. He further states that he is "defending himself in the style of John Africa," who advised constant courtroom disruption (as was done in the 1979 MOVE trial) in order to disrupt the flow of the proceeding and gain the jury's sympathy.
Court: "You realize if you interrupt in front of this jury, I'm going to have to remove you again."
Defendant: "Judge, you can remove me again and again and again and again and again and again. I'm going to point out to you what is important to me; that this is my trial; that this man [Mr. Jackson] is your employee, not mine; that he is functioning for the court system, not for me; he is not doing what I am telling him and directing him to do but what you are ordering him to do. So I choose to sit down because you can hear me from the seat."
Court: "Okay."
Defendant: "And I would like to have John Africa appointed to assist me in this matter."
Court: "Denied."
Defendant: "Judge, you can call the jury in and I don't care if they hear it, frankly, because it's the truth."
N.T. 6/24/82, 85
There are dozens of examples of Jamal's demands to be "represented by" John Africa, these are just a few:
Defendant: "I'm attempting to get counsel of my choice. I'm attempting to get John Africa."
Court: "I'm telling you Mr. Jamal, if you disrupt the proceedings, I'm warning you --"
Defendant: "Judge, your warning means nothing to me. Do you understand that?"
Court: "And I'm telling you, you may very well be removed as counsel."
Defendant: "You do whatever you have to do."
Court: "And Mr. Jackson will be put in."
Defendant: "Do whatever. It's not your choice, not his choice or Jackson's choice. I want my own counsel of my choice, someone I have faith in, someone --"
McGill: "Is that John Africa he's talking about?"
Court: "Yes, John Africa he's talking about."
Defendant: "That's right. You have not ruled to my satisfaction. This is my trial."
Court: "I don't care about your satisfaction."
Defendant: "Listen I do --"
Court: "There's satisfaction --"
Defendant: "I do."
Court: "-- in Appellate Court."
N.T. 6/17/82, 1.50-1
Defendant: "I would like to have John Africa Represent me."
Court: "I know. It's there in the record numerous times. You don't have to put it in again. Will you please sit down so we can proceed with the trial?" (6-23-82, T.R. 6.118)
Defendant: "Judge, I am asking the question in the spirit of the proceeding. Obviously I'm not obstructing anything."
Court: "Yes, you are."
Defendant: "Again, I am not."
Court: "Yes, you are."
Defendant: "I would like to protest the continued presence of Mr. Jackson as my defense. He is not my counsel. My counsel is John Africa."
N.T. 6/24/82, 19
After being convicted of First Degree Murder, Jamal chose of his own free will, and against his own attorney's recommendation, to read a rambling political statement to the jury that was to sentence him. In this statement Jamal called Judge Albert Sabo a "Black Robed Conspirator" (N.T. 7/3/82, 11). It was Jamal, not prosecutor Joe McGill as the defense contends, who first brought up the issue of Jamal's political affiliations. Jamal freely chose to make his political beliefs crystal clear to the jury when he quoted John Africa in his statement to them:
"It is the system that is guilty of the crimes of all that is criminal, all crimes are committed within the system not without..."
N.T. 7/3/82, 14
In a final proclamation of his political affiliation with MOVE, Jamal had this to say to the jury that was about to sentence him:
"This decision today proves neither my guilt nor my innocence. It proves merely that the system is finished. Babylon is falling. Long Live Move. Long Live John Africa."
N.T. 7/3/82, 16
Those who argue that it was the prosecutor who first brought up Jamal's political beliefs simply choose to ignore the record and Jamal's own words. Contrary to what Jamal's supporters contend, from the outset of the trial it was Jamal's plan to make the jury aware of his political beliefs in an attempt to transform himself into a victim of an allegedly corrupt legal system, and to make his trial a political referendum on Move.


QUESTIONS ABOUT JAMAL'S
BLACK PANTHER PAST
It is often argued by Jamal's supporters that prosecutor Joe McGill violated Jamal's civil rights when, during the sentencing phase of the trial, McGill asked Jamal about his personal philosophy on violence. While doing so, McGill questioned Jamal about quotes he had made as a young "Panther" in a 1972 newspaper article. Jamal's attorneys argue that this line of questioning violated Jamal's First Amendment rights and that he has been "sentenced to death by free speech." The basis for their argument is a 1992 case, called Dawson vs. Delaware. Jamal's attorneys twist the significance of "Dawson" to argue that Dawson's conviction was overturned on appeal, because the prosecutor in that case had improperly introduced Dawson's affiliation with this prison gang (The Aryan Brotherhood) that was known to be racist, violent and a white supremacist organization. They contend that McGill's questioning of Jamal regarding his Black Panther past was a situation identical to the "Dawson" case, and therefore, Jamal's conviction should be overturned.


WHAT REALLY HAPPENED DURING
THE SENTENCING PHASE?
The trial record clearly shows that after Jamal had been "sworn in" by the court he chose to express his political philosophy to the jury in the lengthy statement he read to them. Subsequently, in order to attack the notion that violence was alien to Jamal's nature, Assistant DA Joe McGill questioned Mumia Abu-Jamal about various political quotes he had made in the past. In particular, McGill focused on a quote Jamal had offered in a newspaper interview, when he was a young Black Panther. In that interview, Jamal had stated, "All political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." While questioning Jamal in 1982, McGill asked Jamal several times, if he still subscribed to this philosophy. Jamal danced around the question, stating that history had proved this philosophy to be true, loosely affirming his continued belief in Mao's statement. He also stated that the Panthers would take "whatever actions where necessary," to respond to perceived police and government oppression.
Jamal's lawyers now argue that this line of questioning violated Jamal's civil rights. But in fact, such questioning was permissible and appropriate in light of earlier testimony given by Jamal's character witnesses, in which they stated that he "was a peaceful man" Responding to the "barrel of a gun" quote and the philosophy it represents, it was Jamal, not the prosecutor, who highlighted his past membership in the Black Panther Party.


WHAT THE 7 MEMBERS OF
THE SUPREME COURT FOUND
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court first considered Jamal's allegation on Direct Appeal in 1989, and found it to be without merit. Dawson vs. Delaware was then decided in 1992. Based on that case, Jamal's attorneys again raised the same issue in their 1995 PCRA appeal. In response, the 7 members of the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court unanimously found that this argument still held no legal water, stating,
"In Dawson, the state, in order to rebut mitigating character evidence adduced by the defendant, introduced evidence that the defendant was a member of the Aryan Brotherhood prison gang. This evidence was introduced via stipulation, which proved only that an Aryan Brotherhood prison gang which entertains white racists beliefs, originated in California in the 1960's and that a separate gang in Delaware prison system calls itself the Aryan Brotherhood. The Court noted that had the prosecution offered the evidence it initially claimed it had, which would demonstrate that this is a white racist gang associated with drugs and violent escape attempts at prison, and that this gang advocates the murder of fellow inmates, the Court would likely have found no error in admitting evidence of the defendant's membership in that gang, since the violent nature of that gang would be relevant to rebut evidence of the defendant's good character. In other words, the Court made it clear that the admission of such affiliations of a defendant is proper only where there is evidence of the demonstrating some connection between that affiliation and the character evidence sought to be rebutted. In the instant case, [Jamal's case] Appellant's own quotes in the newspaper article evidence that the Philadelphia chapter of the Black Panther Party, to which Appellant belonged, would use violence if necessary to quell, what the Party perceived to be rampant police brutality against Party members. Accordingly, the nature of the Party was amply demonstrated and the requisite connection between membership in the Black Panther Party and the character evidence presented by Appellant, specifically, that he was a peaceful and genial man, was met. Thus, this issue has been finally litigated and warrants no further review, even in light of the subsequent decision in Dawson."
(Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Opinion of the Court, 1998)


WAS JAMAL A "PEACEFUL AND GENTLE MAN"
AS HE IS CHARACTERIZED?
Though Jamal had no criminal record on the morning he was arrested, there is ample evidence to show that he was not, by nature, a "peaceful man," as he is portrayed by his followers. In a recent biography written about his life and in his own extensive writings, Mumia Abu-Jamal freely admits to his deep-seated hatred for police officers and for the government. As a Black Panther, Jamal wrote of his desire to kill police officers, stating, "I for one feel like putting down my pen. Let's write epitaphs for Pigs!" (The Black Panther, 4/18/70, 12). Is this the rhetoric of a "peaceful man"? On July 1979, Jamal purchased, and registered, a five shot revolver and loaded it with "devastating" high-powered special +P ammunition. Is this the action of a man to whom violence is "alien"? On December 9, 1981, Mumia Abu-Jamal finally acted out what he had been writing and speaking about for years. He pulled his gun and executed Officer Faulkner as he lay wounded and unarmed on the sidewalk.
Several months after his conviction for this act, at the sentencing hearing, Jamal again contradicted his allegedly "peaceful" nature when he threatened Judge Albert Sabo in the courtroom, saying:
"You have just been sentenced to death."
N.T. 5/25/83, 165
CONCLUSION
The facts show that prosecutor Joe McGill's questions about Jamal's attitude toward violence, based on his own past actions and statements, were entirely proper. Jamal's cynical attempt to portray his own violent assertions as "free speech" misses the point. Jamal was free to express, and did express, his hatred of the police and his love of violence as often as he liked. But when he killed a police officer and claimed to the jury that he was a gentle, peace-loving man, he was not entitled to hide what he had said, the better to trick the jurors. It was Jamal, moreover, who tried to make his political views, especially his Move connection, an issue in the trial.

[RobMoney$]

The court allocated just $150 for Mumia Abu-Jamal and his attorney to mount their entire defense.


MYTH #5
Mumia Abu-Jamal's supporters argue that the amount of funding given to him by the Commonwealth was insufficient to hire experts in his behalf. It is often argued that Jamal was given the paltry sum of $150 to mount his entire defense.
A 1996 HBO-TV documentary, A Case for Reasonable Doubt, repeats this assertion and further states that Jamal had no ballistics expert or criminologist available to work for him at the original trial. HBO further contends that had Jamal been granted access to these experts he could have "blown gaping holes in the prosecution's case."


BRIEF REBUTTAL
In direct contradiction to the allegations of his supporters, the record verifies that Jamal was given enough money to hire his own experts. Yet they were able to find absolutely nothing wrong with the prosecution case.
Receipts were produced at the 1995 PCRA hearing to verify that Jamal received in excess of $13,000 (In 1982 dollars.) to mount his defense in 1982. Contrary to HBO's erroneous allegation, with this money Jamal and his attorney hired a criminologist, a ballistics expert, a photographer, and even a personal court stenographer. Jamal also had the support of a number of people who functioned as "legal runners" for Jackson and him in 1982. In addition to public funds, Jamal was admittedly receiving an undisclosed (and possibly large) amount of private funding from a number of groups, such as The Black Journalists Association and Concerned Friends and Family of Mumia Abu-Jamal. Anthony Jackson, Jamal's hand-picked attorney, admitted that this extra funding was well in excess of the customary level of support offered to any ordinary defendant accused of murder in Philadelphia in 1982.



FACTS SUPPORTING OUR REBUTTAL
Jamal's attorneys have gone to great lengths to paint a distorted picture of a destitute Jamal fighting for every penny to get the most meager level of support in order to save his life. Despite knowing that it's a blatant lie, in his article "The Trial of Mumia Abu Jamal" and again in his book "Race for Justice," Leonard Weinglass states, "The court allocated only $150 pretrial to the defense for the investigation of the case." Dan Williams, one of Jamal's other attorneys dedicates an entire chapter in his book "Executing Justice" to creating the image that Anthony Jackson was without the support of experts as late as April 29, 1982, just a few weeks before the trial began. These are blatant falsehoods.
Now that these distortions have served their purpose, which was to gather sympathy for Jamal with the press and the public, Weinglass freely admits that Jamal actually received $13,000 to $14,000 in public funds with which to mount his defense. During the trial, Anthony Jackson never complained about the amount of funding he received. What he did complain about was the fact that the court refused to give him large sums in advance, and required him to account for the money he spent. Jackson claimed that many expert witnesses were reluctant to take on work that was paid for by the Commonwealth because it could take as much as a year to be compensated for their work, but no such "reluctant expert" has ever actually been produced in court by Jamal's lawyers, who had the burden of proving these claims in the 1995 PCRA proceeding. The same rules for court funding applied in all cases, not just Jamal's case. Also, legitimate experts simply do not demand to be paid in full in advance of providing their services. Jackson was told that his experts would be compensated for work they had done once an itemized bill was submitted. Jackson acknowledged that he was aware of this procedure, and in fact hired two experts: George Fassnacht, who, according to Jackson was "world renowned" for his work, was hired as Jamal's ballistics expert. Robert Greer, also a seasoned veteran who was admittedly hired by the best lawyers in town, was hired as Jamal's investigator.
In addition to $14,000 in public funds, Jamal also received undisclosed amounts from various private support groups. This funding continues to this day. These were facts well known to Weinglass prior to publishing his writings. Yet he chose to spread the $150 Myth to gain support for his client.
This is what Weinglass himself had to say in his 1995 Closing Argument, about the funding that Jamal received:
"Your Honor will recall the total amount of money that Mr. Greer [Jamal's investigator] received was $562."
N.T. 9/11/95, 55
In fact, Mr. Greer testified that he had only billed one hour for every three hours that he worked on this case, therefore, Jamal actually received the equivalent of $1,686 in investigative assistance. (The amount shown is 1982 dollars, which would be more in the order of $5,000 today.)
Weinglass also stated,
"The monies for Mr. Fassnacht, the firearms expert, was raised to $350."
N.T. 9/11/95, 56
Unless our math is wrong, $562 + $350 doesn't add up to $150. Yet to this day, Weinglass will tell his audiences that Jamal only received $150, because it supports their illusion and gains sympathy from Jamal's supporters.


HOW DID THE $150 MYTH DEVELOP AND
WHAT SUPPORT DID JAMAL RECEIVE?
Leonard Weinglass didn't arbitrarily pick the $150 amount. Rather, as is his style, he again twists the facts to paint a distorted picture of this case to gain sympathy for his client.
So what really happened in 1982? Well, it was standard practice in all cases for the courts in Philadelphia to allocate an initial amount of $150 for each funding request they received from the defense. Judge Paul Ribbner, who presided over Jamal's preliminary hearings, explained to both Anthony Jackson and Jamal that the $150 amount could be increased at any time by filing a written request that contained an itemized log of expenses and showing merit. At the 1995 PCRA hearing, receipts were produced verifying that Jackson did just this on several occasions prior to the commencement of the 1982 trial. And Judge Sabo approved additional funds in excess of $1,300, that were over and above the roughly $13,000 already allocated to Anthony Jackson to mount Jamal's defense. This amount, shown in 1982 dollars, would be roughly $36,000 today.
No one claims that this was not sufficient to mount an adequate defense. Jamal's supporters make much of the fact that as he prepared for trial, Anthony Jackson petitioned the court for the assistance of another attorney. He told the court that he was overwhelmed by the volume of information he had to handle and told the court he was in need of assistance. Judge Ribbner refused this request. But this fact does not show that Judge Ribbner was biased against Jamal, as his attorneys argue. Nor does it show that Jackson was truly in over his head. Instead it was a shrewd move by the seasoned Jackson to explore every opportunity he had. No other murder defendant in this era was given two court appointed attorneys. Nor was there anything about this case that made it more overwhelming than any of the 14 similar cases Jackson had tried and won.
In 1995, Jackson admitted that he had reviewed the prosecution's ballistics findings on three separate occasions, for over 3 hours each time, with Fassnacht. Jackson also stated that he had read every one of 150 witness statements "at least 10 times each" and he told the court that he would be ready to proceed with trial in June. And he would have been, had Jamal not taken his notes and his witness statements away from him on May 13.
At the 1995 PCRA hearing, Anthony Jackson was questioned about the amount of funding he received. In direct contradiction to what he had stated in his sworn affidavit to Jamal's new attorneys, Jackson admitted that he received funding far in excess of $150.
While Jackson acknowledged that he would have preferred "a blank check" to support his defense of Jamal, he also admitted that Jamal received funding and legal support far in excess of what was normally received by defendants accused of capital murder. Jackson acknowledged that he was fully familiar with the process by which he could gain approval for additional funding, and that all lawyers and experts representing indigent defendants in Philadelphia operated under these same rules.
During the preliminary hearings, Judge Ribbner made it clear to Anthony Jackson that he could petition Judge Albert Sabo for additional funding, and prior to the beginning of the trial that just what Jackson did.
NOTE: When reviewing the funding provided to Jackson, it must be understood that the amounts shown are in 1982 dollars. An appropriate adjustment to today's dollars would be to double or triple these amounts.
Regarding the photographer Jackson said:
Question: "Now, by the way of a petition for monies to pay for a photographer, did you not?"
Answer: "I did, sir."
Question: "And that was granted, was it not?"
Answer: "Yes, sir."
Question: "And how much did Mr. Peraneau receive?"
Answer: "I think 150, 200, I really don't recall."
Question: "And he was in fact a photographer?"
Answer: "Yes, sir."
Question: "And he took photographs for you?"
Answer: "Yes, sir."
N.T. 7/28/95, 7-8
After having his recollection refreshed by his own fee petition, however, Jackson was forced to admit that the photographer was paid much more than this by the court:
THE WITNESS [Mr. Jackson]: Apparently he received $400.
BY MR. GRANT: Q. The photographer?
A. Yes.
Q. And that's from the Court of Common Pleas by way of your petition?
A. That's correct.
Q. That's a lot of pictures, isn't it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In 1981 pictures?
A. Well, Mr. Peraneau is a good photographer.
N.T. 7/28/95, 8-9.
In his dishonest book, Executing Justice, Jamal's former attorney, Dan Williams, suggests that Jackson was without an investigator until just a few days before the trial began. The record, however, belies this notion. In January 1982, just weeks after the shooting, Anthony Jackson also hired Robert Greer as his investigator. In 1990, Jamal's new attorneys again retained Robert Greer to assist them in their efforts to appeal Jamal's conviction.
Question: "How long, for what period of months did you work for Mr. Jackson on this case?"
Answer: "To what period of months? I think I first talked to him in January."
Question: "Yes, sir?"
Answer: "I probably finished up with him after talking to Hightower, yeah, after talking to Hightower."
Question: "I know, but I don't know when you -"
Answer: "Probably May, April or May."
N.T. 8/1/95, 193
(Greer interviewed Desie Hightower on May 3, 1982.)
Like Fassnacht the ballistics expert, Greer was no hack. While testifying in 1995, Greer stated that he was a seasoned investigator in 1982 and that he was often hired by the best attorneys in Philadelphia for his services.
Question: "The best lawyers in town hire you, don't they?"
Answer: "That is correct."
N.T. 8/1/95, 241
At the 1995 PCRA hearing Greer stated that, because of personal involvement, he worked on the case three hours for every hour he billed; bringing the total time he spent assisting Jackson to over 70 hours.
Question: "And based upon your testimony yesterday, Mr. Greer received practically $500; correct?"
Answer: "Ah, yes sir."
N.T. 7/28/95, 12
In fact, it was later agreed that Greer received $562 from the Court, via Jackson. A letter was produced that had been signed by Greer, which verified that Greer was also "retained" by the Mumia Abu-Jamal Defense Committee, though Greer denied this.
Question: "Thank you, Mr. Greer. Oh, by the way, since that's all you did, and you only submitted a bill for 22-and-a-half hours, how much did you actually work on the case?"
Answer: "You are talking about actually worked?"
Question: "Yes."
Answer: "That's hard to say. Umm..."
Question: Twice that much?"
Answer: "Probably three times that much."
N.T. 8/1/95, 242
Jamal's attorneys argue that the Court refused to allocate funds for Jackson to "retain" a ballistics expert. Yet Jackson himself acknowledged that the court allocated him sufficient funds to hire George Fassnacht, who, by Jackson's own admission, was an exceptional and "world renowned" ballistics technician. Like Robert Greer, Jamal's current attorneys retained the services of George Fassnacht prior to and during the 1995 PCRA appeals hearing. Jackson, who had spent over 5 years as a police evidence technician, admittedly met with Fassnacht for over three hours, on three separate occasions, before the trial began to review the prosecution's ballistics findings and determine how to attack it. Jackson further admitted that he continued to confer with Fassnacht right up to the end of the trial and that Fassnacht was paid a fee in excess of the normal fee allocated for a ballistics expert.
Question: "And you said yesterday also that Mr. Fassnacht, who was your alleged expert ballistician, received more than twice what the initial and usual fee was for his services, did he not?"
Answer: "I believe he did."
N.T. 7/28/95, 12
Question: "And you then thereafter testified that he [Fassnacht] looked at no Firearms Identification Unit Reports, that is to say, he didn't look at the findings of paper of the ballisticians who testified at trial; correct?"
Answer: "He looked at whatever I was given."
Question: "Pardon me?"
Answer: "Whatever I was given.
Question: "Oh. So he did look at reports?"
Answer: "Yeah, I apologize if I misstated. Yeah, I mean he looked at whatever I was given in discovery."
N.T. 7/28/95, 13-14
Question: "Well, when he [Fassnacht] gave you his extraordinary [cost] projection, did you file a petition with the Court of Common Pleas and say I need extraordinary bucks?"
Answer: "Oh, yes, sir. Mr. Fassnacht was -- I do particularly remember being in front of Judge Ribbner. Mr. Fassnacht is well known here in Philadelphia and of course he has performed these tests and things of this sort all over the world. During the time I know that I appealed before Judge Ribbner I had asked for additional funds. And I know there was a prolonged discussion. And I was told when I got the extra money, that's all I was going to get. And again, I think originally $150 and whatever the extra amount was, that was it.
N.T. 7/28/95, 19
Answer: "Well, I think it was cheap at that price. If you know ballistics. The information he [Fassnacht] gave me was invaluable during the cross-examination of the witness [Anthony Paul, the prosecution's ballistics expert], it was well worth it.
Question: "It was well worth it?"
Answer: "Yes."
Question: "In fact, he [Fassnacht] did advise you and consult with you and give you his expertise?"
Answer: "I said that, yes."
Question: "And he directed you to areas that he thought were ripe for exploitation or attack by you?"
Answer: "Yes, sir. It all just made it all the more clear it would have been so much better if I had him conduct an independent test and perform some other examinations. Couldn't do it. Couldn't do it."
Question: "Certainly in the best of all worlds it is always nice to have more?"
Answer: "Yes, I guess that's what it is."
Question: "But when you coupled his expertise and his advice to you - and he is a world renowned expert, is he not?"
Answer: "Yes, sir."
Question: "When you coupled that with your expertise as an evidence technician and knowing what of necessity is done and should be done, that in fact, gave you more of an edge than the average lawyer would have because of your expertise coupled with his expertise, did it not?"
Answer: "Probably did."
Question: "And you kept Larry Paul [the prosecution's ballistics expert] on the witness stand and cross-examined him on behalf of Mr. Jamal to a fare-the-well, didn't you?"
Answer: "I did the best I could, sir."
N.T. 7/28/95, 24-25
In reference to the additional "independent tests" of the physical evidence (jackets, bullets, guns and so on) that Anthony Jackson alleged would have made it "better" for him in 1982, it should be noted that Mumia Abu-Jamal and his current attorneys had the opportunity and the funding to run these exact tests on the physical evidence prior to the 1995 PCRA hearing. In fact, the prosecutor pleaded with the defense to do so. To this day, the defense has refused to perform any tests on the fatal bullet. Instead they choose to argue that the "guess" at the caliber of the bullet (.44) -- made by a medical doctor in the Preliminary Medical Examiner's Report without benefit of a microscope or scale -- was more accurate and credible evidence than the formal test results presented by the prosecution. This argument was unanimously rejected by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in their 1998 PCRA ruling. (For additional information see Myth #1.)


SO HOW MUCH FUNDING
WAS JAMAL ACTUALLY GIVEN?
In reference to the total amount of funding Anthony Jackson -- the defense's own 1995 PCRA witness -- solicited and received from the court in 1982, the following was said:
Question: "Okay. So now we are up to around what? Let me see. 450, 350, that's 800, photographer, Fassnacht. We got 450 for an investigator. That's around 1,200. Now we have 150 for the pathologist, so we are up around 1,400. Did you retain the services of -- that you paid for -- of any other experts in your pursuit of a defense for Mr. Jamal?"
Answer: "I don't think so. I Don't ---"
Question: "When I say did you pay for: Did the Court of Common Please, did the Citizens of Philadelphia pay for any other experts?"
Answer: "No. According to this petition [for funds], the Citizens of Philadelphia paid 562 for an investigator, $400 for a photographer, and $350 for a ballistician, and that was it."
Question: "So, the investigator got nearly $600 now?"
Answer: "Yep, that's what it looks like."
N.T. 7/28/95, 29-30
Question: "Your final bill submitted on C-4 for experts - and you claim that they were fair and reasonable amounts - was 1,312 dollars and 50 cents; would that be correct?"
Answer: "Okay, yes, I see it down there. I guess that's it, yeah."
N.T. 7/28/95, 100


JAMAL RECEIVED ADDITIONAL SUPPORT
AND FUNDING FROM OUTSIDE SOURCE
At the 1995 PCRA hearing, Joe Davidson, from the Association of Black Journalists, stated that his organization submitted between $200 and $400 in additional dollars for Jamal's 1982 defense. He also acknowledged that there was an additional undisclosed amount of money made available to Jamal by The Concerned Friends and Family of Mumia Abu-Jamal and other support groups.
Additionally, Anthony Jackson admitted that he personally "took money out of my own pocket" (out of the $13,000 the court paid him) to cover some of the costs of defense.
In addition to Fassnacht and Greer, the supposedly cash-strapped and under-supported Jamal also had a photographer and a personal court stenographer working for him. His personal stenographer was to provide daily typed transcripts, allowing Jamal to personally review each day's testimony from his cell.
To evidence this, the following exchange took place:
Court: "It was brought to my attention, though, that you have engaged a private stenographer. Who is that?"
Mr. Jackson: "Judge, she is a student up at Temple University. We're attempting to accommodate Mr. Jamal's wishes. On Monday we will have a motion for Your Honor to allow two certified stenographers who would be able to provide him [Jamal] with daily copy."
N.T. 6/17/82, 1.25
As stated, Robert Greer, Jamal's criminologist, admitted under oath in 1995 that he billed 1 hour for every 3 hours he worked on this case.
A.D.A. Grant: "You only submitted a bill for 22 and one half hours, how much time did you actually work on the case?"
Greer: "Probably three times that much."
N.T. 8/1/95, 242
The total amount of private funds contributed to Jamal's defense in 1982 is undisclosed at this time. As stated, Joe Davidson, a member of the Association of Black Journalists stated that his organization contributed roughly $400 to Jamal's defense in 1982. Additionally, Lynn Washington, another member of the Association, stated in an interview given to National Public Radio in 1992, that his organization offered to provide Jamal with a "top notch [defense] attorney."
The court record also shows that 15 character witnesses testified on Jamal's behalf in 1982, each of whom spoke of Jamal as a valued member of their community. When asked by the District Attorney how much money they had contributed to support Jamal, while under oath, each one stated that they had not donated a single dollar to Jamal's defense fund. This in the hour of Jamal's greatest need. Is this case credible?
Jamal's supporters like to throw out wild claims of conspiracy against him. We suggest they look in their own back yard and determine what these 15 people and Jamal's attorneys are hiding. Then they will see how much money and resources were really offered to Jamal in 1982.
One might argue that the total amount approved by the Court -- which was in excess of $1,300 for experts and $13,000 for Jackson's services -- was not adequate. However, given that Jackson had admittedly received far more funding and support to defend Jamal that he had for any other "court appointed" case, it seems that the $1,300 amount was, at a minimum, "fair" and far in excess of the $150 figure that Leonard Weinglass and Jamal's supporters offer up.
So, we see that, contrary to what the inaccurate HBO-TV documentary asserts, Jamal did in fact have both a criminologist, (Robert Greer), and a ballistics expert, (George Fassnacht), working for him during the original trial in 1982. As mentioned, these same "experts" were again hired by Jamal's current attorneys to do investigative work leading up to the 1995 PCRA hearing.


BUT JAMAL DIDN'T HAVE HIS BALLISTICS
EXPERT OR A FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST TO
TESTIFY AT THE TRIAL?
Those who support Mumia Abu-Jamal take every opportunity to imply that there was a vast conspiracy to convict him. Leonard Weinglass has scripted a list of issues that, when taken at face value, seem to confirm this. Whenever possible, Jamal's supporters are quick to repeat these semi-factual sound bites to their new recruits, or to any willing media source willing to listen to them. More often than not, these individual repeat these alleged "facts" with blind faith in Leonard Weinglass; assuming that what he states is always true and accurate. What they fail to account for is the fact that Leonard Weinglass, has repeatedly distinguished himself as a master at manipulating and manufacturing facts, and that he is willing to say almost anything if it benefits himself or his client.
The issue regarding Jamal's access to both a forensic pathologist and a ballistics expert at the time of the trial is a prime example. Jamal's supporters often repeat Weinglass' assertion that "Jamal was not represented" by either of these experts. The inference being that the court (the supposedly villainous Judge Sabo) denied Jamal access to these allegedly vital experts.
The reality of this situation is something entirely different. In fact, during the 1982 trial, neither Anthony Jackson nor Mumia Abu-Jamal ever called for either of these experts to testify in Jamal's behalf, and neither Jamal nor Jackson ever petitioned the Court to appropriate funds to pay for expert testimony. Jamal was not "denied access to a ballistics expert and a pathologist to testify in his behalf". In fact, the court record verifies that Judge Albert Sabo encouraged Anthony Jackson and Jamal to bring their ballistics expert, George Fassnacht, into the courtroom to testify, if he could factually challenge the findings of the prosecution's ballistics evidence.
Court: "Let me say this: You've got your own expert. You've got Mr. Fosnick [Fassnacht], right?"
Jackson: "But that's not the issue."
Court: "Wait a while. If he wants to come in and testify on these bullets and anything else, bring him in. That's fine."
N.T. 6/23/82, 6.136
Jackson refused to do so. Because it would have only served to make Jamal look even more guilty.
So, contrary to what Jamal's supporters argue, Jamal was not "denied access" to the expert testimony of a pathologist and a ballistics expert, he and his attorney never asked to have either one made available to them because their testimony wouldn't have helped Jamal in any way. We know this to be true, because at the 1995 PCRA hearing Jamal did have access to the expert testimony of both his ballistics expert and a forensic pathologist. As determined by the Supreme Court, these experts failed to prove the prosecution's test results inaccurate in any way. Further, when asked by the prosecution to test the bullet for themselves George Fassnacht refused to even look at it, let alone test it and refute the prosecution's findings.
The burden of proof at trial lies with the prosecution. Jamal's supporters seem to think that if the prosecution can bring in expert witnesses to support their case, the defense should be allowed to do the same thing at public expense. But that's not the law. The law requires the defense to prove that they need expert testimony to refute the prosecution's claims. Jamal and his attorney never even attempted to do this, much less succeeded at it. But they were offered funds to do so anyway. And they still failed to have their ballistics expert testify, because he could in no way refute the prosecution's findings.
The 1995 PCRA hearing proved this. When invited by ADA Joey Grant to examine the physical evidence, Jamal's ballistics evidence flatly refused:
ADA Grant: "Well, we now have what you didn't have, what you didn't have in 1981. Would you be willing to try a hand at it now?"
George Fassnacht: "Would I be willing to reexamine this evidence? No, I wouldn't."
N.T. 8/2/95, 150
In 1995, George Fassnacht also acknowledged that both Leonard Weinglass and Anthony Jackson had failed to make him fully aware of all the facts surrounding the case that might influence the ballistics tests. For instance, George Fassnacht stated that prior to giving his sworn affidavit to Leonard Weinglass, he had never been told that Officer Faulkner's jacket had been roughly handled after the shooting (the jacket was rubbed against the ground and the seats of two separate police vehicles prior to transport to the hospital and the application of the hands of the officers who carried Officer Faulkner to these vehicles). Fassnacht agreed that these facts would have rendered certain chemical tests of the jacket ineffective, and would have ruled out such tests being attempted. Fassnacht likewise admitted that he had never been told that Mumia Abu-Jamal had struggled with the arresting officers as they attempted to subdue and handcuff him. Again Fassnacht agreed that such struggling would have made it "difficult to perform any tests on Jamal's hands". (For more information on the ballistics evidence go to Myth #12)
The contention of Jamal's lawyers that the testimony of George Fassnacht, would have been substantially beneficial to Jamal in 1982 is absurd, since Fassnacht's testimony in 1995 proved absolutely nothing. Leonard Weinglass' public statements inferring that the court somehow conspired to deny Jamal access to Fassnacht's testimony in 1982 are nothing more than another attempt to mislead Jamal's followers and gain misguided public sympathy for Jamal.


CONCLUSION
Here is another example of the distorted truth that Jamal's attorneys and supporters are disbursing to the media and the public. To this day, when convenient, they continue to insist that Jamal was given only $150 to mount his entire defense and that he was not given adequate assistance to mount his defense. They also erroneously argue that Jamal was "denied" the representation of both a ballistics expert and a forensic pathologist.
In review, the record clearly refutes each of these notions. In addition to the assistance of his seasoned hand picked attorney, Jamal received in excess of $14,000 to mount his defense. He had the support of an "internationally renowned" ballistics expert, an investigator who provided over 60 hours of service, a photographer, a personal court stenographer and several legal runners who worked on his behalf. The $150 Myth speaks volumes to the credibility of the allegations made by Jamal and his attorneys.

[RobMoney$]

The Philadelphia Police Department lost evidence, withheld evidence, coerced witnesses and conspired against Mr. Jamal to obtain a conviction.


MYTH #6
The police intimidated and coerced witnesses, lost and withheld evidence in an attempt to frame Mr. Jamal and deny him a fair trial.
In their 1995 closing argument the defense states, "For almost 13 years the prosecution has promoted the false representation that the evidence in this case is overwhelming. In fact, it is more like a house of cards that has been propped up by prosecutorial and police fabrication, coercion, alternatively coercion and promises made to witnesses. And misrepresentation, destruction of evidence." (9-11-95, T.R. 23)


BRIEF REBUTTAL
In a classic tactical ploy used by defense attorneys when their clients are guilty, we find Mr. Jamal's attorneys attempting to put the police and the legal system itself on trial. To date however, the defense has never actually established and verified one instance of police coercion, lost evidence, or conspiracy in this case that stood up to scrutiny in the courtroom. Despite this, Mr. Weinglass continues to make these unsubstantiated allegations outside the courtroom for media consumption.
The defense regularly makes pointed allegations of criminal conduct against several parties in this case. If they have evidence to back their serious assertions, wouldn't they immediately present it to the proper authorities and let them proceed with a criminal prosecution of the guilty parties. Until such time, these allegations remain nothing more than a baseless ploy designed to deflect attention away from the guilt of their client.


EXAMPLES AND FACTS
CLAIM - The defense claims a bullet fragment was lost or withheld by the police that would have allowed the bullet to be traced to a gun other than Mr. Jamal's.
FACTS - The Medical Examiner was never asked by the defense to account for any "missing bullet fragments" at the 1995 PCRA hearing. The defense had their chance to prove for the record that a bullet fragment was actually missing and then verify that it had been lost by the police. However, no attempt was made to do so. Despite their many out-of-court assertions, the defense failed to introduce any such evidence at all in the 1995 hearing. To this day there is still no proof that any fragment is, in fact, "missing".
CLAIM - The Police allowed Cynthia White, a prostitute and witness for the prosecution, to "work the streets with impunity", and failed to disclose alleged police protection afforded to Ms. White in return for favorable testimony. This claim is based on an assertion made by another prostitute, Veronica Jones (who was mentioned earlier in this piece) and by Mr. Jamal's investigator, Robert Greer.
FACTS - Ms. Jones testified at the 1996 PCRA hearing. Beyond conversations Ms. Jones purported to have had with Cynthia White, Ms. Jones and Jamal's attorneys produced no tangible proof to back her allegations. In her 1996 testimony, Jones stated that White's alleged "deal" was made by police officers whose names Jones couldn't remember. Ms. Jones was also unable to remember when the alleged "deal" was made, or what the benefits to Ms. White were, beyond being permitted to ply her trade without being arrested.
At the 1996 hearing, Ms. Jones repeatedly appeared quite confused as to whom she had spoken to about anything in 1982. She stated that a factor contributing to her confused state in 1996 was her heavy drug use throughout the 1980's.
In addition to her alleged conversation with Cynthia White, Ms. Jones, who in 1982 had been arrested on an armed robbery charge, now claims that she too was visited by police officers while awaiting trial. She alleges that these officers offered her a deal similar to the one allegedly provided for Ms. White, and that they threatened to go hard on her in regards to her pending armed robbery charge, if she didn't cooperate with them.
Again, Ms. Jones recollection regarding the facts of her own alleged meeting with police in 1982 is very unclear. While testifying in 1996, she was unable to remember what the specifics of this alleged deal were and she failed to remember how the deal was to benefit her, beyond being given a break on her pending felony case. Further, Jones couldn't remember the names of the officers that allegedly visited her or when the visit occurred.
The defense was once again unable to produce any corroborative evidence that this alleged meeting ever occurred or that any "deal" was made for Ms. Jones in 1982. Interestingly, in her 1996 testimony, Ms. Jones made it very clear that she never accepted any "deal" in 1982 to give false testimony against Mr. Jamal. Additionally in 1982, Ms. Jones never mentioned the alleged police pressure, which included the offer of a deal directly connected to her pending armed robbery case, to the Public Defender who was representing her in that case.
If any deal regarding Ms. Jones pending felony case had been struck, it would have come not from the police, but rather the District Attorney. The police have no authority to address how cases are dealt with in the courtroom and therefore they couldn't have held up their end of the supposed deal. Failure to do so would certainly have sent Ms. Jones running to the press. The District Attorney's records were reviewed by the defense in 1996 and there is no evidence of a deal being cut for Ms. Jones or Cynthia White in 1982.


LEONARD WINEGLASS ACCUSATION DISCREDITED.
There is also evidence that completely discredits Mr. Wineglass accusation that "police offered Veronica Jones the same deal that Cynthia White got". Mr. Weinglass claims the deal allegedly accepted by Ms.White was to allow her to work her corner unmolested by police if she gave testimony damaging to Mr. Jamal. Mr. Weinglass claims Ms. White accepted this offer and lied while testifying against Mr. Jamal in 1982.
What Mr. Weinglass doesn't acknowledge is what Cynthia White's arrest record shows. When reviewed, it shows that Ms. White was arrested for prostitution twice within a week of giving the allegedly false testimony against Mr. Jamal. This fact dispels Mr. Wineglass contention that Ms. White had a deal cut for her unless the deal was to last only a week. Mr. Weinglass had easy access to White's arrest record.
Upon completion of her testimony against Mr. Jamal, Cynthia White knew she would have to go back out into a neighborhood where many people considered Mr. Jamal a folk hero. At great risk, Cynthia White came forward and testified to the truth. Unless she felt that being given a week "to work the streets with impunity" offset the threat that Jamal's supporters posed for her, we again find Mr. Weinglass ignoring the facts to support another self serving allegation.


THE ACCUSATION OF POLICE PROTECTION FOR CYNTHIA WHITE.
The accusation of police protection for Cynthia White came from Robert Greer, who was Mr. Jamal's investigator. Greer claims that on several occasions in 1982, he attempted to speak to Ms. White, who was working as a prostitute. Greer claims that on each of the three times that he saw Ms.White, there were two individuals parked next to her in a "little red car". The highly skilled Mr. Greer determined that they must have been undercover police officers protecting Ms. White.
In Robert Greer's 1995 testimony he states, "They appeared to be plain closed police officers, Yes sir."
Assistant D.A. Joey Grant asks, "How does a police officer appear?"
Mr. Greer responds, "How does a police officer appear? I assumed that they were police officers simply because they never left the scene. If she was there, they were there." (8-1-95, T.R. 188)
The basis of Mr. Greer's observation was the fact that every time Ms. White was there, the "little red car" was there. Yet Mr. Greer states that he only saw Ms. White on the street corner three times.
For some unknown reason, the presence of this "little red car" scared off the highly experienced Mr. Greer. He testified that despite being hired by the defense to contact Cynthia White and having seen Ms. White on at least three occasions, he never actually attempted to speak with her. Mr. Greer further testified that the two men in the vehicle never identified themselves as police officers, nor did they ever speak to him at any time. He also states that he only saw the back of their heads as they sat in the car, and that he never attempted to get a better look at the individuals inside the car to verify their identity. These are all rather highly questionable actions by a seasoned investigator who was accepting payment to locate a witness in a capital murder case.


POLICE PROTECTION FOR CYNTHIA WHITE?
Mr. Weinglass claims that the DA never notified the court of the alleged police protection afforded to Cynthia White, in violation of the rules of the court. However, to date Mr. Weinglass has produced no substantive evidence in the courtroom to corroborate his allegation that Cynthia White received police protection.
Furthermore, there wouldn't have been any rational reason for the District Attorney's Office not to have notified the court, had protection been afforded Ms. White. The DA had previously notified the court that there were other witnesses in this case who were openly given police protection prior to and during the 1982 trial. The Jamal trial was a very high profile, emotionally charged case. By the time it went to trial, Mr. Jamal had taken on a rabid cult following in Philadelphia's inner city. It wasn't unreasonable for the police and the DA to be concerned that witnesses testifying against him might be assaulted or intimidated by Mr. Jamal's supporters. There is in fact evidence that this type of intimidation against other witnesses actually occurred in 1981.

[RobMoney$]

In an effort to frame Mumia Abu-Jamal and secure a conviction, the Philadelphia Police fabricated a story about Mumia Abu-Jamal's Emergency Room confession


MYTH #7
Evidence was presented at trial verifying that just before being taken inside the hospital emergency room, Jamal crudely claimed credit for the murder, shouting, "I shot the mother fucker and I hope the mother fucker dies. This, as you might suppose, is something of a problem for the proponents of Jamal's supposed innocence. Having supposedly just watched someone else commit the murder, and having remained oddly silent about the someone else running away (not even complaining about his brother's failure to mention it), Jamal suddenly decided to say, "I shot the mother fucker[.]" Hardly the conduct of an innocent man.
Jamal's supporters allege that the Philadelphia Police, who supposedly have a reputation for intimidating and framing defendants, fabricated a story about Jamal's confession at Jefferson Hospital on the morning of the killing. They point to the fact that the two police officers that heard the confession didn't report it until 2 months later, and that one of them, Officer Gary Wakshul wrote in his report, "The Negro male made no comments." On this basis, they insist that the testimony of the officers is not true.


BRIEF REBUTTAL
The confession was heard by a hospital security guard and reported by her the next day. Officers Gary Bell and Gary Wakshul each stated that they failed to write about the confession in their reports because they were emotionally devastated after seeing their friend and partner with a fatal hole in his head. They did not even remember what they had written in their reports immediately after the shooting.
Taken alone, the officers' explanation would certainly warrant some doubt. But the testimony of hospital security guard Priscilla Durham removes that doubt. She heard Jamal shout, "I shot the mother fucker and I hope the mother fucker dies" outside the ER, and made an immediate report of the incident. A copy of the report was produced at the 1982 trial and was identified by Ms. Durham. Priscilla Durham's corroborates what the officers heard that morning and reported later, and demonstrates that it was an actual event, not an invention.
Jamal's supporters don't know what to make of Priscilla Durham's testimony because it devastates their myth that Jamal never uttered his two self-incriminating statements at the hospital. They usually fail to mention her at all, but when they do they resort to ridicule or some other brush-off device. At one of his many public speeches at a rally for Jamal, Leonard Weinglass got a big laugh from Jamal fans by dismissing Ms. Durham as someone who "wanted to be a policeman." The real joke, however, is on the effort to try to explain away Jamal's confession. The fact of Ms. Durham's testimony destroys the myth that the confession was made up by the police after the fact. And the fact of the confession destroys -- once again, in yet another way -- the myth of Jamal's supposed innocence.


FACTS SUPPORTING OUR REBUTTAL
Scoffing at the testimony of the two police officers who heard Jamal's Emergency Room confession, his supporters often claim that any person hearing Jamal's outburst in the hospital would have reported it immediately. They rarely mention that a hospital security guard, Priscilla Durham, did exactly that. They don't mention her because her testimony does not fit in with the supposed conspiracy to frame and convict Jamal.
Because Priscilla Durham's testimony supports the testimony of Officers Bell and Wakshul, Jamal's supporters often claim that she was part of a great conspiracy to frame Jamal. Yet in her 1982 testimony Durham stated that she had no idea who Mumia Abu-Jamal was when he made his statements as he lay on the ground, outside the Emergency Room doors.
"At this time I didn't know [who he was]... all I did was hear him say, I shot the mother fucker and I hope the mother fucker dies."
N.T. 6/24/82, 28
To refute the idea that Jamal "confessed" outside the Emergency Room, his supporters often point to statements made by Dr. Anthony Colletta -- the Emergency Room doctor who attended to both Jamal and Faulkner -- in an HBO-TV documentary on the case. In that program, Colletta stated that, from the moment he was with him, Jamal made no comments and that he was on the verge of unconsciousness while in the hospital. (For information on Dr. Coletta's actual testimony read on.) Priscilla Durham's testimony refutes this idea and confirms that Jamal was struggling with police when he shouted his self-incriminating remark immediately outside the automatic doors to the Emergency Room, before Colletta ever saw him.
"When I opened the door and told the police officer which way to bring him [Mr. Jamal] they were still, you know trying to control him. He again shouted, I shot the mother fucker and I hope the mother fucker dies."
N.T. 6/24/82, 30
When asked where Jamal was when he made these statements, Durham replied:
"He was at my feet."
N.T. 6/24/82, 28
Priscilla Durham explained that she had come down to the area adjacent to the Emergency Room to see if she could assist in any way. Upon hearing both of Jamal's incriminating outbursts (there were two) Durham testified that she reported what she had heard to her hospital supervisor the following day. The District Attorney first became aware of Durham's report while she was being cross-examined by Jamal's attorney. Prosecutor McGill sent a detective to Jefferson Hospital to bring the report back to the courtroom.
Durham: "I had already given a statement."
Jackson: "To whom?"
Durham: "Jefferson [Hospital] investigators."
Jackson: "When did you give that [statement]"
Durham: "The next day."
Jackson: "Your honor, I'd like a copy of that statement and I'd ask that before I proceed with my cross-examination I get a copy of the statement."
ADA Joe McGill: "I would be - I've never seen one, Your Honor. It's Jefferson Hospital material. I would be very glad to have it brought over."
N.T. 6/24/82, 47
A short time later, the report arrived from Jefferson Hospital. It plainly stated that it was made the day after the shooting (12-10-81), to Jefferson Hospital authorities, not to police. It confirmed that Priscilla Durham had, in fact, reported Jamal's outburst to her supervisor in the time frame she had stated. The report reiterated the same facts stated by Durham in her testimony regarding Jamal's confession.
Today, attempting to conjure up the idea that the report is a fabrication, Leonard Weinglass, HBO-TV, and author Stewart Taylor, point out that the report was typed, while Durham stated that she gave her report orally. Further they point out that the report was not signed by Durham. In his 1995 PCRA argument, Leonard Weinglass claimed that Priscilla Durham actually "disavowed" the report on these grounds.
A review of the trial record shows that Weinglass' representation of Priscilla Durham's testimony is just another lie.
In 1982, after reviewing the hospital report, Anthony Jackson asked Durham about the accuracy of the typed report. Despite Jackson's attempts to discredit the report, far from "disavowing" the report as Leonard Weinglass states, Priscilla Durham repeatedly insisted that the report was a typed version of the oral report she had given to her hospital supervisor the morning after the shooting and that the information contained in the report was an accurate description of the events she witnessed.
Jackson [Jamal's lawyer] Question: Show it to the witness, please. Read it, Miss Durham. You've had an opportunity to review D-14 [the statement]; is it correct?"
[Miss Durham] Answer: "Yes."
Question: Earlier when I asked you with regard to the statement that you perhaps gave to your supervisor at Jefferson Hospital, you indicated that you dictated a statement orally; is that correct?"
Answer: "Yes."
Question: "Is that the statement?"
Answer: "Yes."
N.T. 6/24/82, 97
Having asked Durham to confirm that her statement was given orally, Jackson attempts to get her to disavow the typed statement.
Jackson [Jamal's lawyer]: "So any statement that would be presented to you that purports to be your statement would be a guess on your part. Is that right?"
Durham: "No."
Jackson: "It wouldn't be a guess?"
Durham: "I'd know if I said it or not."
Jackson: "You would know word for word what you said?"
Durham: "No."
Jackson: "So how would you know if it was your statement?"
Durham: "Because I know what I said."
N.T. 6/24/82, 99
To further confirm the authenticity of the typed report, and that it had been made the morning after the shooting, the prosecutor took Durham through it, line by line, then asked her to confirm the day she gave her report.
McGill [The assistant DA]: "Now, would you read the next statement, the next line?"
[Durham] Answer: "Miss Durham stated that Jamal shouted, "Yeah, I shot the mother fucker and I hope the mother fucker dies."
Question: "You said that on December 10, 1981?"
Answer: "Yes, I did."
N.T. 6/24/82, 113


THE DEFENSE ATTACKS PRISCILLA DURHAM
While being questioned in February 1982 (two months after the shooting) by Police Internal Affairs Officers regarding a police brutality claim brought by Jamal, officers Gary Bell and Gary Wakshul stated they also heard Jamal's confession. The myth that Jamal's confession was faked rests entirely on the fact that the officers waited so long to report it. But that myth falls apart, because Durham heard it too, and reported it the next day. At the time they gave their statements to Internal Affairs, the officers had no knowledge of the written report that Ms. Durham had made to her supervisor the morning after the shooting. Nor did Durham know that the officers had failed to report what Jamal had said.
Beyond blatant fairy tales such as claiming that she "disavowed" her report (which was identical to her in-court testimony), Jamal's attorneys have no response for the fact that Ms. Durham reported what she heard within hours of the shooting. They have, however, attacked her personally, stating that she was a personal friend of Officer Faulkner, and that she was susceptible to police coercion. They have also announced that others at the hospital were part of the ever-expanding "conspiracy" to frame Jamal by producing the allegedly fabricated report.
So, was Officer Faulkner a friend of Durham's? Well, Pricilla Durham claimed to have spoken to Officer Faulkner prior to the shooting while she was working at the hospital. But she stated that he was simply a casual acquaintance, not a close friend. She further stated that the extent of their relationship was that they had, on occasion, had a cup of coffee at the hospital.
Priscilla Durham, who is black, had no axe to grind against Jamal. She testified that she had never heard of Jamal prior to the incident. She also stated that she had no idea who he was when he was brought into the hospital and shouted out his remarks about killing Faulkner.
If there was a skillful conspiracy, why was it so badly handled that Bell and Wakshul forgot to report the confession? It must be remembered that these are the same Philadelphia Police that Leonard Weinglass regularly alleges were so "skilled at framing defendants," that they organized five supposedly phony eyewitnesses, none of whom knew each other, at the crime scene. In less than 20 minutes, the clever police conspirators got all of these people (even Robert Harkins) to agree to tell the same made up story about the shooting, and they did such a good job that all of the eyewitness accounts meshed perfectly and stood up under hours of cross-examination months after the event. How could such skilled craftsmen of framing be so effective at the crime scene only to make such a glaring mistakes with the "phony" confession?
Given all the testimony and evidence, it becomes clear that the conspiracy theory of Jamal's lawyers does not even amount to a clever lie. It is an unreasoning, paranoid fantasy.


WHY HAD THE OFFICERS WAITED
SO LONG TO MAKE THEIR REPORT?
At the 1995 PCRA hearing, when asked why they had waited nearly two months to report what they had heard, and more importantly, why Wakschul had written "the Negro male made no comments" in his report that morning, both Bell and Wakshul freely admitted that they were emotionally overwhelmed and not thinking rationally during and after the time when Jamal made his outbursts. Both officers stated that they had just seen Officer Faulkner, their friend and partner, in the hospital with a substantial portion of his head missing, and as stated by everyone, "there was total chaos" in the small emergency room that morning.
In 1995, while being questioned by defense attorney Dan Williams, Officer Wakshul testified about his mental state the morning of December 9, 1981.
Williams: " Okay, you say you weren't mentally alert at times. Can you explain that for us?
Wakshul: "I was mentally alert when I assisted in getting Mr. Jamal into the hospital and placing him on the floor. At that point Mr. Jamal, there was some discussions, some talking going on all around, but I heard Mr. Jamal say I shot him and I hope the mother fucker dies. I was stunned at that point. I stumbled back into a little alcove and started to cry. Covering myself by going outside, closing up the wagon and getting myself together.
I remember after that being in Homicide but I have no recollection of anything further that night until early in the morning of that morning, the following morning, when I was leaving work in my car, and running into a cement pole with my car. And at that point, I had more control over myself at that point."
N.T. 8/1/95, 25
Officer Wakshul stated that once he heard Jamal's "disgusting" statement, everything became a series of "snapshots" to him. He has freely acknowledged that he was severely disturbed at the time he wrote his report and that he cannot explain away what he wrote. It may not be convenient for the defense, but the statement made by Gary Wakshul in his report, is consistent with his testimony today. In 1998, the Supreme Court reviewed Wakschul's testimony and found him to be "credible." Further, they noted that had Wakshul been called to testify by the defense in 1982, his testimony would have only served to strengthen the prosecution's case because he would have repeated the testimony given by Priscilla Durham and Gary Bell.
In an article written for The American Lawyer, pro-Jamal author Stewart Taylor suggests, "The idea that he [Wakshul] had heard Jamal confess but hadn't bothered to report it is patently incredible." Well, no it isn't. Taylor's opinion about what is incredible must be judged by, for example, his willingness to accept defense theories for which there is no evidence. The evidence, as opposed to unsupported opinion, shows that Officer Wakshul was emotionally devastated at having just seen his friend's dead body, and so failed to make a timely report of Jamal's confession. That is hardly "incredible," especially in light of Priscilla Durham's testimony and next-day report of the same confession.

[alien autopsy]

wow, that was way too long, i did read some of it though. its someones take on the case, supported by testimony. can you cite the source? to be honest, its all too much and too difficult to read. its a headache.

but your point being "look at all this", i see it.

i dont at all support your view that amnesty has taken on mumias case just to get their name out there.

i have heard tons and tons of media supproting mumias right to a retrial. from democracy now, to npr, benefit concerts, fundraising events, and his own radio program. i have heard almost nothing other than philly fraternal police order propaganda claiming fairness and death penalty.

[RobMoney$]

Mr. Jamal was coming to the aid of his brother who was being brutally beaten by Officer Faulkner.


MYTH #8
Leonard Weinglass states in his article, "The Trial of Mumia Abu Jamal", "Mumia arrived at the scene only moments after the officer had pummeled his brother with his flashlight." According to this myth, Jamal was coming to the aid of his brother who, while handcuffed, was being brutally beaten by Officer Faulkner.


BRIEF REBUTTAL
Several eyewitnesses testified that it was William Cook who initiated an unprovoked attack on Officer Faulkner by striking him in the face. These eyewitnesses stated that, having been punched in the face, Faulkner acted to subdue Cook by striking him "no more than three times" on the shoulders with a black object, which could have been a nightstick, blackjack or a flashlight.
Cook himself has never alleged that he was "pummeled" by Faulkner. As a matter of fact, Cook pleaded guilty to assaulting Officer Faulkner.


FACTS SUPPORTING OUR REBUTTAL
In 1982 William Cook entered a guilty plea to the charge of physically assaulting Officer Daniel Faulkner on December 9, 1981.
Several witnesses to the murder of Officer Faulkner have all testified that they saw William Cook initiate his attack on Officer Faulkner prior to the officer ever touching him.
Michael Scanlan, who witnessed the entire course of events, stated:
"They were talking, the black man [Cook] spread-eagle in front of the car, and while he was spread-eagle he swung around and struck the officer in the face with his fist. At that point, the officer reacted, trying to subdue the gentleman [Cook], and during that time another man came running from a parking lot across the street towards the officer and the gentleman in front of the car."
N.T. 6/25/82, 8.6
The man Scanlan saw "running from the parking lot," who shot Officer Faulkner in the back, was identified at the scene by several other eyewitnesses. He was Mumia Abu-Jamal.
In fact, there was no brutal beating. Nor did Officer Faulkner "pummel" William Cook, as Mr. Weinglass suggests:
Jackson: "Then he hit the man [Cook] several times?"
Scanlan: "A couple of times on the shoulders."
Jackson: "Two or three times?"
Scanlan: "Three at the most."
Jackson: "And you are saying for certain that you know it was in the shoulder area?"
Scanlan: "Between the shoulders, the neck and the arm."
Jackson: "How about the ear?"
Scanlan: "I can't say for sure."
Jackson: "These blows that the officer struck, were they right in succession or was there time in between each of them?"
Scanlan: "They were in succession."
(6-25-82, T.R. 8.25)
At the crime scene, William Cook was treated for a cut on his ear so minor that there was no need to take him to the hospital.
There is no doubt that Faulkner struck Cook, but he did so only after Cook struck the first blow. There is absolutely no evidence of Faulkner "brutally beating" or "pummeling" Cook, and Cook has never claimed that he was being "brutally beaten" or "pummeled" by Faulkner. Pictures taken on the morning of the killing of Cook's injured ear were introduced into evidence at trial:
McGill: "Have you reviewed those exhibits?"
Detective Thomas: "Yes, sir."
McGill: "Can you identify them?"
Detective Thomas: "Yes, Sir. These are the photographs taken of Mr. William Cook on December 9, 1981."
McGill: "Do they show any injuries of Mr. Cook?"
Detective Thomas: "Yes. They show a cut behind the left ear."
McGill: "You observed Mr. Cook, didn't you. At close range?"
Detective Thomas: "Yes, sir, I did."
McGill: "Did you observe, other than that cut, any other injuries?"
Detective Thomas: "No, sir, I didn't."
McGill: "Did Mr. Cook make any complaints about any other injuries?"
Detective Thomas: "No, sir, he didn't."
McGill: "As a matter of fact, did he ever make a complaint regarding that injury [to his ear]?"
Detective Thomas: "No, sir. I asked him did he want to be treated for it and he said no."
N.T. 6/26/82, 118-19
Once again Jamal's attorneys misrepresent the record. But this time their misrepresentation has nothing to do with Jamal's supposed claim of innocence (his lawyers, remember, claim that some mysterious running figure did it); rather, its sole purpose is to vilify the police officer that Jamal murdered. Thus, it perfectly reflects Jamal's own often-expressed hatred of the police.
To that extent, this myth ironically tends to defeat the purpose of Jamal's lawyers. Their very act of falsely attempting to smear Officer Faulkner says far more about Jamal's motive for the murder -- his hatred of the police -- than it does about his victim.

[alien autopsy]

rob you are not going to make an effective point by overloading the page and confusing people. be clear and concise. get to the points, select what is relevant and necessary to your argument. edit.

i doubt you have even read all that

[RobMoney$]

Mumia Abu-Jamal was denied his right to self representation, in violation of his Constitutional Rights.


MYTH #9
Mumia Abu-Jamal and his supporters argue that he was not permitted to represent himself at trial, supposedly in violation of his civil rights. They also argue that, once Jamal was denied this right, he asked to have John Africa assist him in as "co-counsel" and that the "bias" Judge Albert Sabo improperly refused this request.


BRIEF REBUTTAL
The argument that Mumia Abu-Jamal was "denied his right to represent himself" is made in absolute contradiction to the record. It is undeniable that Jamal began by representing himself on May 13, 1982. According to his own attorney, Jamal continued to represent himself until what was supposed to have been the first day of trial -- June 17, 1982. But after repeated warnings that his incessant disruptions would cause him to forfeit this right, he was removed from "pro se" status.
While it is true that the law affords individuals the right to represent themselves, that right is not unlimited. The law requires one who represents himself to conduct himself appropriately, and states that the right to self-representation may be forfeited by persistent improper conduct.
The record shows that Judge Albert Sabo went to extraordinary lengths to see that Jamal was given ample opportunity to conduct himself appropriately in order to retain his "pro se" status. But Jamal repeatedly chose to disrupt the proceedings. After the entire first day of trial was halted and replaced with pointless delays, inane arguments, and contemptuous acts by Jamal, Judge Sabo instructed Anthony Jackson, Jamal's co-councel, to assume control of Jamal's defense.
Some argue that it was Judge Albert Sabo's "plan" all along to find a reason to remove Jamal. They contend that it is Sabo who is to blame for somehow inciting Jamal to commit his disruptions in response to his extreme bias in favor of the prosecution. Yet to those who attended the 1982 trial, it was clear from the outset that Jamal never really intended to "represent" himself. Instead, Jamal planned to have John Africa join him in defiantly presenting himself as the victim of an illegitimate legal system, turning Judge Sabo's courtroom into a forum for dispensing their own brand of political ideology to the press.


FACTS SUPPORTING OUR REBUTTAL
Jamal's supporters are fond of stating that Jamal was "denied the right to represent himself." They do so with complete ignorance of the record. A review of the court record clearly shows that on May 13, 1982, just 2 weeks before the trial began, Mumia Abu-Jamal was permitted to begin functioning as his own lawyer. He carried on in this capacity throughout the initial stages of the trial, most notably during the Motion to Suppress and in the early stages of jury selection (voir dire). During the motion to Suppress, he personally questioned witnesses and personally addressed the Court. He was given the opportunity to personally participate in the selection of the jury that heard his case. And, he was given every reasonable opportunity to continue representing himself for the duration of the trial.
But Jamal clearly had no intention of actually representing himself throughout the trial. Instead, early in Jury Selection, he began to incessantly make the bizarre demand to have non-lawyer John Africa, the leader of a radical, violent anti-government group, "represent" him as his "lawyer." Jamal's constant harping on this theme became increasingly disruptive, and he was repeatedly warned that it would eventually result in his losing his right to represent himself. For reasons that are unclear (but probably because he knew that a guilty verdict was inevitable), Jamal chose to throw his right to represent himself away.


WAS JAMAL REFUSED THE
RIGHT TO REPRESENT HIMSELF?
In his book, "Race for Justice," Leonard Weinglass claims that the only reason Jamal was removed as his own counsel was because of his demand to have John Africa sit beside him and offer advice. This is another one of Mr. Weinglass's falsehoods. The record of the 1982 confirms that Jamal regularly disrupted the proceedings by flying from his seat with loud outbursts and insults, in which he insisted that Africa be allowed to act as his lawyer. Jamal's own sister, Lydia Wallace, has acknowledged her brother's courtroom misconduct in the HBO-TV docudrama "A Case for Reasonable Doubt," as does his friend, Lynn Washington, in his 1995 National Public Radio interview. The local Philadelphia newspapers regularly commented on Jamal's antics in Judge Albert Sabo's courtroom in 1982. (Each of these is posted at danielfaulkner.com) The record reflects that Jamal was removed from the courtroom no less than 13 times because of his intentionally disruptive actions.
To counter Jamal's actions in 1982, his supporters argue that Jamal's background as a "black revolutionary" caused him to believe that the legal system wouldn't afford him a "fair trial," and that he couldn't trust his own hand-picked lawyer, because he was "reluctant to represent Jamal" and "ill-prepared" for trial. Therefore, they argue, Jamal correctly demanded to represent himself. They further argue that Judge Sabo wrongly denied Jamal the opportunity to be "represented by," or at least "assisted by" John Africa.
Anthony Jackson did ask to be relieved, but his reluctance had one, and only one cause -- Jamal wanted him out of the case. In the 1982 trial, Jamal never claimed that there was anything wrong with Jackson, or that he was unprepared, or that he was incompetent. Rather, his reason for asking to be removed was Jamal's repeated insistence that he did not want to be represented by "any lawyer in the whole world." Further, Jamal continually accused Jackson of colluding with the judge and prosecutor to convict him.
Defendant: "I want counsel of my own choice no matter whether he's a member of the ABA, because members of the ABA have represented people that are at Holmsburg Detention Center and you know, prisons throughout the country."
N.T. 6/17/82, 1.55-6
Defendant: "I do not want to be backed up or represented by Attorney Jackson or any other lawyer of the ABA anywhere in America. I want John Africa as my counsel."
N.T. 6/17/82, 1.59
Defendant: "I need counsel of my choice, someone I have faith in, someone I have respect for; not someone paid by the same pocket that pays the D.A., not a court-appointed lawyer, not a member of the ABA, not an officer of this court, but someone I can trust and I have faith in. Your warnings are absolutely moot, they're meaningless to me."
N.T. 6/17/82, 1.73


JAMAL REPRESENTED HIMSELF
AT JURY SELECTION
Jamal's supporters argue that Sabo displayed bias against Jamal when he did not allow him to represent himself during the jury selection process. Yet, despite the fact that several prospective jurors stated that they feared being questioned by Jamal, (N.T. 6/2/82, 2.138), Judge Sabo did not remove Jamal at that time, but instead took over the questioning (not the actual jury selection) for both sides. Later, he allowed Jamal the choice of having the Judge continue to ask the questions or allowing Mr. Jackson to do so, while Jamal chose the jurors. Jamal freely chose the latter course, and he continued to make the decisions, including how to use the defense peremptory challenges. Leonard Weinglass, Jamal's own attorney, has admitted as much:
Mr. Weinglass: "What the Court did on June 7th [jury selection] is, as the record reveals, was not to remove Mr. Jamal as his own Counsel. The Court exercised its prerogative under the local rule to take over the voir dire, which it can do with any attorney. Mr. Jamal remained as Counsel while the Court took over voir dire. Mr. Jamal was not removed as counsel until June 18th.
N.T. 7/28/95, 67


JAMAL CONTINUED TO REPRESENT
HIMSELF WHEN THE TRIAL BEGAN
Despite the fact that he disrupted the proceedings repeatedly during jury selection, Judge Sabo permitted Jamal to continue representing himself on the first day of trial (6/17/82). Jamal was clearly and politely told by Judge Sabo that he would be permitted to proceed "pro se" only if he would "behave" himself and conduct his defense by the rules of the court. Jamal pretended to agree. Then within a matter of minutes, he again began his loud outbursts, demanding to have John Africa "represent" him. Jamal specifically refused to act under the rules of the court because, according to him, the system wasn't meeting his personal standard of justice.
A review of the record shows that Judge Sabo repeatedly gave Jamal lengthy warnings:
Court: "When I make a ruling you [Mr. Jamal] have an automatic exception to that ruling. It will be reviewed by the Appellate Court. I don't want to stand here and argue with you all day long on every ruling, I'm going to make throughout this trial."
Defendant: "Judge..."
Court: "I'm telling you now that if you continue that way I will have no alternative but to remove you as counsel, and you can sit in here. Mr. Jackson will proceed. And if you continue to disrupt this court while you're sitting here, I will then be forced to consider contempt proceedings against you."
Defendant: "Again, those warnings of contempt are meaningless to me."
Court: "I know that."
Defendant: "You are threatening me with death and you think contempt means something to me?"
Court: "I don't care, but I'm required by the law to advise you of this, what will happen."
N.T. 6/17/82, 1.110-12
Yet despite these warnings, throughout the entire first day of trial, Jamal relentlessly demanded to have a microphone and to have his pal, John Africa, a non-lawyer, "represent him." These are only a few examples of Mumia Abu-Jamal's daily routine in the 1982 courtroom while he "represented himself".
Defendant: "Judge, I have a statement."
Court: "If you have anything to say, say it at sidebar."
Defendant: "I need a microphone."
Court: "I don't have one."
Defendant: "You can get one."
Court: "You should have asked for one earlier."
Defendant: "I need one now."
Court: "You have to speak up and if you can't speak up then I may have to remove you and put in Mr. Jackson."
Defendant: "I don't care."
Court: "You can do whatever you want."
Defendant: "You can do whatever you want!"
Defendant: "I need a microphone."
Court: "I don't have a microphone."
Defendant: "You can get one, judge."
Court: "Lets go."
Defendant: "I need a microphone, judge."
Court: "I'm sorry."
Defendant: "Your sorry?"
Court: "Mr. McGill, please. [Let's proceed.]"
McGill: "Yes Your Honor."
Defendant: "I'm not finished!"
Court: "Mr. McGill, please."
Defendant: "I need a microphone."
Court: "You don't need a microphone now."
Defendant: "I need one now!"
Court: "You're speaking loud enough now, I can hear you."
Defendant: "I need everyone in the courtroom to hear me. I want everyone in the jury to hear me."
N.T. 6/17/82, 1.45-1.46
This game continued for hours, until Joe McGill, who had been barred from making his opening statements by Jamal, stated:
"That's the point, Judge. This trial is not a political platform for all the people and the media to hear what Mr. Jamal has to say. The purpose for a public trial is that this man get a fair trial and people be able to observe it."
N.T. 6/17/82, 1.44-48
Moments after this statement by McGill, and before he could make his opening remarks to the jury, Jamal again disrupted the proceedings.
Defendant: "I want a microphone and counsel of my choice."
Court: "I'm sorry, I have already ruled to all those points."
Defendant: "You have ruled judge? This is not to my satisfaction."
Court: "I don't care."
Defendant: "This is my life and my trial."
Court: "If you step out of line ..."
Defendant: "That warning doesn't mean anything to me."
N.T. 6/17/82, 149
Then moments later:
Defendant: "I am going to renew my motion, Judge."
Court: "I already ruled on your motion."
Defendant: "You haven't ruled on it before I've spoken about it. I want John Africa to represent me."
Court: "I already ruled on that."
Defendant: "You haven't ruled on it to my satisfaction Judge."
Court: "That may be unfortunate. But I ruled on it."
Defendant: "Say what?"
Court: "I ruled on it."
Defendant: "You have not ruled on it to my satisfaction, Judge. This man [Mr. Jackson] can't represent me. I don't want him sitting there in a position of defense, in defense of my life. I want you to speak to the issue, Judge, about my right to counsel of my choice, not your choice."
Court: "Let's proceed."
Defendant: "I'm not finished! I'm not finished speaking Judge!"
N.T. 6/17/82, 1.70- 1.71
Like all defendants who choose to represent themselves, Jamal was required to conduct himself appropriately. Yet, while the jury sat waiting, the entire first day of trial was wasted by his refusal to abide by the rules of the court. Thus, to state that Jamal was "denied" his right to represent himself is simply absurd. In doing so, Jamal's supporters simply deny the record, which shows that throughout Jamal's insane discourse, both Sabo and McGill actually pleaded with him to conduct himself properly so that he might continue on as his own attorney, and that Jamal refused to do so:
The Court: [Sabo]: "I'm sorry, but the Court is bound by the law just as you are. I can't change that."
Defendant: "Well, I'm telling you that I cannot participate without John Africa, not in this trial. It's my life on the line."
McGill: "That surprises me. I didn't think you would pull this one."
Defendant: "Pull What? Pull what?"
McGill: "Pull out of this case. You're saying you want to be tried, you want to be tried."
Defendant: "Did you hear what I said?"
McGill: "Why don't you do it [proceed pro se]?"
Defendant: "Did you hear what I said?"
McGill: "You said you don't want to participate."
Defendant: "Unless John Africa is here. Did you hear the whole statement?"
McGill: "I heard what you said."
Defendant: "Don't put words in my mind."
McGill: "Let's see you stay here and represent yourself and don't try to chicken out."
Defendant: "I'm not chickening out. That's unimportant to me. What I want is a representative of my choice, not your choice, not of his choice, he's court appointed."
The Court: "You don't understand, I'm bound by the law as well as you are, and the law is clear on this; that John Africa cannot represent you. You can represent yourself."
N.T. 6/17/82, 1.59-60
In direct contradiction to the allegation that Jamal was "refused" the opportunity to represent himself, Prosecutor McGill went so far as to ask Jamal to proceed as his own lawyer a second time. Then, Jamal changed direction and began to demand that John Africa sit as his "backup" counsel.
McGill: "Well, if he wishes to participate he can, if he doesn't I encourage him to do so. He said he was going to live up to that. I'm very anxious to try the case with Mr. Jamal, but let's do it and don't try to get out of it."
Defendant: "No trying to get out of it. I want to try this case with John Africa as my backup lawyer, that's all. Not Anthony Jackson."
N.T. 6/17/82, 1.69
Pro-Jamal propagandists consistently fail to explain how a non-lawyer like John Africa could legally have been allowed to represent Jamal.
Also strategically omitted from the pro-Jamal rhetoric is the fact that to appease Jamal and get the trial moving again, Joe McGill offered to allow Jamal to have Africa assist him from the seats behind counsel table, in the same manner in which police detectives support the prosecutor. Judge Sabo agreed to this offer. Jamal refused it.
McGill: "If I may say to the Court, the Commonwealth has no objection if Mr. Jamal wants to bring in John Africa, wants to bring in anyone who is not incarcerated that is, into the courtroom and place them in the chairs back there behind the barriers there, exactly where my officers are. Detective Bill Thomas, Officer Gwen Thomas, right there, I have stated to the Court that I will be here at this table alone during the course of the trial. I have stated that Detective Bill Thomas will be in the room; however, he will be back where he is now, which is second row or someplace there. I have no objection and unless the Court has an objection of John Africa or anybody else sits in those chairs back there providing an opportunity for Mr. Jamal at recess or in between witnesses to go and discuss matters and that would include discussing matters before the Court. We could have Mr. Jamal down here at quarter after nine instead of 9:30, or some kind of arrangement consistent with the administrative needs of the Sheriff's Department so that he can discuss with them there anything he wishes about his defense.
I also, Your Honor, would have no objection if, along with Mr. Jackson, there would be times when Mr. Africa would go up to his cell room; that is, consistent with the needs of the Sheriff's Department. I do not want to go necessarily against the regulations there.
There will be no one up here. It may cause me a little problem in terms of getting all the exhibits but there will be no one here except me. Mr. Jamal can be there and bring in anybody."
N.T. 6/17/82, 193-6
McGill: "Your Honor. Your honor has not really ruled as far as my, at least, suggestion was before."
The Court: "Look, anybody can be in this courtroom."
McGill: "You have no objection to Africa being here?"
The Court: "During breaks and all that."
McGill: "How about visiting upstairs?"
The Court: "Well, take it up with the Sheriff. If he can visit up there and they are able to accommodate, fine, he can visit him in the prison. As far as I'm concerned he can visit him anywhere he wants. I'm not holding back on that."
McGill: "You have no objection if his name was placed on a list for him to be able to visit Mr. Jamal at the prison?"
The Court: "Certainly not. What difference does that make?"
N.T. 6/17/82, 1.114-5
The end of the first day of trial saw Mumia Abu-Jamal reject the good faith attempt to accommodate his bizarre demands made by the prosecutor and the Judge. Judge Sabo finally grew tired of Jamal's disruptions and formally removed Jamal from self-representation. He assigned Anthony Jackson, who had been serving as co-councel, to function as Jamal's defense counsel from that point forward.
Court: "And if you keep acting that way, you have to be removed from the courtroom."
Defendant: "That's absolutely meaningless to me. I am not -"
Court: "That's unfortunate that it's meaningless to you."
Defendant: "Let me make a point."
Court: "It's unfortunate -"
Defendant: "Let me make a point!"
Court: "I want it on the record so that you understand that I have advised you that our United States Supreme Court has spoken on this question [of Mr. Africa], the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has spoken on this question, and I've ruled on the law and that's it. And if you don't like it, take me up -"
Defendant: "Judge, you have ruled on procedure. You have not ruled on law because there is no law."
Court: "I have no choice. As long as Mr. Jackson ---"
Defendant: "Mr. Jackson -"
Court: "-can represent you."
Defendant: "He cannot represent me because I'm representing myself!"
N.T. 6/17/82, 1.110- 1.112
Court: "My position is that Mr. Jamal has been intentionally disrupting the orderly progression of this trial ---"
Defendant: "How!"
Court: "--- and what I said in the very beginning, when I make a ruling that's it, you don't argue with the Court about the ruling ---"
Defendant: "Judge, fine!"
Court: "You have certain rights but what I said is this: My position is that you have deliberately disrupted the orderly progression of this trial. Therefore, I am removing you as primary councel and I am appointing Mr. Jackson to take over as primary counsel."
N.T. 6/17/82, 1.122
Legal precedent clearly establishes that:
"When a defendant's obstreperous behavior is so disruptive that the trial cannot move forward, it is within the trial judge's discretion to require the defendant to be represented by counsel." (United States vs. Brock, 159 F.3d 1077, 1079) (7th Cir. 1998).
What Jamal's supporters simply choose to deny, is that Judge Sabo was faced with the fact that the law prohibited him from allowing John Africa from acting as counsel. A compromise, that would have allowed Africa to assist Jamal, though not while sitting at the defense table, had been declined by Jamal. Judge Sabo had also seen that Jamal would not properly conduct himself as his own lawyer. He had been told by Jamal himself that Jamal would refuse to cooperate with any lawyer, not just Jackson. But Jackson was the only lawyer who had worked on the case and was prepared to proceed. Faced with these facts, the Judge acted properly in removing Jamal and re-instating Anthony Jackson.
Organizations like Amnesty International like to dishonestly suggest that Judge Sabo's decision was part of his plot to torpedo Jamal's defense by intentionally saddling him with an "ineffective" attorney who did not want to defend him. But Jamal's supporters never mention that Jackson was not forced upon Jamal by the Court. Rather, Jamal had hand-picked Jackson, only to irrationally refuse to be represented by him, then refuse to be represented by any alternative "legal trained lawyer" who was a "member of the ABA".
To gain support for Jamal, Leonard Weinglass and Jamal's supporters regularly misrepresent Judge Albert Sabo's legitimate efforts to maintain order in his courtroom as evidence of Sabo's alleged bias against Mumia Abu-Jamal. When the record is reviewed, it is clear that Sabo displayed remarkable patience and went to great lengths to accommodate Jamal's unending demands. To any objective viewer it should be evident that Jamal was not "denied his right to self representation" because of Judge Sabo's bias against him. To the contrary, Mumia Abu-Jamal intentionally squandered his right to represent himself with his ceaseless demands to have John Africa sit with him and play politics in the courtroom.
Even after Jackson was re-instated as lead counsel, Jamal continued to disrupt the proceedings. So relentless were his disruptions that the Philadelphia Inquirer said that Jamal's actions "border[ed] on suicidal." Jamal became so disruptive that he had to be removed from the courtroom no less than thirteen times.
Amnesty International claims that because of his numerous forced removals from the courtroom Jamal was in effect tried "in absentia" throughout most of his trial. This remark is as absurd as it is wrong, and it fails to point the finger of blame for these expulsions where it clearly belongs: squarely at Mumia Abu-Jamal.
Every legitimate news agency (20/20, KGO-TV in San Francisco, American Justice) and periodical (Time and Vanity Fair) that has honestly reviewed this case has reported that Jamal intentionally disrupted the 1982 proceedings on a daily basis. Leonard Weinglass regularly claims that these news organizations have it all wrong, arguing that the only reason Jamal disrupted the court proceedings was Judge Sabo's refusal to allow him to have John Africa as his "co-counsel." (Weinglass has never explained how the court's refusal to meet that absurd demand justified Jamal's misconduct, but reason has never been a priority in any of the arguments he has made in Jamal's behalf).
But the record shows something altogether different. The prosecutor and the Judge actually attempted to meet Jamal half way so that he could be assisted by Africa (N.T. 6/17/82, 1.114-5). Yet Jamal continued to disrupt the proceedings by demanding to have Africa "represent" him.
In their unbiased review of this issue, the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court, in their unanimous 1998 affirmation of Jamal's conviction and the fairness of his original trial, stated that Judge Sabo had demonstrated considerable patience in accommodating Jamal's courtroom antics regarding his "pro se" rights.


CONCLUSION
If one reviews the record honestly it becomes eminently clear. Mumia Abu-Jamal was never "denied" his right to represent himself. By virtue of the fact that he was given numerous opportunities to continue "pro se" and still repeatedly refused to cooperate with the court in order to retain his "pro se" status, it is clear that Mumia Abu-Jamal freely chose to forfeit that right.

[RobMoney$]

Mumia Abu-Jamal's court appointed attorney was admittedly incompetent and incapable of mounting a defense on Jamal's behalf.


MYTH #10
Mumia Abu-Jamal's lawyers and supporters argue that his attorney at his 1982 trial, was incompetent. They say that Jackson had never tried a capital murder case prior to Jamal's and that he asked not to be assigned to this one.
To support this myth Jamal's attorneys claim:
ß Jackson never investigated the case.
ß He failed to interview the prosecution or defense witnesses prior to their testimony.
ß He "failed to seek adequate funding for experts" to support his defense.
ß He failed to call "favorable witnesses, like Officer Gary Wakschul and Debra Kordansky."
ß He failed to call any mitigating character witnesses prior to Jamal's sentencing.
(Jamal's habeas corpus petition to the Federal District Court, 3/28/00)
In his article "The Trial of Mumia Abu Jamal," Jamal's lawyer Leonard Weinglass states, "The only inexperienced actor in Mumia's case was the court appointed attorney".


BRIEF REBUTTAL
Anthony Jackson was a highly experienced and expert criminal defense attorney who was hand picked by Jamal -- not thrust upon Jamal by the court, as Jamal's supporters say. He came to Jamal highly recommended by Jamal's own friends from the Black Journalists Association. According to Jackson, after Jamal himself chose him as his counsel, Jackson petitioned the Court to appoint him at public expense.
Prior to Jamal's case, Jackson had defended no less than 20 murder cases, winning 14 of them. Despite trying many cases in which the possible sentence was death, prior to Jamal, Jackson had never had a client sentenced to death. (N.T. 7/27/95, 92-93,102-103)
Contrary to the false claims of Jamal's lawyers, prior to trial successfully Jackson sought funds from the court to hire a ballistics expert, a photographer, a pathologist, and an investigator to aid him in his defense of Jamal. In fact, Jackson admittedly received more funding in the Jamal case than he had for any of his prior cases.
Among other avenues of preparation, Jackson reviewed each of 150 witness statements given by 75 witnesses, "at least 10 times each." (N.T. 7/28/95, 57-58) He repeatedly reviewed the Medical Examiner's Report and conferred with George Fassnacht, his ballistics expert, in at least four separate face-to-face meetings, each of which lasted several hours. (N.T. 7/28/95, 42). Jackson also repeatedly conferred with Jamal, who obviously knew what had occurred at the crime scene. Jackson directed the activities of his investigator, Robert Greer -- who acknowledged in his 1995 testimony that he devoted intensive effort to investigating the case -- directing him to interview numerous witnesses, including prosecution witness Cynthia White, and other witnesses including Desie Hightower and Robert Pigford.
If Anthony Jackson was impeded in Jamal's trial, he was not impeded by inexperience or lack of preparation. Rather, he was impeded by Jamal's own outrageous conduct in front of the jury, his ill-advised decision to defend himself, and his adamant refusal to cooperate with Jackson after being removed from self-representation.
Jamal and his attorneys now want to re-write history and blame his conviction on his supposedly incompetent lawyer. The truth, however, is that Jamal was convicted because he was proven guilty beyond any doubt by overwhelming evidence.


FACTS SUPPORTING OUR REBUTTAL


ANTHONY JACKSON'S "COURT APPOINTMENT"
Jamal's adherents call Anthony Jackson "Jamal's Court appointed attorney," implying that Jackson was a legal hack who was forced upon the unwilling Jamal. The truth, however, is that Jamal personally selected Jackson, and that the state agreed to pay Jackson's fee on Jamal's behalf. Many indigent defendants accused of murder have a Public Defender or an unknown lawyer thrust upon him, but that was not true of Jamal.
Jackson was no legal neophyte. He came to Jamal highly recommended by Jamal's friends at the Association of Black Journalists. According to Jackson, after being approached by Jamal's friends and colleagues, he met with Jamal -- who he had known before the shooting -- and Jamal selected him as his counsel. Then, Jackson petitioned the Court to have the case assigned to him at public expense. The Court agreed to this offer and Jackson proceeded to defend Jamal.
Question: "Now, how did you come to represent Mr. Jamal?"
Answer: "Yes, sir."
Question: "But, you know, there's ways to get appointed. Like the Defendant's friends come to you and say Mr. Jamal is in trouble, we know you are a good lawyer, do you think you could go to the Court and see if you could represent him, see if you could somehow get an appointment to represent him. Tell us how you got to be appointed?"
Answer: "Okay. What you just said is kind of sort of how it happened this time. It is the first time in my whole career it ever happened this way."
Question: "Are you sure? Was it the last?"
Answer: "Pardon me. It was the first and only time I ever talked to a client and got the Court to appoint me. All of the other Court appointments were given to me out of the blue. I had no prior knowledge. This is the only case where -- and let me back up to answer your question fully. I was approached by some friends of Mr. Jamal's after Mr. Jamal was arrested and shot, who suggested that he needed representation. Not that I could necessarily be his lawyer, but he needed someone to receive some advice and counsel from while he was in Jefferson Hospital. I recall that I went to Jefferson Hospital where he was. He was, you know, had tubes, he was wounded. Things of that sort. I had known Mr. Jamal before that time. I went, I told him that I was there as a result of some concerned friends of his that he at least have counsel available to him if he had any questions or concerns to make sure that at least in that situation that things didn't get any worse. That may have been -- it could have been a week or so, two weeks before I was actually --
Question: "Formally appointed?"
Answer: "Appointed, that's right."
Question: "And who were these friends and supporters who suggested that you go to visit him, and that was your introduction to him professionally for the representation ultimately that arrived?"
Answer: "Yes, Ahh... now, I think it was E. Steven Collins was the one who actually talked to me. And I think he told me -- well, I know he told me that he conferred with others, and he called me or saw me, I don't really recall. And as a result of that he came, Mr. Collins came and asked me. And I said well sure..."
N.T. 7/27/95, 118-119


ANTHONY JACKSON DETAILS HIS EXPERIENCE
Some uninformed writers have described Anthony Jackson as, "a reluctant incompetent." Jamal's lawyers claim that Jackson had never represented another person accused of murder. This assertion, as usual, is patently untrue. Jackson appeared as a well-prepared defense witness at the 1995 PCRA hearing. He was examined at the 1995 PCRA hearing by prosecutor Joey Grant and testified as follows:
Grant: "How many murder cases had you tried, sir, prior to December [1981], or I should say June the 2nd, of 1982?"
Jackson: "My best recollection is a minimum of 16, perhaps 20 cases, 20 murder cases before Mr. Jamal's case."
ADA Grant: "And how many of those defendants were convicted of first degree murder? Just round numbers if you can. Percentages if you can."
Jackson: "A half Dozen."
ADA Grant: "So out of 20 murder cases, six people were convicted of first degree murder. And ostensibly, those six faced the judgment of life or death by a jury, I presume?"
Jackson: "That is correct sir. Let me correct it. This is tough. I think there may have been two, possibly three that were convicted of first degree on waivers [of a jury trial], with the judge."
ADA Grant: "Nevertheless, the two possible penalties for first degree convictions are only a life or death sentence; is that correct?"
Jackson: "That is correct, sir."
ADA Grant: "Of those six people -- that was prior to Mr. Jamal's --"
Jackson: "That is correct."
ADA Grant: "None of those people received a death sentence did they?"
Jackson: "No, sir."
ADA Grant: "And that's because you saved their lives through your oral skills, your intellectual prowess, and your advocacy as a lawyer; would that be fair to say?"
Jackson: "I appreciate the compliment, but I would assume that the facts of the cases helped a little bit too."
N.T. 7-27-95, 92-93
Leonard Weinglass has repeatedly argued, both inside and outside the courtroom, that this testimony of Jackson -- whom Weinglass called as his own witness in the 1995 hearing -- is incorrect. In Jamal's Federal District Court appeal, Jamal's lawyers now claim that Anthony Jackson lied about his prior experience in 1995. Although they somehow failed to notice this supposed lie while Jackson was actually on the witness stand, Jamal's lawyers now say that Jackson was inexperienced. Jackson's testimony, however, specifically detailed his experience on a year-by-year, case-by-case basis:
Question: "Okay. And since you had 20 murder trials, more or less, before Mr. Jamal was tried, where did you have time to squeeze all those in between the D.A.'s Office and the Police Department and the prison system and Philcop?"
Answer: "I worked real hard. I did, I could try to tell you. 1975 was the first year because I think I left the D.A.'s Office in January, maybe February of 1975. During that time, again I was staff counsel for the Prison Master, it was not full-time. During that first year of being in private practice, I think I was appointed to three, maybe four criminal cases, criminal homicide cases. I was privately retained for one."
Question: "Major cases, sir? And by that I mean every case is major if there's a murder involved?"
Answer: "Right."
N.T. 7/27/95, 102-103
Question: "I would like you to tell me about the other 17 cases, minus the three or four that you have mentioned."
Answer: "Okay, sure. All right, 1975 I was appointed, I think I told you about that. Okay, '76, I was appointed to at least three cases, possibly four. I was privately retained in two cases. 1977, appointed to four or five cases, privately retained in two or three cases. If you add up '75, '76, '77, it is a minimum of 11 cases I was court-appointed, and a maximum of 13. I was privately retained through those same years a minimum of 5 cases, a maximum of 7 cases. That's why you got 11 and 5, 16; 13 and 7 is 20."
Question: "And you know what Mr. Jackson --
Answer: "Yes, sir."
Question: "Comparing notes with your colleagues back in the late '70's --
Answer: "Hmm-hmm."
Question: --you probably had more homicide experience than 80 percent of the lawyers practicing criminal law here in Philadelphia?"
Answer: "Didn't know that."
Question: "Wouldn't you say that?"
Answer: "I had a lot."
N.T. 7/27/95, 116-117
Jackson had been involved in the legal system long before he became an attorney. He detailed his experience in his 1995 testimony. In that testimony he stated:
Question: "And when were you first admitted to the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania?"
Answer: "July 27, 1974."
Question: "And prior to your admission were you employed by any government agency of the City of Philadelphia?"
Answer: "Yes, Philadelphia Police Department."
Question: "And how long did you work for the Philadelphia Police Department?"
Answer: "Approximately five-and-a half years."
Question: "And in what capacity were you working for the Police Department?"
Answer: "Evidence Technician. I began as an assistant or something of that, there was one title and then eventually I got another title. I forgot what the first title was, but eventually it was an Evidence Technician."
Question: "And after your admission in 1974 and prior to December 9, 1981, were you ever employed by the District Attorney's Office?"
Answer: "Yes, I was."
Question: "And in what capacity?"
Answer: "As an Assistant District Attorney."
Question: "And for how long were you so employed?"
Answer: "About six months."
Question: "And prior to December 9, 1981, did you have a professional relationship with an attorney in Philadelphia named Marilyn Gelb?"
Answer: "Yes, sir, I did."
Question: "And could you describe briefly for the Court that relationship you had with her?"
Answer: "Prior to going to law school, I was also as investigator for the Public Defender's Office for about five years, and I was also a private investigator for a number of years. During that period of time I met Marilyn Gelb as an investigator. And I had occasion to investigate a number of cases for her, as well as a number of other attorneys. In fact, during this relationship, she was one of the people who encouraged me to go to law school as well. I continued to investigate cases for her, even while I was in school."
Question: "And did you continue to maintain a relationship of a professional nature with Marilyn Gelb through the 1980's?"
Answer: "Yes, I did. I mean I would see Marilyn, we would consult sometimes on different cases and things of that sort."
Question: "Now, could you also indicate what your professional experience was as an attorney after 1974 and up to December 9, 1981? You have indicated that you worked for the District Attorney's."
Answer: " After I left the District Attorney's Office, I think it was in January of '75, I was associate counsel for the Philadelphia Prison Master. At that time the Philadelphia Prison System had been declared un-Constitutional. And a Master was appointed and I was associate counsel. I worked there for approximately a year and a half or two years, I'm not sure really clear. And during that period of time I also maintained a private practice as well.
After that I began at Philcop I believe in 1978 as the Director of the Police Project. And I held that position for approximately three years and in fact I was about to leave in, I think in January of 82, yeah, so I think in fact I was working at Philcop for about three weeks or so after the appointment to Mr. Jamal's case."
N. T. 7/27/95, 31-34
Jackson expounded on his technical experience:
Question: "And what did you do, sir?"
Answer: "I worked in the identification unit in the evidence lab. I took fingerprints, compared fingerprints, did latent prints, did searches, employment searches, photographs of evidence, photographs of defendants dead bodies, things of that sort."
Question: "Crime scene photos?"
Answer: Crime scene photos."
Question: "Sketches?"
Answer: I did not do sketches."
Question: "Collecting evidence at the crime scene?"
Answer: "Yes, collecting evidence."
Question: "You did all those things that are very core and essence of criminal prosecution for five-and-a half years, did you not? The only thing left is talking to witnesses?"
Answer: "Yes, sir."
Question: "So you would agree with me that in terms of the scientific and forensic sciences that are involved, you were pretty skilled and experienced in that field before you even became a lawyer?"
Answer: "I had some skills and some talents, yes, sir."
Question: "Well, did you get promoted through the ranks in that field?"
Answer: "One promotion."
Question: "You got pay raises?"
Answer: "Yes, sir."
Question: "Were you a slug?"
Answer: "No, sir."
Question: "All right. You were competent at what you did?"
Answer: "I think so."
N.T. 7/25/95, 94-97


DID JACKSON "FAIL TO PREPARE ADEQUATELY"
FOR THE TRIAL?
To suggest that Anthony Jackson failed to prepare for the 1982 trial is laughable. These are the steps taken by Anthony Jackson to prepare for the trial:
ß Jackson filed a petition for funding to the court that was approved on January 20, 1982. (N.T. 7/27/95, 180) He would later make several additional requests for funding, most of which were granted.
ß After seeking the assistance of numerous technical experts from all over the state of Pennsylvania and Delaware, Jackson hired a ballistics expert, an investigator, a photographer, a pathologist, and a photographer. He also secured the services of a private court stenographer for the trial. (N.T. 7/28/95, 29-30)
ß Beginning in January 1982, Jackson directed the activities of Robert Greer, his investigator.
ß Jackson had 4 face-to-face meetings, each of which lasted several hours, with George Fassnacht, his ballistics expert, to review the prosecution's ballistics findings and to formulate an attack on those findings. (N.T. 7/28/95, 42); which he did relentlessly during the trial.
ß Jackson reviewed each of 150 witness statements "at least" 10 times. (N.T. 7/28/95, 57)
ß Jackson reviewed and questioned the findings contained in the Medical Examiner's Report.
ß He filed innumerable motions and documents that were required to move the case forward.
ß He regularly met with Jamal and Jamal's family.
Jamal's supporters nevertheless continue to say that Jackson went to trial unprepared. Anthony Jackson admittedly terminated his preparation before the trial began, but he did so only because Jamal took control of his witness statements and other important documents in order to represent himself.


DID JACKSON
"FAIL TO SEEK ADEQUATE FUNDING FOR EXPERTS?"
To suggest that Anthony Jackson did not attempt to gain "adequate funding" to support his efforts is an outright lie. While testifying in 1995, Jackson admitted that he repeatedly sought and received funding in excess of the $150 initial standard fee for each expert he requested. (For more information on the Funding allocated to Jamal see Myth #5) While Jackson acknowledged that he would have preferred "a blank check" to support his defense of Jamal, he confirmed that Jamal received funding and legal support far in excess of what he had received from the Court in his previous cases.
NOTE: When reviewing the funding provided to Jackson, it must be understood that the amounts shown are in 1982 dollars. An appropriate adjustment to today's dollars would be to double or triple these amounts.
Regarding the photographer Jackson said:
Question: "Now, by the way of a petition for monies to pay for a photographer, did you not?"
Answer: "I did, sir."
Question: "And that was granted, was it not?"
Answer: "Yes, sir."
Question: "And how much did Mr. Peraneau receive?"
Answer: "I think 150, 200, I really don't recall."
Question: "And he was in fact a photographer?"
Answer: "Yes, sir."
Question: "And he took photographs for you?"
Answer: "Yes, sir."
N.T. 7/28/95, 7-8
Within a few weeks of taking on the case, Jackson hired Robert Greer as an investigator. In 1990, Jamal's new attorneys again retained Robert Greer to assist them in their efforts to appeal Jamal's conviction. At the 1995 PCRA hearing Greer stated that, because of personal involvement, he worked on the case three hours for every hour he billed; bringing the total time he spent assisting Mr. Jackson to over 70 hours.
Question: "And based upon your testimony yesterday, Mr. Greer received practically $500; correct?"
Answer: "Ahh, yes sir."
N.T. 7/28/95, 12
In fact, it was later agreed that Greer received $562 from the Court, as well as additional funds from Jamal's supporters.
Jackson acknowledged that the court allocated him sufficient funds to hire a ballistics expert, George Fassnacht, who, by Jackson's own admission, was an exceptional and "world renowned" ballistics technician. Like Robert Greer, Jamal's current attorneys retained the services of George Fassnacht prior to and during the 1995 PCRA appeals hearing.
Question: "And you said yesterday also that Mr. Fassnacht, who was your alleged expert ballistician, received more than twice what the initial and usual fee was for his services, did he not?"
Answer: "I believe he did."
N.T. 7/28/95, 12
Question: "And you then thereafter testified that he [Fassnacht] looked at no Firearms Identification Unit Reports, that is to say, he didn't look at the findings of paper of the ballisticians who testified at trial; correct?"
Answer: "He looked at whatever I was given."
Question: "Pardon me?"
Answer: "Whatever I was given.
Question: "Oh. So he did look at reports?"
Answer: "Yeah, I apologize if I misstated. Yeah, I mean he looked at whatever I was given in discovery."
N.T. 7/28/95, 13-14
Question: "Well, when he [Fassnacht] gave you his extraordinary [cost] projection, did you file a petition with the Court of Common Pleas and say I need extraordinary bucks?"
Answer: "Oh, yes, sir. Mr. Fassnacht was -- I do particularly remember being in front of Judge Ribbner. Mr. Fassnacht is well known here in Philadelphia and of course he has performed these tests and things of this sort all over the world. During the time I know that I appealed before Judge Ribbner I had asked for additional funds. And I know there was a prolonged discussion. And I was told when I got the extra money, that's all I was going to get. And again, I think originally $150 and whatever the extra amount was, that was it.
N.T. 7/28/95, 19
Answer: "Well, I think it was cheap at that price. If you know ballistics. The information he [Fassnacht] gave me was invaluable during the cross-examination of the witness [Anthony Paul, the prosecution's ballistics expert], it was well worth it.
Question: "It was well worth it?"
Answer: "Yes."
Question: "In fact, he [Fassnacht] did advise you and consult with you and give you his expertise?"
Answer: "I said that, yes."
Question: "And he directed you to areas that he thought were ripe for exploitation or attack by you?"
Answer: "Yes, sir. It all just made it all the more clear it would have been so much better if I had him conduct an independent test and perform some other examinations. Couldn't do it. Couldn't do it."
Question: "Certainly in the best of all worlds it is always nice to have more?"
Answer: "Yes, I guess that's what it is."
Question: "But when you coupled his expertise and his advice to you -- and he is a world renowned expert, is he not?"
Answer: "Yes, sir."
Question: "When you coupled that with your expertise as an evidence technician and knowing what of necessity is done and should be done, that in fact, gave you more of an edge than the average lawyer would have because of your expertise coupled with his expertise, did it not?"
Answer: "Probably did."
Question: "And you kept Larry Paul [the prosecution's ballistics expert] on the witness stand and cross-examined him on behalf of Mr. Jamal to a fare-the-well, didn't you?"
Answer: "I did the best I could, sir."
N.T. 7/28/95, 24-25
In reference to the additional "independent tests" of the physical evidence (jackets, bullets, guns and so on) that Anthony Jackson alleged would have made it "better" for him in 1982, it should be noted that Jamal and his current lawyers had the opportunity and the funding to run these exact tests on the physical evidence prior to the 1995 PCRA hearing. In fact, the prosecutor invited them to do so. The offer was refused.
Mr. Jackson obtained $400 for a photographer:
THE WITNESS [trial counsel]: Apparently he received $400.
BY MR. GRANT:
Q. The photographer?
A. Yes.
Q. And that's from the Court of Common Pleas by way of your petition?
A. That's correct.
Q. That's a lot of pictures, isn't it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In 1981 pictures?
A. Well, Mr. Peraneau is a good photographer.
N.T. 7/28/95, 8-9.
In reference to the total amount of funding Anthony Jackson solicited and received from the court in 1982, the following was said:
Question: "Okay. So now we are up to around what? Let me see. 450, 350, that's 800, photographer, Fassnacht. We got 450 for an investigator. That's around 1,200. Now we have 150 for the pathologist, so we are up around 1,400. Did you retain the services of -- that you paid for -- of any other experts in your pursuit of a defense for Mr. Jamal?"
Answer: "I don't think so. I Don't ---"
Question: "When I say did you pay for: Did the Court of Common Please, did the Citizens of Philadelphia pay for any other experts?"
Answer: "No. According to this petition [for funds], the Citizens of Philadelphia paid $562 for an investigator, $400 for a photographer, and $350 for a ballistician, and that was it."
Question: "So, the investigator got nearly $600 now?"
Answer: "Yep, that's what it looks like."
N.T. 7/28/95, 29-30
Question: "Your final bill submitted on C-4 for experts - and you claim that they were fair and reasonable amounts -- was 1,312 dollars and 50 cents; would that be correct?"
Answer: "Okay, yes, I see it down there. I guess that's it, yeah."
N.T. 7/28/95, 100
Note: At the 1995 PCRA hearing, Joe Davidson, from the Association of Black Journalists, stated that his organization submitted between 200 and 400 hundred additional dollars for Jamal's defense. He also acknowledged that there was an additional undisclosed amount of money made available to Jamal by The Concerned Friends and Family of Mumia Abu-Jamal and other support groups.
Clearly, Anthony Jackson did everything he could within the system to accumulate funding to mount his defense. One might argue that the total amount approved by the Court -- which was in excess of $1,300 for experts and $13,000 for Jackson's services -- was not adequate. However, given that Jackson had admittedly received far more funding and support to defend Jamal that he had for any other "court appointed" case, it seems that the $1,300 amount was, at a minimum, "fair." One thing is perfectly clear; the allegation that Anthony Jackson was "ineffective" because he "failed to seek adequate funding for witnesses" is a lie.


MUMIA ABU-JAMAL'S ROLE IN HIS OWN DEFENSE
Jamal's supporters choose to deny the fact that Jamal's own efforts went far to sabotage whatever Jackson might have been able to achieve on his behalf. On May 13, 1982, Jamal suddenly decided to supplant Jackson and conduct the defense case himself. Thus, in the critical pretrial period lasting from May 13th until June 18, 1982, Jackson was forced to relinquish control of the witness statements and other pertinent documents to Jamal.
All important pretrial proceedings were handled by Jamal, not Jackson. Jamal took over the investigation. He questioned witnesses at the Motion to Suppress. Then, at the brink of the start of the trial, Jamal's unrelenting misconduct forced the Judge to remove him. As the only lawyer familiar with the case, Jackson was forced to resume representing Jamal, even though Jamal made clear that he did not want him, or "any other member of the ABA."
As the trial progressed, so did Jamal's folly, as Jamal flatly refused to cooperate with Jackson in any way. Jackson often complained to Judge Sabo that he was struggling in the courtroom because Jamal had failed to return many of the statements and documents he had taken from Jackson. He told the judge that he often had to work from "memory" or from his notes, because he was without these documents:
Jackson: "Let me explain what happened. When I received discovery from the District Attorney's office, I made copies -- remember, I mean it was at least 150 statements. I made copies of most, some of those statements, and gave them to Mr. Jamal. As we proceeded in preparation for the trial or during the trial, I'm not certain when, I gave him some statements that I had not made copies of. Those would be the statements that I was talking about, that Mr. Jamal had. I had copies of some statements that I had also provided him copies with. There was other statements that I had no copies of. And I believe there may have been statements that I had, that he didn't have.
N.T. 7/27/95, 106
At one point Jackson is asked by Judge Sabo why he doesn't know who his next witness will be. Jackson replies:
Jackson: "One of the difficulties that I have in determining what witnesses to call is that I have to reflect and think and search my notes as to the statements of witnesses since I no longer have a copy of the statements. Mr. Jamal has copies of the statements. I think I indicated I showed you all of the names."
N.T. 6/26/82, 139-140
Jamal often ordered Jackson to take certain actions, and Jackson, as an attorney loyal to his oath, executed the wishes of his client. Jamal repeatedly told Jackson to sit with his arms folded and refuse to participate in the trial at all. At one point in the trial, Jamal demanded that Jackson make a ridiculous request for charges against him to be dropped, because the courts supposedly had not defined the term "murder" to Jamal's "satisfaction."


WHY DID ANTHONY JACKSON ASK
TO BE REMOVED FROM THE CASE?
Anthony Jackson repeatedly asked to be released from the case. This request, however, was not brought on because he felt technically unable to defend Jamal. On the contrary, Jackson stated that he felt he was well equipped to do that. Jackson asked to be removed because Jamal insisted on it.
Jackson: "Your Honor, as you can well imagine, in any situation where you're representing someone, whether it's in this case or any other case, one of the keys to that defense is the co-operation of the client. But of course I don't have a client in this situation, because Mr. Jamal is representing himself. And I think to force me to remain in this situation where Mr. Jamal has said in no uncertain terms that he doesn't want me, puts me in a position of trying to force advice on someone who doesn't want that advice."
Court: "No. You don't have to force any advice on him. You're there to give him advice if he seeks it. If he doesn't seek it, he does so at his own peril."
Defendant: "Yeah, right, but I don't want his advice."
Jackson: " He has no faith in anything I say."
Defendant: "I want the advice of someone that I have respect in and that's John Africa!"
N.T. 6/17/82, 1.64-65
In addition to his desire not to have Jackson represent him, on several occasions Jamal loudly stated, in the presence of the jury, that he "refused to be represented by any legal trained lawyer [because they were] all being manipulated by the court."
Defendant: "I do not want to be backed up or represented by Attorney Jackson or any other lawyer of the ABA anywhere in America. I want John Africa as my counsel."
N.T. 6/17/82, 1.59
It is undeniable that Jamal and his friends selected Anthony Jackson as Jamal's attorney. It was Jamal who decided to defend himself, it was Jamal who began raving about having John Africa "represent him" and it was Jamal who blocked the efforts of Anthony Jackson -- who was by all accounts, a seasoned and dedicated attorney -- to defend him. Jamal, not Jamal's lawyer, was responsible for these events. Given the resources at his disposal and Jamal's non-cooperation, Jackson did the best he could.
Question: "So did you give Mr. Jamal second-rate service because you were moving your offices from one part of town to another?"
Answer: "I didn't give him second-rate service."
Question: "In your mind you were giving him first rate service and you were highly recommended to him?"
Answer: "I gave him the best that I could with the resources that were made available to me."
N.T. 7/27/95, 134
Anthony Jackson had a client whose conduct, as stated by Philadelphia Inquirer reporter Marc Kaufman in 1982, "was as bizarre as it was suicidal". Given the difficult circumstances that Anthony Jackson had to work with, he did an admirable job of maintaining his composure and he put together a vigorous defense for Jamal.

[alien autopsy]

LOL. standard

[RobMoney$]

rob you are not going to make an effective point by overloading the page and confusing people. be clear and concise. get to the points, select what is relevant and necessary to your argument. edit.

i doubt you have even read all that


I don't have to read it all, I live here and have watched it happen.
This is for your consumption to answer the questions you have.

Believe me, they've all been asked before.

[RobMoney$]

Judge Albert Sabo has sentenced more black people to death than any other Judge in the U.S. Therefore, he had a bias against Mumia Abu-Jamal.


<A name=MYTH_11>MYTH #11
Mumia Abu-Jamal's supporters regularly vilify Judge Albert Sabo -- who presided over Jamal's 1982 trial and his 1995, 1996 and 1997 PCRA hearings -- by claiming that he orchestrated a sham trial that never afforded Jamal a chance for justice. They allege that Judge Sabo has sentenced more people to death -- 31 -- than any other judge in the United States. Of these 31 individuals, Jamal's supporters claim that 29 were African American. They argue that this number is evidence that Judge Sabo is a "racist hanging-judge."
Jamal's lawyers argue that Judge Sabo should have never been permitted to hear the case because of his relationship with law enforcement in Philadelphia. They point out that before becoming a Judge in 1974, Sabo served as an "Undersheriff" (the Sheriff's office transports prisoners to court and provides courtroom security) for 8 years, and he was also a member of the Fraternal Order of Police or "FOP" (a police union) during that time. Jamal's supporters contend that Sabo's past membership in the FOP should have precluded him from presiding over Jamal's trial.
In his article, "The Trial of Mumia Abu Jamal", Jamal's lawyer Leonard Weinglass writes, "The case was tried before the Honorable Albert Sabo, notorious for having put more people on death row than any other sitting judge in the United States." Weinglass has repeatedly stated that in 1982 Judge Sabo displayed clear and repeated bias against Jamal throughout the 1982 trial, as he continues to today, and that Sabo is a racist.
To further support their argument, Jamal's supporters often point to an article written by the Philadelphia Inquirer in which it is stated that several criminal defense lawyers claimed that Sabo was, "a defendant's worst nightmare" and that his courtroom was a "picnic for prosecutors."


BRIEF REBUTTAL
As a strategy to gain sympathy for Jamal, Weinglass and Jamal's supporters regularly misrepresent Judge Sabo's legitimate attempts to maintain order and proper decorum in his courtroom as evidence of bias against Jamal. Yet every legitimate news agency and periodical that has reviewed the case (ABC-TVs 20/20, KGO-TV in San Francisco, American Justice, Time, and Vanity Fair) has found that it was Jamal and his attorneys who acted improperly in their efforts to antagonize Judge Sabo at every turn. They also agreed that these combative actions by Jamal and his attorneys, which required the Judge to maintain order in the courtroom, have been misrepresented by Jamal.
The findings of these news organizations were echoed and confirmed by the Supreme Court in their 1998 decision when they wrote, "Upon review of the entire record, we cannot conclude that any of Judge Sabo's intemperate remarks were unjustified or indiscriminate, nor did they evidence a settled bias against Appellant."
As for Judge Sabo's record, it is unquestioned that he has a well-earned reputation for being a "no-nonsense" or "law and order" type of judge. Due to the length of his tenure and the fact that he was assigned to preside over homicide cases exclusively, it would not be surprising to find that more murderers have been convicted by juries and sentenced to death in his courtroom than in any other.
But the 31 convictions mentioned by Jamal's supporters were jury trials, in which the jury, not the judge, convicted and sentenced the defendants.
Further, it goes without saying, that a judge cannot select the race of the individuals that come before him. According to US Census Bureau statistics, Judge Sabo presided over trials in a city in which roughly 40% of the population were people of color. Given this simple demographic fact, it is not surprising that many of the defendants who appeared in Sabo's courtroom were black men. These men committed brutal and vicious crimes, and were found guilty and sentenced by jurors of their peers. Was Judge Sabo supposed to override the jury verdicts and release them in order to demonstrate his racial sensitivity?
The alleged "statistic" that Judge Albert Sabo "has sentenced more black men to death than any other judge in America," which is regularly thrown out as "fact" by Jamal's lawyers, is not a statistic at all. It's a piece of pure propaganda, invented by Jamal's lawyers out of thin air. In fact, there is no known agency that keeps track of such statistics. Jamal's lawyers have never bothered to cite the source for this supposed "fact," because it simply doesn't exist.
It is our feeling that the offensive label of "racist," -- which Jamal's supporters so freely attached to Judge Sabo -- should not be used lightly as to any individual. When challenged, Jamal's pitiful, hate-filled lawyers and supporters cannot point to a single scrap of evidence for their horrendous accusations against this well-respected and hard-working jurist.
Jamal's supporters complain that Jamal should not be stigmatized as a violent killer simply because he was a member of the Black Panthers. Then, in the same breath, they attack Judge Sabo, accusing him of bias against Jamal simply because Sabo was a member of the Fraternal Order of Police. Judge Sabo was, at one time, a member of the FOP. What Jamal's supporters won't tell you is that he last held this membership when he was an "Undersheriff" in 1974, eight years before he presided at Jamal's trial.


FACTS SUPPORTING OUR REBUTTAL
WAS JUDGE SABO BIASED AND UNFAIR?
Anyone who reads the trial transcripts with an open mind will see that it was not Judge Albert Sabo who had a vendetta against Jamal, as Jamal's attorneys contend. To the contrary, they will see that it was Jamal who engaged in an unrequited war with the entire legal system.
The 1982 trial record makes it eminently clear that Judge Sabo went to extraordinary lengths to accommodate Jamal's whims. Each time Jamal confronted the judge with one of his rambling tirades, the judge would ask the jury to be excused "so they will [would] not be adversely impacted by the defendants statements." Judge Sabo repeatedly explained his rulings to Jamal and detailed the legal recourse available to Jamal to challenge these rulings. Prior to removing him from the courtroom for his obstructionist behavior, Judge Sabo gave Jamal repeated warnings and he repeatedly told him that his resulting absence from the courtroom would likely be to his own detriment.
A review of the transcript of June 17, 1982 -- which was supposed to have been the first day of trial -- shows that Judge Sabo pleaded in vain with Jamal to allow the trial to move forward. He gave Jamal repeated warnings and direction as to how to address the rulings he made. In turn, Jamal insulted the judge and suggested that his only intent was to deny him "counsel of my choice" -- i.e., non-counsel John Africa -- and to see him convicted:
Defendant: "Judge, I have a statement."
Court: "If you have anything to say, say it at sidebar."
Defendant: "I need a microphone."
Court: "I don't have one."
Defendant: "You can get one."
Court: "You should have asked for one earlier."
Defendant: "I need one now."
Court: "You have to speak up and if you can't speak up then I may have to remove you and put in Mr. Jackson."
Defendant: "I don't care."
Court: "You can do whatever you want."
Defendant: "You can do whatever you want!"
Defendant: "I need a microphone."
Court: "I don't have a microphone."
Defendant: "You can get one, judge."
Court: "Lets go."
Defendant: "I need a microphone, judge." Court: "I'm sorry."
Defendant: "Your sorry?"
Court: "Mr. McGill, please. [Let's proceed.]"
McGill: "Yes Your Honor."
Defendant: "I'm not finished!"
Court: "Mr. McGill, please."
Defendant: "I need a microphone."
Court: "You don't need a microphone now."
Defendant: "I need one now!"
Court: "You're speaking loud enough now, I can hear you."
Defendant: "I need everyone in the courtroom to hear me. I want everyone in the jury to hear me."
N.T. 6/17/82, 1.45-1.46
Court: "When I make a ruling you [Mr. Jamal] have an automatic exception to that ruling. It will be reviewed by the Appellate Court. I don't want to stand here and argue with you all day long on every ruling, I'm going to make throughout this trial."
Defendant: "Judge..."
Court: "I'm telling you now that if you continue that way I will have no alternative but to remove you as counsel, and you can sit in here.
Mr. Jackson will proceed. And if you continue to disrupt this court while you're sitting here, I will then be forced to consider contempt proceedings against you."
Defendant: "Again, those warnings of contempt are meaningless to me."
Court: "I know that."
Defendant: "You are threatening me with death and you think contempt means something to me?"
Court: "I don't care, but I'm required by the law to advise you of this, what will happen."
N.T. 6/17/82, 1.110-12
But Jamal said he didn't care what Judge Sabo said or, for that matter, what the law said. He told the judge that he would continue to obstruct the progress of the trial by demanding to have Africa as his "counsel." Even though Judge Sabo explained to Jamal that the law would not permit him to allow John Africa to pretend to be a lawyer, Jamal refused to accept his explanations.
The Court: [Sabo]: "I'm sorry, but the Court is bound by the law just as you are. I can't change that."
Defendant: "Well, I'm telling you that I cannot participate without John Africa, not in this trial. It's my life on the line."
McGill: "That surprises me. I didn't think you would pull this one."
Defendant: "Pull what? Pull what?"
McGill: Pull out of this case. You're saying you want to be tried, you want to be tried."
Defendant: "Did you hear what I said?"
McGill: "Why don't you do it [proceed pro se]?"
Defendant: "Did you hear what I said?"
McGill: "You said you don't want to participate."
Defendant: "Unless John Africa is here. Did you hear the whole statement?"
McGill: "I heard what you said."
Defendant: "Don't put words in my mind."
McGill: "Let's see you stay here and represent yourself and don't try to chicken out."
Defendant: "I'm not chickening out. That's unimportant to me. What I want is a representative of my choice, not your choice, not of his choice, he's court appointed."
The Court: "You don't understand, I'm bound by the law as well as you are, and the law is clear on this; that John Africa cannot represent you. You can represent yourself."
N.T. 6/17/82, 1.59-60
Judge Sabo continually warned Jamal that he would lose his right to act as his own lawyer if he persisted. Yet, Jamal refused to heed these warnings and continued to demand to have John Africa as his attorney.
Court: "And if you keep acting that way, you have to be removed from the courtroom."
Defendant: "That's absolutely meaningless to me. I am not --"
Court: "That's unfortunate that it's meaningless to you."
Defendant: "Let me make a point."
Court: "It's unfortunate --"
Defendant: "Let me make a point!"
Court: "I want it on the record so that you understand that I have advised you that our United States Supreme Court has spoken on this question , the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has spoken on this question, and I've ruled on the law and that's it. And if you don't like it, take me up --"
Defendant: "Judge, you have ruled on procedure. You have not ruled on law because there is no law."
Court: "I have no choice. As long as Mr. Jackson ---"
Defendant: "Mr. Jackson --"
Court: "--can represent you."
Defendant: "He cannot represent me because I'm representing myself!"
N.T. 6/17/82, 1.110- 1.112
It wasn't until an entire day had been wasted arguing with Jamal that Judge Sabo's patience finally wore thin:
Court: "My position is that Mr. Jamal has been intentionally disrupting the orderly progression of this trial ---"
Defendant: "How!"
Court: "--- and what I said in the very beginning, when I make a ruling that's it, you don't argue with the Court about the ruling ---"
Defendant: "Judge, fine!"
Court: "You have certain rights but what I said is this: My position is that you have deliberately disrupted the orderly progression of this trial. Therefore, I am removing you as primary council and I am appointing Mr. Jackson to take over as primary counsel."
N.T. 6/17/82, 1.122
While the jury -- who had lives of their own that they had put on hold -- sat waiting in an adjacent room, Sabo, McGill and Jackson spent the better part of an entire day arguing with Jamal about John Africa. In an extraordinary effort to get the trial started, McGill (who prosecuted the case alone) and Sabo actually agreed to allow Jamal to have John Africa, and anyone else he wanted to bring in, to sit in the gallery directly behind the defense table. This was the very same place that McGill's support staff occupied on the prosecution side of the room. They further agreed to allow Africa to confer with Jamal during the trial and Judge Sabo even agreed to make arrangements to have Africa visit Jamal is his cell while the trial was not in progress. In short, the only thing Sabo refused to do was allow Africa to pretend that he was Jamal's attorney.
McGill: "If I may say to the Court, the Commonwealth has no objection if Mr. Jamal wants to bring in John Africa, wants to bring in anyone who is not incarcerated that is, into the courtroom and place them in the chairs back there behind the barriers there, exactly where my officers are. Detective Bill Thomas, Officer Gwen Thomas, right there, I have stated to the Court that I will be here at this table alone during the course of the trial. I have stated that Detective Bill Thomas will be in the room; however, he will be back where he is now, which is second row or someplace there. I have no objection and unless the Court has an objection of John Africa or anybody else sits in those chairs back there providing an opportunity for Mr. Jamal at recess or in between witnesses to go and discuss matters and that would include discussing matters before the Court. We could have Mr. Jamal down here at quarter after nine instead of 9:30, or some kind of arrangement consistent with the administrative needs of the Sheriff's Department so that he can discuss with them there anything he wishes about his defense.
I also, Your Honor, would have no objection if, along with Mr. Jackson, there would be times when Mr. Africa would go up to his cell room; that is, consistent with the needs of the Sheriff's Department. I do not want to go necessarily against the regulations there.
...There will be no one up here. It may cause me a little problem in terms of getting all the exhibits but there will be no one here except me. Mr. Jamal can be there and bring in anybody."
N.T. 6/17/82, 193-6
McGill: "Your Honor. Your honor has not really ruled as far as my, at least, suggestion was before."
The Court: "Look, anybody can be in this courtroom."
McGill: "You have no objection to Africa being here?"
The Court: "During breaks and all that."
McGill: "How about visiting upstairs?"
The Court: "Well, take it up with the Sheriff. If he can visit up there and they are able to accommodate, fine, he can visit him in the prison.
As far as I'm concerned he can visit him anywhere he wants. I'm not holding back on that."
McGill: "You have no objection if his name was placed on a list for him to be able to visit Mr. Jamal at the prison?"
The Court: "Certainly not. What difference does that make?"
N.T. 6/17/82, 1.114-5
To make Jamal appear victimized by Judge Sabo, his supporters regularly point to Judge Sabo's decision to remove Jamal from self-representation as evidence of his supposed "clear cut bias against Jamal." But this is exactly what the law required Sabo to do. Legal precedent clearly establishes that:
"When a defendant's obstreperous behavior is so disruptive that the trial cannot move forward, it is within the trial judge's discretion to require the defendant to be represented by counsel." (United States vs. Brock, 159 F.3d 1077, 1079) (7th Cir. 1998)
On two occasions, the Supreme Court has been asked to review and rule on Judge Sabo's actions. They found that Sabo displayed admirable patience with Jamal and that his decision to terminate his "pre se" status was both within the law and timely.


JUDGE SABO'S ACTIONS AND
RULINGS DURING THE TRIAL
One of the decisions made by Sabo that Jamal's supporters like to throw up as "evidence" of "bias" is Judge Sabo's decision to remove a black juror, Jeannie Dawley, from the jury after she violated sequestration. According to Jamal's supporters, Juror Jennie Dawley, supposedly "requested" to be allowed to go home to take care of her pet cat. The record shows that Ms. Dawley didn't request anything -- she just left, violating the court's sequestration order, saying, "I don't care what Judge Sabo or anybody says, I do what I have to do. Nobody is going to stop me" (N.T. 6/18/82, 2.35-2.39). She was therefore removed from the jury, [I]with the full agreement of Jamal's lawyer (N.T. 6/18/82, 2.40-2.46) who had noted that Dawley had been "belligerent" towards Jamal from the start.
How on earth would this display Sabo's bias against Jamal? Well, Amnesty International explains that Dawley was replaced by one of the alternates, who was white. Now who's being racist? The law required replacement of a dismissed juror with the first alternate, who happened to be white. Was the Judge supposed to violate the law and find an alternate juror of a different color in order to satisfy the racial preferences of Jamal's supporters? Apparently so, according to Jamal's friends.
Jamal's followers also like to point to Judge Sabo's decision not to allow evidence of Robert Chobert's arson conviction (Chobert plead no contest to having thrown a Molotov cocktail into an empty school yard when he was 18 years old. He was in the final year of a five-year probation when he witnessed Officer Faulkner's murder.) Jackson wanted to argue to the jury that, because Chobert had committed this crime, he could be considered an untruthful person. After lengthy argument, Judge Sabo decided not to allow this because, under the law, arson is not a "crimen false" crime -- that is, it is not a crime which implies dishonesty or a tendency to testify falsely. As with all the other alleged "evidence" of Judge Sabo's bias, this decision has been reviewed twice by the Supreme Court and found to be proper. Yet, Jamal's supporters freely throw it out as clear evidence of Sabo's rampant bias against Jamal.
Jamal's followers often pointed to Judge Sabo's decision not to grant Jamal's request for a delay in the trial so that he could call police Officer Gary Wakshul as a witness. Jamal's more devious supporters, like Amnesty International, select a comment made by Sabo and take it out of context to make it appear that Sabo was biased against Jamal. Once again, when the entire situation and Judge Sabo's comment are reviewed in their entirety, we find Jamal and his attorneys distorting the record to fabricate "evidence" that simply does not exist.
Officer Gary Wakschul was one of the police officers that heard Jamal confess to the murder (For more information on Gary Wakschul and Jamal's confession see Myth #7). Jamal had received a copy of Officer Wakshul's statements to that effect prior to trial. Jackson acknowledged that he too had seen Wakshul's report before the trial began. Judge Sabo had reminded McGill, Jackson and Jamal to list every witness they intended to call during the trial. The defense never mentioned any desire to call Officer Wakshul. On the last day of the trial, while in the midst of offering character witnesses, Jackson abruptly told Judge Sabo that he and Jamal had both "forgotten" to call Wakshul; who was allegedly their "most important witness". (N.T. 7/1/82, 32). By this time, Officer Wakshul had concluded that he would not be needed, and had left on a previously-scheduled vacation. Rather than permit a delay that would have caused the trial to run into the 4th of July holiday, requiring the sequestered jury to sit waiting in a hotel room for several days, Judge Sabo denied Jackson's request for a continuance. Jamal, as usual, argued about this decision. Judge Sabo said in response, "Your attorney and you goofed."
And so they had. Not that it made any difference -- Wakshul testified in 1995 that he had indeed heard Jamal confess to the murder, and so his testimony would not have been helpful to the defense. But the circumstances of Jamal's "goof" concerning Wakshul demonstrate no bias or impropriety on the part of the Judge. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected this claim in 1998.


JUDGE SABO'S RECORD
Judge Sabo began hearing cases as a judge in 1974. During his tenure he heard almost exclusively murder cases in a city that, according to U.S. Census Bureau statistics, was composed of nearly 40% "non-whites." Judges are obviously not permitted to choose the ethnicity of the defendants that come before them. And according to Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershewitz, nearly 90% of all defendants who go to trial are in fact guilty. If it were true that -- as Jamal's supporters claim -- Judge Sabo has presided over trials where the jury has "sent more people to Death Row than any other sitting judge," that would say absolutely nothing about Judge Sabo's quality as a judge, or his bias or lack of bias.


SO WHOSE STATISTIC IS THIS ANYWAY?
But is it even true? The supposed statistic that Judge Sabo has "sentenced more people to death than any other sitting judge" is constantly repeated by Jamal's lawyers, but the factual basis for this assertion -- if any -- has never been identified. At times, Leonard Weinglass will suggest that this supposed statistic was developed by the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People). However, we contacted the NAACP's national legal department and they told us that this statistic did not come from them, because they "do not have the facilities or the resources to track such a statistic." Jamal's lawyers nevertheless represent it as if it were a fact.


ANYTHING BUT THE FACTS
In the end, Jamal's supporters clearly feel no need to present any actual evidence to support their accusations of judicial bias. It is our belief that the most open-minded and legally enlightened opinion regarding Judge Sabo's alleged bias and misconduct in the courtroom, would come from the seven Justices charged with reviewing this matter on behalf of all the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Therefore, we have included the unanimous opinion rendered by the seven-member Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in October 1998, regarding the issues of misconduct and bias, leveled against Judge Albert Sabo, by Leonard Weinglass. Justice Cappy, who is a former defense attorney, wrote the Court's decision.
"Our careful review of the proceedings reveals that none of the challenged behavior on the part of Judge Sabo evidences an inability to preside impartially.
While there are certain instances in the record where the judge displays displeasure and/or impatience, those instances were, in large part, a direct result of obstreperous conduct on the part of Appellant's counsel. The record reveals instances where defense counsel refused to accept a particular ruling offered by the court, relentlessly urging the court to reconsider. Although we certainly don't condone unjustified or indiscriminate rhetoric on the part of the presiding judge, we are nevertheless mindful of the fact that judges, too, are subject to human emotion. It simply cannot be denied that this particular case was one that was not only highly publicized, but also highly emotionally charged. As a result, the judge's duty to maintain the judicial decorum of the proceedings, was, at times, met with great resistance. Upon review of the entire record, we cannot conclude that any of Judge Sabo's intemperate remarks were unjustified or indiscriminate, nor did they evidence a settled bias against Appellant."
Opinion of the Court, Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 10/29/98, 9-10
As we've seen over and over again as we have reviewed the Free Mumia campaign, the truth means little to Jamal's supporters. In order to shift the focus of the case from the real criminal, Mumia Abu-Jamal, his attorneys launch a baseless character assassination campaign against Judge Albert Sabo. But as the Supreme Court did, anyone who actually reviews the court record will see that it was Jamal, not the judge, who acted improperly.

[RobMoney$]

The ballistics evidence used to convict Mumia Abu-Jamal was flawed. The police failed to test Jamal's hands to see if he had recently fired a gun and they never "sniffed" Jamal's gun to see if it had been fired.


MYTH #12
Jamal's supporters argue that the ballistics testing was "mistake" filled. His lawyers contend that a Trace Metal Detection test should have been done on Officer Faulkner's jacket to determine what distance the bullet that struck him in the back was fired from -- suggesting that if the results had shown that Faulkner had been shot from a substantial distance, it would support their contention that a third person, other than Jamal had fired the shot and run from the scene. They say that a Neutron Activation Test should have been done on Jamal's hands to determine if he had recently fired a weapon. They also assert that the police should have "sniffed" the barrel of Mr. Jamal's gun to determine if it had been fired that morning.
In their docudrama "A Case for Reasonable Doubt", HBO-TV presents Dr. Herbert McDonald, a hired "ballistics expert," who claims that these supposed failures fell short of the acceptable standard of the day.
In the courtroom, Jamal's lawyers have said that the prosecution and the police conspired to either limit the ballistics tests that were done in 1982 or to suppress the results of some of the tests because they didn't produce the results needed to convict Jamal.


BRIEF REBUTTAL
HBO-TV was either lying or did absolutely no research when they claimed that "no Trace Metal Detection Test" was done in 1982 and that the prosecution's ballistics expert found "no evidence of any gunpowder residue." A Trace Metal Detection test was done. It confirmed that there was "primer lead" (gunpowder) residue on Officer Faulkner's jacket, and that Officer Faulkner had been shot in the back from a range of no more than 24 inches -- not, as Jamal's lawyers claim, from many feet away by a mysterious running man. Similarly, primer lead residue was found on Jamal's clothes, proving that the officer had shot him from a distance of less than two feet.
Jamal's hands were not tested by neutron activation analysis, for good reason. When he struggled with police while they attempted to handcuff him, Jamal precluded such a test by rendering it invalid in advance. Heavy particle residue (gunpowder residue) that can be found by neutron activation is easily contaminated or lost by any kind of jostling, brushing, or energetic conduct by the shooter. Jamal's fight against being arrested, which required the police to subdue him and carry him bodily to a police wagon after handcuffing him, rendered any such test invalid before it could be conducted. For that reason, none was done. In his 1995 PCRA testimony, Jamal's own ballistics expert, George Fassnacht, agreed that a neutron activation test would have been "very difficult to perform" on Jamal's hands, given his struggle with police. It was not a "mistake" not to test Jamal's hands. There was no point in performing an invalid test.
(Further, there is no question that Jamal had been shot in the chest and had to be taken to the hospital. One can only imagine the accusations of "police abuse" had Jamal been kept at the scene to test his hands).
As for the so-called "sniff test" (sniffing the barrel of the gun to see if it smells as though it had recently been fired) called for by Jamal's attorneys, Jamal's own ballistics expert testified that this is not an accepted ballistics test. As explained in 1995 by George Fassnacht, Jamal's ballistics expert, the so-called "smell test" has no scientific validity because it is completely subjective -- "[there would be] no way to prove [a] sniffing officer right or wrong in the courtroom." Fassnacht further admitted that the "sniff test" is simply one investigative technique that can be used by the police in the absence of eyewitnesses to help determine what might have happened at a crime scene. Here, multiple eyewitnesses saw Jamal fire his gun. There was no need to idiotically smell the barrel of Jamal's gun to see if he had fired it. And even if the gun had been "sniffed," the conclusion of the sniffing officer would have been attacked in the courtroom.


FACTS SUPPORTING OUR REBUTTAL
THE TRACE METAL DETECTION TEST
In their documentary, "A Case for Reasonable Doubt", HBO goes to great lengths to argue that there were no ballistics tests done on Officer Faulkner's jacket. They also claim that a Trace Metal Detection test should have been done to determine if there was evidence of nitrates on the jacket. To this day, Jamal's uninformed supporters still make this argument despite the fact that it has repeatedly been exposed as a total fraud. In their docudrama, HBO-TV hired their own ballistics expert, Dr. Herbert MacDonald, who stated that had such a test been conducted on Officer Faulkner's jacket, it would have verified that no nitrates or nitrites were present on the jacket. McDonald claimed that this would verify that Faulkner was shot in the back from a distance greater than 24 inches. Opening the door for the possibility that someone who was more than two feet away from Faulkner shot him. Thus, supposedly, exonerating Jamal.
To support their position, HBO had Dr. McDonald run his own test. The TV drama shows McDonald putting the jacket on a square wooden frame and dramatically firing a gun into it from a distance of two feet. McDonald then triumphantly tests the jacket and, lo and behold, finds trace residue from the gunshot. McDonald then declares that had such a test been done in 1982, it could have produced a different result, proving that Officer Faulkner was shot from a distance greater than 2 feet, which would supposedly have supported the "running man" myth.
Well, McDonald was partly right. Had such a test been done, and had the shot been fired from less than two feet, it would have found gunshot residue. Unfortunately for the credibility of McDonald and HBO's botched documentary, the test was done in 1982, and it proved that the shot was fired from close range, thus -- once again -- disproving the "running man" myth and once again exposing Jamal's supporter's willingness to lie to achieve their goal.


HOW DID HBO MISS THE 1982
BALLISTICS TESTS RESULTS?
The trial record, which HBO apparently just did not bother to read, unequivocally shows that a trace metals test confirmed the presence of primer lead on Officer Faulkner's jacket, and established that he had been shot in the back from a distance of less than 24 inches. Only two people were seen by the five eyewitnesses to have come that close to Officer Faulkner -- William Cook and Mumia Abu-Jamal.
Charles Tumosa, the prosecution's crime scene investigation expert, testified as follows:
Tumosa: "Test for nitrates, combustion products of emission, were negative. Tests for lead indicated a presence of primer lead."
N.T. 6/28/82, 15
ADA Joe McGill: "Now, you stated that the test for lead indicated the presence of primer lead. Would you tell me what you mean by that?"
Mr. Tumosa: "The second source of lead which may come about comes from the primer of the cartridge. When the firing pin of a weapon strikes this primer, the primer explodes, sets off the powder inside the cartridge. The cartridge then propels the projectile. The compound which sets off the explosion, is a lead compound. It is an organic lead compound, which is sensitive. So, at close distances, or a distance, the primer lead actually is blown through the barrel of a particular weapon much like -- you can think of it in terms of a hose. If you hold a hose level, a projector of water will come out and hit the ground at a particular point. Well, the same thing will occur when the weapon is discharged. You have powder in the barrel. You have graphite's. You have unburned ammunition. You also have this primer lead coming out much the same way water would come out of a hose held level and falls off at a particular distance."
N.T. 6/26/82, 16-17
ADA McGill: "Did you make any kind of findings in relation to any comparison of the primer lead around that particular hole ?"
Mr. Tumosa: "We determined that the weapon must have been twelve inches or less when discharged."
N.T. 6/26/82, 17


WHY DIDN'T THE TRACE METAL
TEST SHOW NITRATES?
Contradicting HBO, Jamal's lawyer Leonard Weinglass has acknowledged that a trace metal test was done in 1982, but complains that it failed to show evidence of nitrates. His argument, absurd as it may seem, is that even though the primer lead residue showed that the officer was shot at a distance of less than 2 feet, the absence of nitrates simultaneously proves -- somehow -- that he was shot from a distance greater than 2 feet. Either that, Weinglass says, or the primer lead test was flawed in some way.
Once again, the record directly refutes Jamal's argument. The prosecution expert clearly explained -- an explanation Jamal has never bothered to dispute -- why the test would show primer lead but not nitrates:
Tumosa: "Well, there could be any number of reasons. Usually when we find that [the absence of nitrates] to occur, we find that some kind of agitation occurred to the items that we have looked at. I mentioned earlier you can think of the nitrates as being rather large objects. When they hit something, they sort of set on the surface. They are not small. They don't diffuse into the fabric. They are sitting on the surface. So, if one agitated the item, one could remove them. They could fall off or brush off while the primer lead, because it's a fine mist, is actually embedded very much into the fibers of the item."
N.T. 6/28/82, 85-86
Officer Faulkner's jacket was rubbed against the concrete when he fell, and several people ran their hands over the jacket looking for wounds while carrying him to the car. The officers first tried to put the officer in a car, but found it was too small, and then put him in a police van. The jacket was therefore slid across a car seat going in and out of two different vehicles. It is therefore unsurprising, to those without a pro-Jamal agenda, that no nitrates were found on the jacket.


THE NEUTRON ACTIVATION TEST
Jamal's attorneys argue that the police were sloppy in their investigation because they neglected to do a neutron activation test on Jamal's hands to determine if he had recently fired a gun. They also inconsistently claim that the police did, in fact, test Jamal's hands in this way, but hid the results. (Apparently, Jamal himself -- the individual whose hands were supposedly tested -- has just forgotten which it is.)
The record, however, shows that a neutron activation test was not done, and it also shows why:
Mr. Tumosa: "I'm saying it [the test] doesn't give reliable results, uniformly reliable results. Many procedures are published in literature, which work very well in the laboratory, but when you take them into the field, they don't work. That [the neutron activation test] is one of the particular tests. The problem with it is that once somebody has touched something, they don't walk around with their hands in the air or protected. The instant someone touches their trousers, wipes their hands, or starts to sweat, bleed, rubs their hands in their hair, immediately the test becomes invalid because of contamination. So, in cases where you have individuals who are active, in which you have a series of events which are fast moving, fast paced, the test becomes, for all intents and purposes, invalid. There is no way you can [reliably] interpret any results that you get."
N.T. 6/26/82, 56
Mr. Tumosa further stated:
"The inherent concept behind the idea [of the Neutron Activation test] is very good if you are dealing with a laboratory situation or the classical locked room mystery, where the body is found in a locked room with a firearm in it's hand. The real world is much more complex. I wouldn't like to do the test and have the fate of any individual depend upon the results of that test."
N.T. 6/26/82, 59-60
The record reveals that on December 9th, Jamal fell to the sidewalk, fought with police and was handcuffed with his hands behind his back. Jamal also claims he was beaten at this time. He was then carried by several police officers to a police wagon, and was driven from there to the area in front of the emergency room doors, where he was momentarily placed, with his hands cuffed behind him, on the ground. By the admission of both the prosecution and [I]defense ballistics experts, any one of these events was enough to make a neutron activation test scientifically useless.
If you have listened at all to Jamal's propaganda machine, you might also be surprised to learn of the 1995 testimony of Jamal's own ballistics expert, George Fassnacht, about the infeasibility of attempting a neutron activation test. Like they had with their pathologist, Dr. James Hayes, Jamal's current attorneys had kept vital information from George Fassnacht prior to him signing his sworn affidavit and giving his direct testimony in 1995. While being cross-examined, Fassnacht learned for the firs time of Jamal's struggles with the officers who attempted to subdue him. Upon learning of this critical fact, Fassnacht agreed that it would have been virtually impossible to perform a valid neutron activation test on Jamal's hands.
ADA Grant: "If you were them, the Philadelphia Police, knowing the activity that I've described to you, that Mr. Jamal was engaged in [that morning], tell me when you would have snuck in there and taken that test from him, at what juncture, at which struggle?"
George Fassnacht (Jamal's ballistics expert): "Well, if they [the police] really wanted to take the test and if there were enough officers on hand, I suppose he could have been spread-eagled and his hands held out and somebody grabbed a leg or two. It sounds preposterous, but if they were struggling that vigorously, I suppose that would have been the only way to do it. And in light of what you told me, that test may have been very difficult to perform."
N.T. 8/2/95, 120
Jamal's own expert agreed with the prosecution that a valid neutron activation test was impossible:
"I believe I agree with you that being handcuffed with the hands behind the back could expose the web surfaces [of the hands] to the clothing and result in the loss of residue."
N.T. 8/2/95, 120


THE "SNIFF" TEST
At the 1995 PCRA hearing, Assistant DA Grant asked Jamal's expert, George Fassnacht, if the findings of a "Sniff Test" are valid and quantifiable results that could be offered in court:
ADA Grant: "Could that test [the sniff test] be reproduced so that the defense counsel, when they want to go back and say I want to test to see if that person's nose was accurate, can you reproduce that test so they can check it out?"
Fassnacht: "No more so than you could reproduce an eyewitness' vision of the scene, no, certainly not."
N.T. 8/2/95, 179
ADA Grant: "And except for your version of what your nose smells, you could say that right on the report, condemn an individual to a prison sentence or worse, and there is no way that they [the defense] can challenge it?"
Fassnacht: "That ["Sniff Test"] is a test that cannot be reproduced, if that's what you are driving at."
N.T. 8/2/95, 179
There is little doubt that had the "Sniff Test" been done at the scene, and it's results entered into evidence against Jamal by the prosecution, the Defense today would be arguing its lack of accuracy, and that it should not be admissible as evidence against their client.
Five eyewitnesses saw Jamal fire his gun. Even if a "sniff test" were otherwise valid, there was no need to sniff the gun to determine if it had been fired, because every eyewitness told the police that it had been fired.


CONCLUSION
So there were no "mistakes" or "oversights" made with the ballistics tests. Jamal's adherents are grasping at straws when they complain about hypothetical tests that were not done. The pertinent ballistics facts are these: The eyewitnesses saw Jamal kill Officer Faulkner. The police found him, and the gun (registered to him), a few feet from the murdered officer's body. His gun contained five spent shells. Those shells were the same brand (Federal) unique type (special +P with a hollow base) and caliber (.38) of ammunition used to kill Officer Faulkner. The tests that were done confirm that Jamal shot the officer in the back at close range (less than 2 feet away). But if, by some unbelievable quirk of fate, a person other than Jamal had fired the fatal shot -- if what all the eyewitnesses saw was really just some kind of optical illusion -- don't you think he or his brother would have mentioned it to someone at the scene?

[RobMoney$]

Only one prosecution witness saw Mr. Jamal with a gun.



MYTH #13
According to Jamal's supporters, just one prosecution witness, Cynthia White, claimed to see Jamal actually holding a gun. Jamal's supporters contend that Cynthia White is easily written off as a witness who was coerced by police into giving her testimony against Jamal. Therefore, they argue it's not possible to say beyond a reasonable doubt that Jamal actually shot Officer Faulkner.


BRIEF REBUTTAL
This myth is another example of how Jamal's supporters spit out twisted factoids to support a lie. In fact, all the eyewitnesses to Faulkner's murder saw Jamal firing a gun. While Cynthia White was the only prosecution witness to testify that she actually saw the gun in Jamal's hand, the other 4 eyewitnesses to the shooting each testified that they saw Jamal approach Officer Faulkner from behind, raise his arm, point at Faulkner's back and later his head. They heard the shots and saw the muzzle flash. Unless Jamal was able to magically make explosions and flame jump from his hand, he was obviously firing a gun.


FACTS SUPPORTING OUR REBUTTAL
Michael Scanlan testified that he saw the assailant run towards Faulkner and shoot him in the back, then stand over him and shoot him again in the face.
"I saw a hand come up, like this, and I heard a gunshot. There was another gunshot when the man got to the policeman, and the gentleman he had been talking to [Cook]. And then the Officer fell down on the sidewalk and the man [Jamal] walked over and was standing at his [the officer's] feet and shot him twice. I saw two flashes."
N.T. 6/25/82, 8.7
Additionally, Scanlan graphically described the shot that killed the officer.
McGill: "Do you know whether or not any of those shots hit the officer?"
Scanlan: "Yes, sir. I could see that one hit the officer in the face. Because his body jerked, his whole body jerked."
McGill: "His body jerked?"
Scanlan: "Yes, sir."
McGill: "Where was he then, when his body jerked, after the shot?
Scanlan: "Where was the officer?"
McGill: "Yes."
Scanlan: "He was lying on the sidewalk, face up."
N.T. 6/25/82, 8.8
Albert Magelton testified that he saw Jamal run from across the street towards Officer Faulkner and Cook. Then, he heard several shots fired. He looked and saw Officer Faulkner on the ground. He later identified Jamal to police as the man he saw running towards Faulkner.
"About half way across the street, I had turned to proceed across the street. I heard shots and I looked over and I didn't see the Officer there no more."
N.T. 6/25/82, 8.77
Robert Chobert testified that he saw Jamal standing over the fallen Faulkner with his arm extended towards Faulkner's head. He heard several gunshots.
Chobert: "No, I didn't see the gun."
Jackson: "Did you see the flash of the weapon?"
Chobert: "No, but I heard shots. And I saw him pointing his hand too."
Jackson: "So you assumed the shot must have come from the man who had his hand out?"
Chobert: "Because there were only two guys there [Jamal and Cook]."
N.T. 6/19/82, 229-230
Robert Harkins, who testified as a defense witness, testified in the 1995 PCRA hearing that, from a distance of roughly 30 feet, he saw Jamal stand over Faulkner as he lay on the ground. He then saw several flashes emanating from Jamal's hand towards Faulkner. Harkins then saw Jamal attempt to flee, only to fall to the ground a few feet from his victim's body.
Harkins: "He [the shooter] leaned over and two, two or three flashes from the gun. But then he walked, sat down on the curb."
N.T. 8/2/95, 209)


CONCLUSION
Again we find Jamal's supporters distorting the record in a transparent attempt to cast doubt on his guilt. The testimony leaves no room for any doubt whatsoever that Jamal was firing a gun. The gun he used remained on the scene, inches from his hand, after he sat down on the curb. He even tried to pick it up and use again against the next officers to arrive on the scene. Further, the gun was actually registered to Jamal. It is undisputed that he owned it. Jamal's 5 shot revolver contained 5 spent shells from unique +P ammunition that matched the +P bullet removed from Officer Faulkner's brain. When all of the evidence, and not just a tiny part taken out of context, is considered, the record clearly reveals not only that Jamal had a gun in his hand, but that he deliberately shot Officer Faulkner to death with it in full view of 5 eyewitnesses.

[RobMoney$]

Mumia Abu-Jamal is an "award winning journalist" who was targeted by police and Mayor Frank Rizzo because he had repeatedly exposed police corruption in Philadelphia.


MYTH #14
It seems that nearly everyone supporting Mumia Abu-Jamal has, at one time or another, stated that he is an "award-winning journalist". The cover of the paperback version of his book, "Live From Death Row", states that Jamal was the recipient of the Peabody Award, a very prestigious broadcast journalism award presented by the University of Georgia.
Jamal's supporters allege that he was a prominent reporter in Philadelphia who was on a crusade to expose police abuse and governmental corruption throughout the city. Therefore, they contend, Philadelphia's Police Department and its Mayor, Frank Rizzo, "targeted Mumia Abu-Jamal" and framed him for the murder of Officer Daniel Faulkner.


BRIEF REBUTTAL
If one spends enough time around Mumia Abu-Jamal's supporters they will hear incredible stories of his prowess and exploits as a journalist in 1981. These stories are told with the intention of conjuring up an image of the crusading "voice of the voiceless" who constantly dogged police officials and Mayor Rizzo, constantly embarrassing them by exposing one wrongdoing after another. However, if one looks to articles written about and by Mumia Abu-Jamal in the late 1970s they will find that the truth about his journalistic career is something else all together.
It is easy to find articles written after the murder of Officer Faulkner in which Jamal's friends and colleagues gush about his talent. It is equally difficult to find any record of his actual work. One would expect that if an individual reporter were consistently exposing rampant misconduct by the Police, the Mayor, and various other city officials, that person's name would regularly appear in the news. Yet, an internet search on Jamal prior to December 9, 1981, reveals that his name appeared in just one article that had nothing to do with exposing corruption and wrong-doing. When asked to produce copies of reports exposing Police abuse from Jamal's body of work, he, his attorney and his followers are unable to produce anything concrete. Instead, their one and only example of Jamal's journalistic prowess seems to be this: Mayor Frank Rizzo once said to a group of reporters that he was displeased with the way they were attacking him in their reports, and Jamal's supporters insist that Rizzo was "looking right at" Jamal when he said this.
Despite what is claimed on the cover of his book, Jamal has never won a Peabody Award. Though he did win a local media award for his part in a group effort on a report that dealt with social issues in Philadelphia (not police abuse), the simple fact is that Jamal has never won any prestigious award for journalism.


FACTS SUPPORTING OUR REBUTTAL
The mythology that Jamal was a talented reporter exposing corruption in Philadelphia is meant to support the paranoid notion that the Mayor and/or the police "targeted" Jamal and framed him for a murder because he had exposed their wrongdoing. There is absolutely no evidence to support this theory. In fact, at the time he committed the murder Jamal was not a journalist anymore, and could scarcely have been called one to begin with.
There is no doubt that, prior to January 1981, Jamal worked at numerous local radio stations in Philadelphia as a part time reporter, and broadcast various spots that aired on the local National Public Radio affiliate there. There is also no doubt that Jamal had a small but loyal local audience. Several prospective jurors were peremptorily challenged by the prosecutor, apparently because they had listened to Jamal on the radio. But by all legitimate accounts, Jamal's reports were not news reporting. They dealt with his personal perceptions of social issues. Further, he was not the crusader against police abuse that his followers and attorneys make him out to be. The social issues Jamal chose to discuss simply did not include those subjects.
Further, by the time he shot Officer Faulkner to death Jamal had not worked as a journalist for nearly a year. His manager at WUHY has repeatedly told reporters that he fired Mumia Abu-Jamal in January 1981 -- nearly a year before the Faulkner murder. In HBO's 1996 documentary, "A Case for Reasonable Doubt", Jamal himself admits that he was not working as a reporter when he was arrested. He acknowledges that he was driving a cab, "to make ends meet."
To further discredit the notion that Jamal was "targeted" by police, it is indisputable that the eyewitnesses who would have been integral to any "frame up" of Jamal gave their signed statements to police within an hour of the murder. These same witnesses gave the same version of events to reporters that morning. (Their accounts can be found in a report published in the evening edition of the Philadelphia Daily News published on December 9,1982). For Jamal's allegation that he was targeted for a frame up because of his reportage of police abuse to be true, it would have required the police to manufacture consistent stories that incriminated Jamal by four different individuals, within minutes of the killing. This idea seems even more implausible in that there is absolutely no evidence that the arresting officers even had any idea who Jamal was.


JAMAL'S PHANTOM PEABODY AWARD
On the cover of his book, Jamal announces that he is a Peabody Award winner. The Peabody, awarded yearly by the University of Georgia, is one of the highest honors that can be bestowed on a broadcast journalist. While doing research on this case, reporters from ABC News contacted officials at the University of Georgia to verify that Jamal had, in fact, received a Peabody Award for his work in broadcast journalism. University officials told ABC that someone had once submitted some of Jamal's work for consideration, but that Mumia Abu-Jamal had never won the award.
In April 1998, ABC News ran a story about the San Francisco Bay area "free Mumia" movement on their affiliate, KGO-TV. Jamal's false claim of having been given a Peabody was mentioned in the report. Jamal's lawyer, Leonard Weinglass, blamed the misinformation on the cover of his client's book on Jamal's publicist. Though the paperback version of "Live From Death Row" had been on the shelves for months before ABC ran their piece, Weinglass claimed that both he and Jamal were completely unaware of the Peabody claim. Weinglass further alleged, that upon conferring with Jamal's publicist, it was determined that the wrong award had "accidentally" been submitted to Jamal's publisher prior to the book going to print.
While all of this may be true, the fact remains that it was not until after ABC News ran their investigative report, and we displayed it on our web site, that there was any public acknowledgement of the false statement on Jamal's book. It stands to reason that Jamal must have seen a copy of his own book prior to its release. It thus appears that, had ABC not exposed it, Jamal and his publisher would have been happy to permit the falsehood to go uncorrected, since it so conveniently supported the myth that the establishment was out to "get" Jamal.
Admittedly, this incident has nothing to do with Jamal's guilt or innocence. And by displaying this information we will undoubtedly be portrayed as mudslingers by Jamal and his supporters. However, we feel that it is important to address this matter and expose it as yet another example of the deceit, which is regularly employed by Mumia Abu-Jamal, his attorney and his supporters.

[RobMoney$]

Some of Jamal's supporters suggest that the "real killer's" driver's license was found in Officer Faulkner's pocket the morning he was murdered.


MYTH #15
Some of Jamal's more blindly zealous supporters suggest that the "real killer's" driver's license was found in Officer Faulkner's front pants pocket the morning he was murdered. They speculate that this license belonged to the "phantom shooter" allegedly seen running away from the scene by 4 alleged eyewitnesses before police arrived. (For more on the "Running Man" see Myth #2)
To support their assertion, Jamal's attorneys called Arnold Howard to testify at the 1995 PCRA hearing. Howard claimed that several days prior to Officer Faulkner's murder, he had loaned his drivers license to his friend Kenneth Freeman. Mr. Howard acknowledged that he and Freeman were "lifelong friends" of both William Cook and Mumia Abu-Jamal. Based on this testimony, Mumia Abu-Jamal's attorneys now assert that Kenneth Freeman was the person who shot Officer Daniel Faulkner and fled into the darkness before police arrived.
Kenneth Freeman is conveniently dead.


BRIEF REBUTTAL
Once again, Jamal's lawyers and supporters have twisted the facts to support their myth that someone -- anyone -- other than Jamal shot Officer Faulkner, and then ran away into the darkness before police arrived (See Myth #2). When reviewed, the record reveals that an application for a duplicate driver's license was found in Officer Faulkner's front pants pocket the morning he was killed. The application's owner, Arnold Howard, a "life-long friend" of both Mumia Abu-Jamal and William Cook, told police immediately after the shooting that he had lost the application in William Cook's car weeks before the shooting. He stated that at no time had he sought to recover the missing application. Howard also produced a credible alibi (a receipt from a super market) which supported his contention that he was elsewhere at the time Officer Faulkner was shot.
Arnold Howard's new story, claiming that he instead lent his driver's license to Kenneth Freeman, didn't materialize until 13 years after the killing, when he met with Jamal's new attorneys.


FACTS SUPPORTING OUR REBUTTAL
Arnold Howard was admittedly a lifelong friend of Jamal. He says that he and Jamal had "gang warred together," and that they were both members of the Black Panther Party in "about 69 or 70." Howard is also a felon, convicted on several occasions of fraud and burglary.
Just hours after the shooting of Officer Daniel Faulkner, Howard was picked up at his mother's home and taken to the Police Administration Building for questioning. Howard gave police a signed five-page written statement in which he stated that he had lost his application for duplicate drivers license on November 30, 1981 -- 10 days before the Faulkner shooting -- "in the back of William Cook's car." He further stated that he had not sought to recover this application from Cook at any time.
When asked what he knew about the murder of Officer Faulkner, Howard stated that he was not with William Cook or Mumia Abu-Jamal that night. He also told police that he had no information that would be of any helpful to them. Howard produced a dated and time stamped receipt from a convenience store, verifying that he was not present at the crime scene that morning. Each page of Howard's 1981 statement was admittedly reviewed by him for accuracy and signed by him.
Then, in 1995, after meeting with Mumia Abu-Jamal's current attorney, Leonard Weinglass, Howard -- like several other defense witnesses -- completely changed his story. In a sworn affidavit, admittedly written for him by Weinglass and given just days before his 1995 PCRA testimony, Howard suddenly changed his story, and asserted that he had been picked up "before dawn" the morning of the shooting and that police questioned him for "over 72 hours" without offering him food or sleep. Howard now alleges that he told police in 1981, that he "lent his driver's license to Kenneth Freeman." Additionally, Howard now asserts that Freeman too had been taken in for questioning the morning of the shooting. Howard claims that Freeman was prosecution eyewitness Cynthia White's "pimp," and that the last time he saw Freeman was in the Police Administration building that morning. Howard now claims that Freeman was found dead in 1993 or 1994, "handcuffed and shot up, with dope."
So what's wrong with Howard's new testimony? Well, for starters, Jamal's attorneys kept the existence of Arnold Howard's new statement a secret until just hours before he testified in 1995. Howard's new story directly contradicts his signed 1981 statement. And that's not the only contradiction. At the 1995 PCRA hearing, the prosecution produced the logbook from the Police Administration building, which verified that on December 9, 1981, Arnold Howard signed himself in at 12:30 PM and signed himself out at 2:30 PM. An elapsed time of just 2 hours -- not 72 hours, as Howard now asserts. Further, had Howard been a handcuffed prisoner, as he now claims, he would not have been allowed to walk through the front door of the PAB, and would have been unable to sign himself in or out.
In 1998, the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court reviewed the facts surrounding Mr. Howard's assertions and found his testimony not credible. Given the incredible and contradictory nature of Howard's new account, it is apparent that he invented in 1995 for the benefit of Jamal -- Howard's lifelong friend.
Further, in his book on the case, Dan Williams, Jamal's former lawyer, admits that it's highly unlikely that Kenneth Freeman was the "real killer".

[RobMoney$]

The downward angle of Jamal's wound makes the prosecution's explanation of the shooting impossible.



MYTH #16
Jamal's lawyers argue that the prosecution case depended on the idea that Officer Faulkner shot Jamal after he had fallen to the ground. Then they argue that the angle at which Jamal was shot (downward from the chest to the lower back) makes this impossible. Therefore, they conclude, someone else shot Faulkner and Jamal is innocent.
To support this theory Jamal's attorneys presented Dr. James Hayes as their witness at the 1995 PCRA hearing. Dr. Hayes, a Pathologist, stated that the downward angle of Jamal's wound made it impossible for him to have been shot by someone who was sitting on the ground. Dr. Hayes' testimony is often presented as proof positive that Jamal is innocent. It is further argued that had a pathologist testified in Jamal's behalf in 1982, he would have been acquitted.
BRIEF REBUTTAL
The case against Jamal did not depend on the idea that Officer Faulkner shot him after already having fallen to the ground. This "prosecution theory" was simply made up by Jamal's current attorneys and attached to the prosecution in an attempt to display for Jamal's followers outside the courtroom how weak the case against Jamal was.
In fact, the evidence seems to show that, after Jamal shot him in the back, Officer Faulkner was either still standing up or was in the process of falling when he shot Jamal. Despite what Jamal's attorneys argue, the prosecution has never attempted to establish how Jamal received his chest wound. The simple fact is, nobody saw how Jamal was shot.
Whatever the angle at which he was hit, 4 eyewitnesses (including defense witness Robert Harkins) saw Jamal proceed to shoot Officer Faulkner to death as he lay on the ground. Only in the twisted minds of Jamal's most crazed devotees would the minor dispute about the angle of Jamal's wound matter.
FACTS SUPPORTING OUR REBUTTAL
In the 1995 PCRA hearing, Jamal called a pathologist, Dr. John Hayes, supposedly to refute trial testimony by Cynthia White, who supposedly had said that Officer Faulkner had shot Jamal while Faulkner was lying on the ground on his back.
The first problem with Jamal's theory is that Ms. White had never said any such thing:
Q. Were you able to see the police officer fire anything at the man who shot him?
MR. JACKSON: Objection. There's no indication that the police officer shot, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Can you rephrase the question?
BY MR. MCGILL:
Q. Were you able to see the police officer do anything to the defendant?
A. [Cynthia White]: No.
Q. Did you see the police officer once he was reaching and apparently grabbing something and falling down? Were you able to see the police officer's arm?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Because Jamal was standing over him. Jamal's back was like towards me. He was blocking my view from the police officer.
N.T. 6/21/82, 4.104-105.
That Faulkner shot Jamal is undisputed; the bullet removed from Jamal's chest matched identically the riffling pattern found in Faulkner's service revolver. However, no eyewitness was able to say exactly when, or how, or at what angle, the officer managed to shoot Jamal after having been shot by him in the back (e.g., N.T. 6/19/82, 269; 6/25/82, 8.64).
Dr. Hayes, moreover, testified on cross-examination in 1995 that he had been misled as to the underlying facts of the shooting by Jamal's lawyers. (We've all been there, Doctor). On direct examination, Dr. Hayes stated that the angle of Jamal's injury made it impossible for Officer Faulkner to have shot him while he was sitting on the ground. However, after he was shown the actual trial record by the Assistant District Attorney, Dr. Hayes admitted the Jamal's wound was entirely consistent with his having been shot by a standing or falling man, either while the gun was held at a slightly downward angle or while Jamal was leaning slightly forward (N.T. 8/4/95, 77-79, 100-104, 114-115; finding of fact 100). This is exactly what Cynthia White had testified to.
But the testimony of Dr. Hayes did more than just support the prosecution's testimony. For one thing, he conclusively disproved William Singletary's claim that Officer Faulkner spoke to Jamal and then shot him, after Faulkner had been shot in the head. Dr. Hayes confirmed that Officer Faulkner had died instantly when he was shot in the head (N.T. 8/4/95, 60-61). Singletary, HBO's key eyewitness, was describing the supposed actions of a dead man.
Dr. Hayes also demonstrated that it would have been impossible for Jamal to have been shot by someone lying or sitting on the ground. But contrary to the rhetoric of Jamal's lawyers, this fact did not disprove the prosecution evidence -- it disproved Jamal's evidence. Singletary (and another defense witness, William "Bippy" Harmon, who offered testimony that contradicted and mutually excluded Singletary's testimony and whose fabrications were so transparent that even Weinglass doesn't mention him any more) insisted that Jamal was shot by Officer Faulkner while the officer was lying or sitting on the ground. In other words, Dr. Hayes, Jamal's own expert witness, proved that Jamal's eyewitness evidence about another man shooting Faulkner was false. Thank you, Dr. Hayes.
CONCLUSION
The allegedly "critical" issue of the angle of Jamal's injury is simply a canard thrown out by Jamal's attorneys to support their transparent and easily disproved theory that William Cook's mystery passenger is the "real killer". The testimony offered by Dr. Hayes, Jamal's own witness, actually supports the prosecution's position and disproves the testimony of Jamal's own alleged exculpatory eyewitnesses, Singletary and Harmon, each who whom said that Faulkner shot Jamal as he sat on the ground.
Further, the Supreme Court reviewed Jamal's alleged evidence in 1998 and completely rejected this argument.

[RobMoney$]

MYTH #17
Arnold Beverly, the "real killer", has confessed.
Therefore, Mumia Abu-Jamal is innocent and should be released.
For nearly a decade Mumia Abu-Jamal and his attorneys have attempted to promote the notion that Jamal is innocent. To accomplish this, they have presented a story about a "phantom shooter" who shot Officer Daniel Faulkner and then ran from the scene before police arrived.
To support the "phantom shooter" story, they pointed to small segments of testimony given by eyewitnesses and alleged eyewitnesses to the murder (Debra Kordansky, Desie Hightower, Robert Chobert and Veronica Jones), who testified at trial or were presented to the Court at the 1995 and 1996 PCRA appeals hearings. But contrary to their out of court assertions, without exception, each of these witnesses either denied seeing any fleeing phantom, admitted that they had not seen the shooting at all, or were proven to be lying about having seen the shooting. Nevertheless, Jamal's lawyers over the years have touted these snippets of out-of-context or discredited testimony in order to claim that witnesses saw the "real killer" running from the scene, going "east on the south side of Locust Street" (See Myth #2) (http://www.danielfaulkner.com/original/Pages/MYTH2.html).
In addition to the 4 individuals who allegedly saw someone running from the scene, Jamal's lawyers also presented 3 individuals, each of whom they claimed were eyewitnesses to the killing. Each man claimed to have been an eyewitness to the murder and had come forward after the 1982 trial and told them that they had seen someone other than Jamal shot Officer Daniel Faulkner. It was assumed that each of these individuals would tell a similar story to the other and that their story would contradict the testimony given in 1982 by the prosecution witnesses. Instead, William Singletary, Robert Harkins and William "Bippy" Harmon each told mutually contradictory stories, and one, Robert Harkins, actually gave an account of the killing that was identical to the story told by each of the prosecution's 4 eyewitnesses.
When the testimony of these individuals is reviewed in its entirety, it clearly shows that the stories championed by Jamal are mutually contradicting and utterly at odds with the testimony of the eyewitnesses, all of whom gave the same account identifying Jamal as the murderer, each independent of the other. In its 1998 ruling, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania found that Jamal's lawyers had completely failed to support their myth that the "real killer" ran from the scene. And of the 3 "eyewitnesses", Robert Harkins alone was found to have testified credibly in 1995.
In 1999, Jamal's attorneys were contacted by Arnold Beverly, who told them that he had shot and killed Officer Daniel Faulkner. Beverly claimed that he and another man had been hired to kill Officer Daniel Faulkner by local members of the Mafia and corrupt Philadelphia Police Officers. According to Beverly, Officer Faulkner -- who had always been portrayed as a vicious racist cop by Jamal and his attorneys -- was targeted because he refused to participate in, and was interfering with, the Mafia's illicit drug dealing and prostitution business.
According to Jamal's attorney, Dan Williams, a battle ensued within the ranks of Jamal's legal team. Williams and Weinglass knew Beverly's story was a fraud, and worse, an implausible fraud. If used, it would be detrimental to Jamal's case -- not only because it would portray Jamal as a desperate liar, but because it would destroy what little credibility his lawyers had left in the courts. In his book, Executing Justice, William wrote: "I also wasn't about to embarrass myself by running with such a patently outrageous story on the most visible death-penalty case in the world."
Jamal's other lawyers, such as Jonathan Piper and Rachel Wolkenstein, could have cared less whether or not the Beverly story was the truth. They saw Beverly as the key to Jamal's release. In the end, Williams wrote, it was Jamal himself who broke the deadlock and decided not to use Arnold Beverly as a witness. Williams gushed about Jamal's high moral character for choosing not to use a ridiculous fabrication to gain his freedom:
Remarkably, as I reflect on this particular episode, it actually deepened my commitment to this case and heightened my already enormous respect for my client. It became apparent to me that Mumia is far too honorable to propagate a lie upon which to build a case for his freedom.
Dan Williams, Esq., "Executing Justice" (St. Martin's Press, 2001), pp. 328-330.
Outraged and frustrated, Rachel Wolkenstein and Jonathan Piper subsequently left the "Scheme Team".
It wasn't long before Jamal decided that his honor was less important than his hide.
In April 2001, Jamal made an announcement that startled even his most blindly loyal supporters. In a press conference Jamal's new lawyers acknowledged that Leonard Weinglass and Dan Williams had both been fired for alleged ethical breaches. The problem, he claimed, was Williams' book -- "an insiders account" of the Jamal case. Williams said that Jamal had prompted him to write the book, and that Jamal had reviewed it in rough draft and approved of its contents. Jamal and his new attorneys now denied this, and in retribution fired Williams. They also accused Leonard Weinglass, the man who had brought Jamal's case to the forefront of the anti-death-penalty movement around the world, with greedily lining his pockets with exorbitant legal fees charged to Jamal for his services. Weinglass was further labeled a "sell out" and was charged with gross incompetence for, among other things, talking Jamal into not using Arnold Beverly's confession.
In June 2001, Jamal's new lawyers -- Elliot Grossman, Marlene Camish and J. Michael Farrell -- took over the litigation of his Federal Habeas Corpus case from Weinglass and Williams. In a series of desperate, last-gasp legal maneuvers designed to delay the appeals process, Jamal and his new lawyers brought forward -- you guessed it -- Arnold Beverly, the "hit man". A brief was filed asking Federal Court Judge William Yohn to delay his decision until a request could be presented to the Pennsylvania court system to hear the testimony of Arnold Beverly. Jamal's publicity train rolled into Philadelphia in September of 2001. At an open hearing, Jamal's lawyers argued for a new PCRA proceeding (that is, in addition to the ones Jamal had been afforded in 1995, 1996, and 1997), before Judge Pamela Pryor Dembe. Present in the courtroom, and sitting directly across the aisle from Maureen Faulkner and her family members, were Jessie Jackson, Ossie Davis and comedian Dick Gregory. A small crowd (roughly 1,000) of Jamal's diehard supporters were brought in by bus to gather outside the Courthouse. They used the hearing as an opportunity to spew anti-police, anti-government (anti-trade, anti-globalism, etc.) rhetoric over a loudspeaker system. A group of local construction workers displayed for Jamal's out of town supporters the feelings of most Philadelphians when they hung a large banner from a nearby building: FRY MUMIA.
After the hearing, new Jamal lawyer Elliot Grossman addressed the gathering and told them that the hearing had been a legal travesty. He informed the crowd that Jamal's "rights" had been violated once again because Judge Dembe had not permitted him to present the Beverly "evidence" and because Jamal was not permitted to be present in the courtroom. (This was a status hearing, not an evidentiary hearing. Defendants are never allowed to be present during such hearings in Pennsylvania. Grossman, a California lawyer, either did not know this, or purposely misled Jamal's supporters to stoke their emotional fires). Speeches completed, the unruly mob proceeded to stage an illegal march though Philadelphia's city center, snarling traffic for hours as they snaked through the downtown area.
Arnold Beverly's sworn statement (http://www.danielfaulkner.com/original/testimony.html) had, of course, already been released by Jamal's lawyers at their earlier press conference. The statement appears to be a poorly constructed attempt to bring together various elements of testimony given by Jamal's other witnesses. Beverly sketches an absurd "Twilight Zone" scenario in which he and another man murdered Officer Daniel Faulkner in full view of a bunch of Faulkner's fellow Police Officers. Strangely, no one -- not the prosecution eyewitnesses, nor even the many defense witnesses paraded by Jamal since 1995 -- seems to have seen Beverly, or to have seen what Beverly claims happened.
Federal District Court Judge William Yohn and Pennsylvania State Court Judge Pamela Dembe have both rejected Jamal's request to enter Beverly's confession as evidence in the case. Each noted that Jamal was fully aware of Beverly's statement in 1999, and that he had no excuse (and no reason, other than that its false) for not bringing it to the attention of the Court within the legal one-year time limit. They further noted the fact that misguided or disturbed individuals frequently confess to being the "real killer" in high-profile cases years after the fact, and the skeptical view that Courts take of such last-minute confessions.
Yet, armed with Beverly's confession, Jamal's supporters continue to argue that Jamal is innocent, and point to the Court's unwillingness to allow Arnold Beverly to testify as further evidence of an unfair legal system that is hell bent on executing an innocent man.


Brief Rebuttal
Over the past 10 years Mumia Abu-Jamal and his lawyers have presented a variety of alleged eyewitnesses. They have told mutually contradictory stories about what "really happened" the morning Mumia Abu-Jamal shot and killed Officer Daniel Faulkner. The sham that is the Mumia Abu-Jamal defense is compounded when one reviews and understands the testimony of each of the witnesses previously presented by the defense, and compares it to Arnold Beverly's statement. Arnold Beverly's story completely contradicts the testimony of every other witness -- including Jamal's own witnesses.
Beverly contends that he shot Faulkner in the head after Faulkner had already been shot in the back by another person, also supposedly hired to "hit" Faulkner, after which he fled. But not one of the actual eyewitnesses to the shooting (Robert Chobert, Michael Scanlan, Cynthia White, Albert Magilton, Robert Harkins) saw two shooters, or three shooters. They all saw one shooter, who remained on the scene.
Beverly says that he then ran away from the scene going "west on Locust," not "east on the south side of Locust" as Jamal and his lawyers have always contended the "phantom killer" had done. He also says that he ducked down the steps leading to an underground rail line, not up an alley as Jamal and his lawyers have always stated the "real killer" did. No one, not even Jamal's witnesses, claimed to have seen anyone go down these steps.
Arnold Beverly states that he wore a green "army coat." But witnesses said that the shooter wore a "blue and red stripped jacket." That was what Jamal wore.
Further, he alleges that several police officers were present during the shooting and that one of them, not Faulkner, shot Jamal. But ballistic tests prove that the bullet removed from Jamal's body matches Faulkner's gun, to the exclusion of all other guns in the world.
Beverly states that he used either a .22 or a .38 caliber "Police Special" to kill Faulkner. (For more on the .44 caliber Myth go to The Myths About Mumia, Myth #1 (http://www.danielfaulkner.com/original/Pages/MYTH1.html)). The .38 caliber bullet that killed Officer Faulkner was not fired from a "Police Special" revolver.
So who are we to believe? Well, lets see. Though he was invisible to every witness for the prosecution and the defense, Arnold Beverly says he is the "real killer" and that he ran west on Locust and down a subway entrance. In direct contradiction to every other eyewitness William Singletary says the "real killer" ran east on Locust Street. "Bippy" Harmon says the "real killer" drove away in a car. While Robert Harkins says the "real killer" fell to the "pavement" after firing the fatal shot: A scenario that is supported by the initial statements and trial testimony of 4 other eyewitnesses who have each repeatedly been deemed "credible" by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
Jamal's new lawyers are attempting to re-package and sell Mumia Abu-Jamal to a new set of buyers. But when the facts are reviewed, it is abundantly clear that Arnold Beverly is nothing more than the newest in a long line of phony "last minute" witnesses that have been trotted out by Jamal each year in order to extend and abuse the appeals process and prolong his life.


FACTS SUPPORTING OUR REBUTTAL
To fully grasp the sham that Jamal is trying to perpetrate by using Arnold Beverly as a witness, you must understand the details of his past defense.


A CHRONOLOGY OF THE JAMAL DEFENSE
At the 1982 trial, Jamal's attorney, Anthony Jackson, did not present a single witness that was able to refute the testimony of the prosecution's four legitimate eyewitnesses. Instead, Jackson mounted a passive defense by attempting to discredit the prosecution's witnesses by focusing on minor discrepancies in their testimony as it compared to the initial statements they had given to police.
In 1990, a new legal team was assembled to represent Mumia Abu-Jamal in his bid for freedom. Dubbed "The Scheme Team" by local Philadelphia press, it was comprised of six attorneys: Leftist attorney Leonard Weinglass who functioned as Jamal's lead counsel; Dan Williams who was the lead strategist; attorney Jonathan Piper; American Socialist Workers Party attorney Rachel Wolkenstein; Steven Hawkins, of the National Conference of Black Lawyers; and local counsel David Rudovsky.
Though his client had been found at the scene just 40 seconds after the shooting with an emptied gun at his side, for the next ten years Weinglass, who functioned as Jamal's chief propagandist and spokesperson, traveled the world telling anyone who would listen that Jamal was innocent. To validate Jamal's alleged innocence Weinglass told a story that was completely contradicted by the evidence (which established that Jamal ran to the scene, shot Faulkner, was shot himself, and slumped to the pavement as he attempted to flee). Weinglass' fictional story has become a legend among Jamal's zealous followers. Until recently, the pro-Jamal storyline went like this.
Officer Faulkner stopped a VW that was driven by Jamal's younger brother, William Cook. He ordered Cook out of the car. Cook complied. For some unexplained reason, Faulkner began "brutally beating" Cook with a flashlight. Jamal, in his "gypsy" taxicab in a parking lot directly across the street, seeing his brother attacked, exited his car and ran to the scene. As he crossed the street, Faulkner turned away from Cook, pulled his gun and fired a shot into Jamal's chest. According to Weinglass, at that moment, someone exited Cook's VW from the passenger side. The "phantom" shoots Officer Faulkner and runs from the scene, according to Weinglass, going "east on the south side of Locust Street to a place where an alleyway intersects Locust."
To prove this scenario and to support his other claims of innocence, Jamal and his attorneys produced three alleged eyewitnesses to the shooting at the 1995 PCRA hearing -- William Singletary, William "Bippy" Harmon and Robert Harkins. They told the press and Jamal's supporters that these "new" eyewitnesses would blow the prosecution's case wide open and prove Jamal's innocence.


1) WILLIAM SINGLETARY
Jamal's first alleged exculpatory "eyewitness" was William Singletary. Mr. Singletary had given a statement to police within a few hours of the killing. In it, he said he did not see the shooting, but that afterward he saw two men (i.e., Jamal and his brother) near the fallen officer.
Having repeatedly met with Jamal's attorneys, by 1995, Singletary told a very different tale that directly contradicted his 1981 statement.
Well, I brought my car, parked my car at the southwest corner of 13th and Locust. I got out to go over to the club Whispers. The doors were locked. I came back across the street. There was a Volkswagen that was going south on 13th Street. He made a left turn onto Locust. Pulled over to the curb immediately. There was a police car that pulled behind the Volkswagen. The driver of the Volkswagen got out. The police officer got out and immediately at that point the police officer was frisking the driver of the Volkswagen.
There was an occupant in the Volkswagen on the passenger side started yelling and screaming, saying a lot of things. He had a long Army, umm, overcoat on. He came from the car, stuck his hand in his right pocket, and pulled a gun.
I immediately moved over to the highspeed line, the barrier there, and I ducked. I heard a pop. I ducked, I looked. And the, uhh, when I looked over I saw the guy again point the gun in the direction of the police officer, firing into his face.
And I saw the second shot the police officer fell backwards. This tall guy with dreadlocks looked at his right, looked to his left, placed the gun in the Volkswagen, started running. The guy who was driving the Volkswagen then started yelling a name or something and started chasing this guy.
I peered over to see, I peeped over to see if there was anything I could do for the officer. And I started backing up. There was a, the guy there said he was a cab driver [Chobert] and asked me what was that sound he heard. And I said the police officer was just shot, we need to get him help right away. And as I was talking to him he went towards the police car to make a call. Just to tell them the police officer was down and we would need help right away.
And I went back, started back towards to see the officer, then another gentleman came across the street. He wasn't as tall as the first guy. He had dreadlocks and he had said this is my brother's car, where is my brother? I said I don't know. I said there was two guys that took off running. I said the tall guy shot the police officer, took off running.
And he said, my God, we don't need this, and he started to went over to the cop, is there anything I could do, anything I could do to help you? And he was laying forward, bending forward. And the police officer's gun, which was in his lap, discharged, striking him in the chest or someplace. And he screamed I'm shot, I'm shot. He staggered against the back of the Volkswagen.
And then there was sirens and everything was becoming chaotic then. I was just like, you know. That's what I wrote down in the report."
N.T. 8/11/95, 234-237.
According to Singletary, as Jamal approached "to offer assistance," Officer Faulkner -- who had already been shot in the head and was lying on the sidewalk against a wall -- suddenly raised his hand and shot Jamal in the chest. Singletary claimed that he personally approached Officer Faulkner at this point and heard him speak. He claims he heard Officer Faulkner say,
"Get Maureen, and get the children."
N.T. 8/11/95, 270
Singletary was the featured "eyewitness" in the 1996 HBO-TV docudrama, "A Case for Reasonable Doubt."
And yet ... months before the HBO piece went to production, Leonard Weinglass, Jamal's own attorney, had admitted in open court that William Singletary was not credible.
[T]his is a witness who is a person whose recollection of what happened on the night in question we believe to be not entirely accurate. We believe his recollection today is not entirely accurate. We believe his recollection which was given in a sworn statement in 1990 was not entirely accurate..."
N.T. 8/11/95, 9-10.
Singletary went on to tell the Court that, immediately after the final shot was fired "Captains and Lieutenants" emerged from the shadows. When asked what those individuals did when the first patrol car responding to Faulkner's call for backup arrived, Singletary said they "disappeared".
Singletary claimed that he had seen a police helicopter hovering overhead, shining its light on the scene. The problem was, there was no helicopter. The police did not even own one then. Among dozens of individuals on the scene during the shooting, or who ran there immediately thereafter, among all those interviewed, only Singletary saw a helicopter shining its light on events below. And he didn't remember seeing it until thirteen years after the murder.
Well, who knows, maybe there was a chopper that only Singletary could see. But there were other problems with Singletary's testimony that were less open to interpretation. The events testified to by Singletary defied the physical facts.

Both the prosecution and defense medical experts agreed that Officer Faulkner died instantly from his head wound. Being dead, Faulkner could not subsequently have spoken to anyone, nor could he have raised his arm, pulled the trigger on his gun, and shot Jamal in the chest as Jamal approached to offer assistance, as Singletary claimed.

Singletary said that William Cook's passenger threw his gun next to the Volkswagen driven by Cook. But the only guns on the ground were Faulkner's gun and the five-shot .38 registered to Jamal. (Jamal was apprehended wearing an empty shoulder holster.)

Singletary's account said that Officer Faulkner was shot only from the front. But Faulkner had also been shot in the back. There was an entrance wound in his upper back that exited near his neck.

Singletary said that Faulkner was shot from a distance of five to ten feet. Trace metal tests proved that he was shot from a distance of less than two feet.

Singletary claimed that Jamal was wearing an Arab-style "safari suit." In fact, Jamal wore a pair of normal pants, a shirt and a red and blue striped jacket.
Singletary said a lot of things that just could not be true -- which never stopped Jamal from relying on him. Thus, according to Jamal, Singletary was telling the truth when he claimed that the "true" shooter got out of Cook's car. But Arnold Beverly, the new "true shooter" -- who Jamal also says is telling the truth -- claims he was standing in the street. Singletary said the "true shooter" ran down the street. Beverly, the new "true shooter," says he ran down the speedline steps.


2) WILLIAM "BIPPY" HARMON
The second alleged "eyewitness" presented at the 1995 PCRA hearing by Jamal's "Scheme Team" was William "Bippy" Harmon. Mr. Harmon was a 52 year-old career criminal and pimp who, nearly 15 years after the killing, approached Jamal's attorneys claiming that he had witnessed the entire Faulkner shooting in 1982. At the time of the hearing Harmon was serving a sentence for drug dealing in a Pennsylvania state prison. He took the stand and proceeded to tell a tale that was patently impossible. His story also directly contradicted the story, told just days before, by Jamal's other witness, William Singletary. (If you fail to see the logic in presenting two witnesses to tell mutually contradictory stories, you are not alone.)
According to Harmon, on the morning of December 9, 1981, he and Jamal -- whom he admittedly knew well -- had met outside a bar across the street from the murder scene. Harmon said that he and Jamal were walking across 13th Street away from the bar when Jamal saw a traffic stop on the corner of 13th and Locust. Then Jamal suddenly began to walk through the parking lot on the corner of 13th and Locust towards the police officer and the man he had stopped. While Jamal was still in the parking lot, a shot was fired. According to Harmon, after this shot was fired he "seen the officer fall" (N.T. 8/10/95, 63). Then, Harmon said, Jamal continued walking across Locust Street to the spot where Office Faulkner had fallen. Harmon claimed he heard a second shot fired and saw Jamal fall to the ground. (N.T. 8/190/95, 63). He explained that Faulkner was on the ground "laying against a wall" when he shot Jamal. Then, paralleling the "phantom shooter" scenario, which by then had been well-publicized by Weinglass, Harmon said he had seen someone running east on the south side of Locust Street.
Well, so far so good. But it was at this point that "Bippy" got carried away, and his story started to unravel. It seems that he saw two phantom shooters, one coming right after the other, as if on a conveyor belt:
After I heard the second shot and I seen Mumia fall, a car came up beside him. And a guy got out of the car and pointed a gun at the cop and shot again, got in the car, backed the car up to 13th Street, and went down 13th Street the wrong way. They went, it went south on 13th.
(N.T. 8/10/95, 68).
Harmon added that before shooting Jamal, Officer Faulkner had said, "You son of a bitch you." Harmon then claimed that the long-haired man who supposedly drove up and shot the officer also said these exact same words, "You son of a bitch you" (N.T. 8/10/95, 99, 107).
Aside from its sheer silliness, there were a few things wrong with Harmon's story.
Harmon said that Jamal was in the middle of Locust Street, "10 feet" away from Faulkner when the second shot was fired. (N.T. 8/10/82, 65). But the physical evidence proved that Jamal was shot from a distance no greater than 2 feet. Jamal's own pathologist, while testifying in 1995, acknowledged that the downward angle of Jamal's wound made it impossible for him to have been shot, while he was standing, by a person sitting on the ground, as Harmon claimed.
Contradicting William Singletary, Harmon said that the "real killer" drove up in a car, got out, shot Faulkner in the head, then sped away going "south on Locust" (although Locust runs east and west). But none of the eyewitnesses, including the other witnesses presented by Jamal, claimed to see a car drive up to the scene, disgorge a gunman, and then drive away.
Harmon said that he knew William Cook, and that Cook was not there. But Cook was there. Like Jamal, he had remained at the scene (N.T. 8/10/95, 67).
Harmon said the "real killer" had a "Johnny Mathis" hair style. Like Singletary and his helicopter, Harmon was the only one to see a killer with "Johnny Mathis" hair. Several actual eyewitnesses said the killer had dreadlocks, like Jamal had.
Arnold Beverly and his mysterious partner, we are now told, was waiting on the street to ambush Officer Faulkner. But Harmon said that the real killer drove up in a car. Beverly says he ran down the speedline steps and escaped underground. Harmon said the real killer drove away in a car.


3) ROBERT HARKINS
This brings us to the final eyewitness presented by Jamal and his attorneys -- a surprise defense witness who ended up being a witness for the prosecution.
Robert Harkins was a cab driver who was heading east on Locust Street when he saw Jamal run across the street in front of him. Harkins stopped his cab just 25 feet away from the scene. He gave a statement to the police an hour after the shooting, at 5:20 AM:
"I looked over and observed a police officer grab a guy, the guy spun around and the officer went to the ground. He had his hands on the ground and then rolled over at this time and the male who was standing over the officer pointed a gun at the officer and fired one shot and then he fired a second shot. At this time the officer moved a little and then went flat to the ground. I heard a total of three shots and saw what appeared to be three flashes from the gun of the man standing over the officer."
Harkins essentially duplicated what the other eyewitnesses had described, and was not called as a witness at the 1982 trial. In 1994, however, Harkins agreed to give a statement to Jamal's investigators, and was called by Jamal's lawyers to testify at the 1995 PCRA hearing.
According to Jamal's lawyers, Mr. Harkins would testify about some type of police malfeasance regarding a photo line-up. But when Harkins took the stand, Jamal's lawyers began to question him about the shooting. The prosecution objected to this, because witnesses are not supposed to testify to topics not outlined in advance. Judge Albert Sabo overruled the prosecution's objection.
But Harkins proved to be decidedly unhelpful to Jamal. First, he scolded Jamal's lawyers for lying about what he had told them. "[E]very time I say something you come back with something different than what I say to you, and I do not like that." Then, while being questioned by Jamal's attorney, Dan Williams, Mr. Harkins did not say that the shooter ran off. Instead, he testified that, immediately after the shooting, he saw the gunman sit on the curb (N.T. 8/2/95, 205-228).
Harkins: "The cop and the - they was like wrestling a little bit and the cop fell down."
Williams: "Then what happened."
Harkins: "Well, he leaned over and two, two to three flashes from the gun. But then he walked, and sat down on the curb."
Williams: "The guy who did the shooting walked and sat down on the curb?"
Harkins: "On the pavement."
N.T. 8/2/95, 208-209
Instead of supporting the myth that the "real killer" had run from the scene, Harkins's testimony further corroborated Jamal's guilt. At trial, Officer Shoemaker, the first officer on the scene, testified that he arrived moments after the shooting and found Jamal sitting on the curb, his gun inches from his hand (N.T. 6/19/82, 115). Prosecution witness Robert Chobert testified that Jamal, after shooting the victim in the face, walked 30-35 steps to the curb and fell (N.T. 6/19/82, 211-212). Prosecution witness Cynthia White said the same thing and Albert Magilton testified that, after the shooting, he saw the officer lying on the ground and someone else on the curb, whom he later identified as Jamal (N.T. 6/25/82, 6.75-8.79, 8.98, 8.138). Now Harkins, who Leonard Weinglass had said "was maybe the closest person to the shooting," confirmed that Jamal was the shooter (N.T. 8/2/95, 220).
Today, when confronted with Robert Harkin's devastating testimony, Jamal's supporters and his lawyers simply deny its existence.


4) ARNOLD BEVERLY
And finally we come to Arnold Beverly.
The "phantom killer" myth had been smashed by Jamal's own 1995 witnesses. It lay in pieces for nearly 4 years until, in 1999, Arnold Beverly, the supposed Mafia hitman, approached Jamal's "Scheme Team" and told them he was the "real" killer.
The most revealing perspective on this "new evidence" comes from Jamal's own lawyer. Daniel R. Williams, Esq., wrote:
In the spring of 1999, over seventeen years after the killing and nearly four years after the lengthy hearings before [Judge] Sabo, [Jamal attorneys] Rachel [Wolkenstein] and Jon [Piper] announced that they had discovered yet another "explosive new witness." According to them, this new witness would testify that he and another unidentified individual received money from the mob to kill Officer Faulkner. The killing, however, was not to be a mob hit; rather, the mob was merely some sort of conduit for a killing which was sought out by high-level officials within the Philadelphia police department. Although the details were never fleshed out completely, this new account portrayed Officer Faulkner as an inside informant for federal authorities investigating corruption within the department. Exposed as such, Faulkner became the target of corrupt police officials who feared that he would be their ultimate undoing. According to this new witness, Faulkner was killed at the behest of corrupt Philadelphia officers to silence him.
When I heard the story at a defense team meeting at Len's loft, I bit my lip to avoid another unpleasant argument with Rachel. Actually, I was enraged, convinced that bona fide lunacy had set in. When the meeting ended, I stayed behind to speak further with Len, fearful that we were close to ruining years of work and threatening to extinguish Mumia's hopes for justice.
"Are you seriously considering this?" I asked. Len was visibly distressed. He had been aware for a few months that Rachel was working on bringing this witness around to helping the defense. He agreed that the story was insane, but Rachel had already lobbied Mumia, as she had when Singletary was the issue. Concerned that Mumia would insist upon our presenting this evidence, Len sought out ways to push this witness onto the trash heap without further rupturing the defense team. We even had the witness undergo several lie detector tests (with mixed results, which further complicated the situation). Most frightening, the story somehow leaked out and was mentioned in a major attack piece on the pro-Mumia movement published in Vanity Fair in August 1999.
But what if Mumia wanted the witness? On the one hand I felt that he was absolutely entitled to present him, because it was his life on the line. On the other hand, a lawyer must protect his client against his own tendency to destroy himself, especially in a capital case where desperation might cause a client to opt for an irrational course of action. But even if Mumia's wishes prevailed, that didn't mean he was entitled to have a particular lawyer do it for him. I made it clear to Len that I would not participate in what I regarded as an assisted suicide. I have to admit, I also wasn't about to embarrass myself by running with such a patently outrageous story on the most visible death penalty case in the world. I don't know Len's analysis of the situation, but he ended up with the same conclusion: if Mumia wanted the witness, he'd have to get another lawyer to present him.
Rachel and Jon took the same position, but on the flip side: If we convinced Mumia not to use this witness, then they would leave the defense team. Jon presented his position exactly as I presented mine: he too would not stand by and watch a client make a decision that might result in his death. He accused Len, Steve, and me of becoming the first death penalty lawyers in history who turned their back on an exculpatory witness. It was a shallow analysis inasmuch as it totally ignored the implausibility, if not the absurdity, of the story that we were rejecting.
Rachel and Jon are no longer on the case. They ceased their involvement in August of 1999, after Mumia decided that he would not demand that we use this witness. In retrospect, I feel somewhat ashamed for even thinking that Mumia would opt to pin his hopes for a new trial on such an absurd account. An innocent man on death row might grab at anything to get justice; but I should have had faith that Mumia would never get that desperate.
Remarkably, as I reflect on this particular episode, it actually deepened my commitment to this case and heightened my already enormous respect for my client. It became apparent to me that Mumia is far too honorable to propagate a lie upon which to build a case for his freedom.
Dan Williams, Esq., "Executing Justice" (St. Martin's Press, 2001), pp. 328-330.
Jamal may have been "too honorable" to rely on a lie in 1999, but it didn't last. By 2001 he decided that it would be better to try to lie his way out of his predicament.
Jamal fired Williams and his other lawyers, and hired a brand new group -- call them "Scheme Team Two." In May 2001, Jamal's new lawyers loudly brought forth Arnold Beverly -- Jamal's fourth and newest alleged eyewitness. They held a press conference in which they presented Beverly's version of events. In direct contradiction to the stories told by the previous three alleged eyewitnesses presented by Jamal at the 1995 PCRA hearing (Harmon, Singletary and Harkins), Arnold Beverly told a story right out of a Twilight Zone episode. The following are the substantive portions of Arnold Beverly's statement (http://www.danielfaulkner.com/original/testimony.html) regarding his absurd version of the killing.
According to Arnold Beverly's statement, he and another man were hired "by the mob and corrupt police officers" to kill Officer Daniel Faulkner "because he was interfering with the graft and payoffs made to allow illegal activity including prostitution, gambling and drugs without prosecution in the center city area." Beverly claims that Faulkner was first shot in the back, then in the face "before Jamal came on the scene". He further alleges that Mumia Abu-Jamal had nothing to do with Faulkner's murder.
Beverly states that he and his unnamed partner never actually mounted any surveillance of Faulkner prior to the "hit". Instead, Beverly explains, his employers showed him a picture of Faulkner and told him that Faulkner would be looking into a police matter at "Johnny D's" bar in the area of 13th and Locust on the morning of December 9, 1981. It was their plan to use this as an opportunity to kill Faulkner. According to Beverly, in addition to the .22 caliber handgun he carried, his mystery partner gave him a ".38 caliber policeman's Special" handgun to do the job.
On the morning of December 9th Beverly was wearing a "green army jacket". He alleges he was not alone while "waiting at the entrance to a Speedline [subway]" for Faulkner to arrive; with him were two "undercover police officers" standing nearby and an additional "uniformed officer" who was parked across the street in a patrol car. Beverly claims that each of these officers remained at the scene as the Faulkner shooting took place. Beverly claims not to have been alarmed by the presence of these officers because he "knew" this was a "hit" that was sanctioned by the police themselves and that they were there to "help" with the killing.
According to Beverly, Faulkner did not approach "Johnny D's" as expected. Instead, Faulkner exited his patrol car and approached William Cook's car. Someone then fired a shot into Faulkner's back. Faulkner fell to one knee on the sidewalk next to Cook's car. Beverly states that someone fired a second shot and that this shot grazed his left shoulder. He claims to have then run across the street towards the fallen officer and fired a shot into Faulkner's face "at close range" as he lay on the pavement.
Beverly remained at the scene for a period long enough to see the following:
"Cop cars came from all directions. Foot patrol also arrived. I saw a white shirt getting out of a car in the middle of the 13th and Locust intersection just as I was going down to the speedline steps."
According to Beverly, he also saw Jamal arrive on the scene after he had already shot Faulkner. He contends that Jamal was an innocent by-stander who was shot, not by Faulkner, but by one of the officers who arrived at the scene after the fatal shot had already been fired.


SO, WHAT'S WRONG WITH BEVERLY'S STORY?
Arnold Beverly is clearly a liar put forth by Jamal to prolong the appeals process. Virtually every aspect of Beverly's story flies in the face of all the physical evidence. Further, it directly contradicts the testimony of the prosecution's eyewitnesses, each of whom has repeatedly been deemed to have testified "credibly" by the Supreme Court. Most importantly though, is the fact that Beverly's story directly contradicts the testimony given by Jamal's own witnesses! Apparently Jamal and his new band of lawyers seemed to believe that nobody would remember the three mutually contradictory stories previously offered by their other 3 alleged "eyewitnesses".
So lets take a moment to compare the story offered by Arnold Beverly as it relates to the testimony given to the Court by Jamal's witnesses over the past ten years. According to Beverly, he was standing at the corner of 13th and Locust with two "detectives" at the moment the first shot was fired. This seems to be a lame attempt by Jamal to tie Beverly to William Singletary, who stated that after the shooting "Captains and Lieutenants appeared" from the darkness and that they "disappeared" once the first car arrived at the scene. But Singletary is the only person -- including not just the prosecution eyewitnesses, but also every witness called by Jamal -- to have seen police officers standing around the scene during the murder.
Further, no one -- not even Jamal's own witnesses -- seems to have been able to see Beverly. Was he able to turn himself invisible? Were the uniformed police officers that Beverly claims were loitering at the scene able to turn themselves invisible too?
They all must have been able to turn themselves invisible -- since not even Jamal or his brother has claimed to have seen them.
Beverly's claim that he used either a .22 or a ".38 police special" to shoot Faulkner is the most humorous part of his unbelievable story. This is because, to this day, Jamal's unthinking supporters insist that the fatal bullet was a .44 caliber. (For more information on the .44 caliber lie see Myth #1 (http://www.danielfaulkner.com/original/Pages/MYTH1.html)). In reality, Officer Faulkner was killed with a .38 caliber bullet. The bullet was deformed, but ballistics tests showed that it was marked with the same pattern of lands and grooves as the barrel of the Charter Arms pistol -- it was not a "police special" -- registered to Jamal. The same gun that contained five spent shells. And the same gun that Jamal tried to pick up and use against Officer Shoemaker when he arrived on the scene.
Beverly claims that he wore an "army jacket" that morning. But eyewitnesses to the shooting testified that the killer wore "distinctive" red and blue stripes. Just as Jamal had that morning.
Beverly claims that Jamal was shot by someone other than Officer Faulkner. But ballistics tests -- tests that have never even been challenged by Jamal -- proved that the bullet that hit him came from Officer Faulkner's gun, to the exclusion of every other firearm in the world.
Beverly claims that he ran west on Locust and down a speedline entrance. This story directly contradicts every other witness, for both the defense and the prosecution. The eyewitnesses said that the shooter remained on the scene. The story told by Jamal's lawyers since 1995 was that the "real" killer "ran east on the south side of Locust Street" and went into an alley.
Out of the literally dozens of witnesses to testify over the course of twenty years, not a single one has claimed to see Beverly, or any of the strange things Beverly describes. A review of the testimony of these witnesses confirms that Arnold Beverly is a liar and exposes the pathetic scam that Mumia Abu-Jamal and his lawyers are selling regarding his alleged "innocence". If one reviews the trial record posted at www.justice4danielfaulkner.com (http://www.justice4danielfaulkner.com/) they will find the following:
Alleged "eyewitness" William Singletary said the "real killer" ran east up Locust Street.
Alleged "eyewitness" William "Bippy" Harmon said the real killer drove away in a car.
Robert Chobert, an actual eyewitness to the killing, said the "real killer" ran several steps and fell to the ground in the exact spot that police apprehended Jamal.
Robert Harkins, also an actual eyewitness to the killing and a witness presented by Jamal, also said that the "real killer" shot Officer Faulkner and then "fell on the pavement" in the exact spot Jamal was apprehended with his emptied gun at his side, just seconds later.
Add to this list prosecution witnesses, Cynthia White and Albert Magilton -- each of whom was unquestionably an eyewitness to Faulkner's murder -- who, like Chobert and Harkins, said that the "real killer" fell to the ground in the spot where Jamal was apprehended.


CONCLUSION
Jamal's supporters don't like facts. But when the facts are reviewed it becomes abundantly clear that Arnold Beverly is just another in a long line of scams, yet another transparent attempt by Jamal and his lawyers to create the illusion that he is the innocent victim of a racist police frame up. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Just as Arnold Beverly is a liar, Mumia Abu-Jamal is a guilty and remorseless killer.

[afronaut]

I have no idea what the details of this case are, and thus I really have no opinion one way or the other. Though I say, if new evidence is available, and if he was given an unfair trial, he should be given a retrial. If he's guilty, then he'll stay guilty and stay in jail where he belongs. If he's not guilty, then hopefully there will be one less innocent person in jail.

Either way, there are a ton of other innocent, or at least non-deserving, people in jail right now. Why don't we make slogans for them, also? Is a harmless victim of some absurd "war on drugs" any less deserving of a slogan than some guy who may have killed someone?

[DroppinScience]

You guys are discussing the bombing of that neighborhood, which apparently took place in 1985.

But the Faulkner shooting was in 1982. How can this case be used as a context for the police/black community turf war that led us to this shooting if this didn't occur til LATER?

And with all due respect to Faulkner's widow, the execution of Mumia (even if he is guilty as sin) will not bring about closure.

I half wonder what this board's attitude would have looked like during the '90s when the "Free Mumia!" movement was big, and bands such as the Beastie Boys and Rage Against the Machine were behind it.

[RobMoney$]

I half wonder what this board's attitude would have looked like during the '90s when the "Free Mumia!" movement was big, and bands such as the Beastie Boys and Rage Against the Machine were behind it.


Thank God I wasn't around here in those days.

Believe it or not, I promised myself I wasn't going to respond to this thread when I first saw it.

[alien autopsy]

You guys are discussing the bombing of that neighborhood, which apparently took place in 1985.

But the Faulkner shooting was in 1982. How can this case be used as a context for the police/black community turf war that led us to this shooting if this didn't occur til LATER?

And with all due respect to Faulkner's widow, the execution of Mumia (even if he is guilty as sin) will not bring about closure.

I half wonder what this board's attitude would have looked like during the '90s when the "Free Mumia!" movement was big, and bands such as the Beastie Boys and Rage Against the Machine were behind it.

the bomb dropping was a product of the high-tension-atmosphere. it just goes to show how far the local government and law enforcement would go in the race wars that were going on from the 70's and 80's. its all part of the same context.

[alien autopsy]

rob, what was the source to all that material?

[RobMoney$]

the bomb dropping was a product of the high-tension-atmosphere. it just goes to show how far the local government and law enforcement would go in the race wars that were going on from the 70's and 80's. its all part of the same context.


Please stop making assumptions.

How can you make a case for the bomb dropping being racially motivated when the guy who ultimately made the call to drop it was black?
Was he racist aginst himself?


Here's a link to my source for all of that info. I posted it previously, but I could tell you didn't bother to look.
DanielFaulkner.com (http://www.danielfaulkner.com/)

[QueenAdrock]

I half wonder what this board's attitude would have looked like during the '90s when the "Free Mumia!" movement was big, and bands such as the Beastie Boys and Rage Against the Machine were behind it.


I was behind their "Free Tibet" rallies because I thought it was a noble cause...when I read the facts about the "Free Mumia" stuff, I just got kind of confused as to why they would choose such a cause to get behind. Like I've said, when I hear people say "Free Mumia!" as opposed to "Give Mumia a fair trial!" it makes me cringe, and the Beastie Boys getting behind the movement was no different.

To me, the evidence is extremely controversial and to jump to the conclusion that he should just be set free is a bad one.

[RobMoney$]

I have no idea what the details of this case are, and thus I really have no opinion one way or the other. Though I say, if new evidence is available, and if he was given an unfair trial, he should be given a retrial. If he's guilty, then he'll stay guilty and stay in jail where he belongs. If he's not guilty, then hopefully there will be one less innocent person in jail.

Here's an account of the story
DanielFaulkner.com (http://www.danielfaulkner.com/original/indexcasehistory.html)

CASE HISTORY

On December 9, 1981 a Philadelphia Police Officer was shot and killed. That officer, twenty five-year-old Daniel Faulkner, was a decorated five-year veteran of the police force. He was recently married, a law student and a U.S. military veteran. He was also a son and a brother.

When police arrived, the shooter was still at the scene. His name was Wesley Cook, AKA Mumia Abu-Jamal. Jamal had grown up in Philadelphia, where he spent his youth as an "apprentice of Revolutionary Journalism". Jamal claims to have been harassed by Philadelphia police at a young age. He joined the Black Panther Party as a teenager and, upon completion of his "training," he eventually rose to the level of Lieutenant Minister of Information for the Panther's Philadelphia chapter. According to Jamal, he used this position to call for a violent race-based revolution. He wrote such things as, "I for one feel like putting down my pen. Let's write epitaphs for pigs" -- "pigs" meaning "police." Referring to alleged police shootings of blacks, Jamal wrote, "the pigs must suffer the same relentless rebuttal from us."

Prior to his murder of Officer Faulkner, Mumia Abu-Jamal had bounced from radio station to radio station as a part-time news reader. He gained a certain amount of notoriety in Philadelphia's inner-city African American community as a result of his perspective on social issues. He often left such radio jobs because of his inability to comply with the program manager's wishes, and for making no attempt at objectivity in his reporting. Jamal eventually found work as a part-time reporter at WUHY-FM, Philadelphia's National Public Radio (NPR) affiliate. In addition to becoming the President of the Black Journalists Association, during the 1970s Jamal also supported a militant urban radical group known as MOVE. He naturally gravitated to MOVE's anti-government, anti-police manifesto. In 1978, three years prior to the Faulkner murder, several members of MOVE murdered another Philadelphia policeman, Officer James Ramp, during a lengthy gun battle with police.

The MOVE members who killed Officer Ramp were tried, convicted and sentenced to long prison terms. Jamal attended the MOVE trial as an allegedly objective WUHY reporter. But according to several sources, as each day's testimony was completed, Jamal would dash outside the courtroom to hand out pro-MOVE propaganda to his colleges from other stations. According to several of Jamal's friends and associates, after the trial, he began to publicly rail against the conviction of the MOVE members and to openly support MOVE and its founder, a man who called himself John Africa. (All MOVE members, it seems, adopt the surname "Africa"). Nearly a year before he murdered Officer Faulkner, Jamal had been fired from his part-time position at WHUY-FM. According to statements made by his manager, Jamal's termination was prompted by his extremist rhetoric, his inability to remain objective, and for several work related violations.

On the morning he murdered Officer Daniel Faulkner, Mumia Abu-Jamal had not worked as a reporter for nearly a year. By all accounts, he had become a media pariah in Philadelphia, and was working as a cab driver.

In June of 1982 a trial was convened to hear the case against Mumia Abu-Jamal. The fact that this was a police murder combined with Jamal's notoriety in Philadelphia's inner city caused the trial to be highly publicized. The case was heard in a crowded courtroom in Philadelphia's nearly 100 year-old City Hall. Members of the Police Department, the Faulkner family, Jamal's family and various groups supporting Jamal filled the gallery each day of the six-week trial. Judge Albert Sabo presided over, and tried to maintain control over, a tension-filled proceeding.

In the 1982 courtroom, acts of civil disobedience, shouting, chanting, violent outbursts, disruptions, forced removals, fist fights and threats by Jamal's supporters were daily occurrences. Jamal regularly disrupted the proceedings to espouse his support for MOVE and its leader, John Africa. Due to his intentionally disruptive actions he was physically removed from the courtroom over 13 times. Throughout the jury selection process and the trial itself, Mumia Abu-Jamal directed a continuing verbal barrage against the prosecutor, the judge, and even his own personally selected attorney.

On July 3rd 1982, having heard all the evidence against him, it took a racially mixed jury of 12 people that Mumia Abu-Jamal personally helped to select, just 3 hours to unanimously convicted him of the premeditated murder of Officer Daniel Faulkner. The sentencing phase of the trial saw the same jury unanimously sentence Jamal to death in Pennsylvania's electric chair for his crime.

For the next several years, Mumia Abu-Jamal slipped into anonymity on Pennsylvania's Death Row. His conviction was appealed, reviewed, and denied by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in March of 1989. Subsequently, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear his case.

Through a series of promotions and personal introductions, Jamal's case was taken up as a "cause celeb" by a sampling of social action groups. In Jamal, the anti-Death Penalty movement felt that it had, for the first time, an articulate and educated black man (a journalist, no less) to serve as an example of the supposed unjustness of the system. In 1990, Jamal's appeal was taken over by a new group of attorneys. Leonard Weinglass, a protÈgÈ of noted radical mouthpiece William Kunstler, headed Jamal's new team of lawyers.

Weinglass had made a career of representing various leftist radicals accused of various crimes. Some of Weinglass' better-known clients include Abby Hoffman, several individuals convicted of kidnapping Patty Hearst, the Chicago Seven and Daniel Elsberg. Mumia Abu-Jamal is not the first "cop killer" that Weinglass has represented. He has taken on several clients convicted of killing police officers, most notably Leonard Peltier, who was convicted of killing several FBI agents.

Throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s, Pennsylvania's governor Robert Casey stalled the appeal process by refusing to sign Jamal's death warrant. On Thursday June 1, 1995, Pennsylvania's new governor, Tom Ridge, signed Mumia Abu-Jamal's death warrant and set August 17, 1995 as his execution date. Ridge's action prompted a sudden flurry of long-deferred appeals. The following Monday, Jamal's new attorneys filed a petition for a hearing under Pennsylvania's Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA). Statements made by defense witnesses verify that Jamal's lawyers had been holding this step in readiness for several years in order to insure a maximum period of delay of Jamal's execution. (Jamal's attorneys allege that Ridge somehow knew exactly when they intended to file this appeal, and contrived to sign the Death Warrant only days beforehand, supposedly for the purpose of making it look like they had been stalling. It is unclear why the Governor would want to go to such trouble in order to arrange such a purely symbolic gesture).

PCRA hearings are designed to afford the convicted an opportunity to either prove their innocence or show that the appeal process somehow missed the fact that they were unconstitutionally imprisoned. The PCRA appeal is heard before a Common Pleas Court Judge, who serves as a "fact finder" for future State and Federal Appeals. This "fact finder" is charged with hearing the arguments presented by the defense and the rebuttal to those arguments offered by the prosecution. The arguments made by the defendant and their attorney may be made in reference to old testimony, newly discovered evidence and the testimony of "newly discovered" witnesses, who were not known to the defendant at the time of the original trial. Having reviewed the newly discovered evidence and testimony, the presiding judge, who also has the authority to overturn a conviction or sentence, reaches factual findings and legal conclusions. In a capital case, the PCRA court's decision may be appealed directly to the State Supreme Court.

Mumia Abu-Jamal's PCRA Hearing was convened in June, of 1995. Because he had presided at the 1982 trial and he was still a sitting judge, the case was assigned under local rules of court to Judge Albert Sabo. Though Judge Sabo had honorably presided over the original trail, Jamal's attorneys argued that Sabo should voluntarily remove himself from the PCRA proceedings for reasons of alleged bias against Jamal. Judge Sabo declined, stating that he was unbiased and quite capable of objectively presiding over the hearing. Dissatisfied, Jamal's attorneys asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to remove Judge Sabo from presiding over the PCRA hearing. The State Supreme Court reviewed this request, as well as the record of the 1982 trial, and determined that Sabo had not displayed any bias against Jamal in 1982. They denied Jamal's removal request and cleared the way for Sabo to preside over the ensuing PCRA hearings.

The 1995 PCRA hearing -- such hearings usually take less than a week to complete -- ground on for over two months. Much of the 1995 hearing was held in the same courtroom as the original trial had been, 13 years earlier. As in the 1982 trial, during the course of the 1995 PCRA hearing, several individuals supporting Jamal were forcibly removed from the courtroom for acts of civil disobedience. There were daily disruptions caused by Jamal's supporters both inside and outside the crowded courtroom. Those who were unable to enter chanted and played loud drums directly outside the courtroom window, so that the prosecutor could not be heard.

In addition to the substantial local media attention, the 1995 PCRA hearing garnered great international media attention as well. Outside the courtroom, Jamal's attorneys frequently made statements to the waiting international press, spinning the day's testimony and touting their client's innocence. They seized on every opportunity to lambaste Judge Sabo, the Philadelphia Police and the District Attorney's office.

Upon the completion of the 1995 PCRA hearing, Judge Albert Sabo found nearly all of the testimony presented by Jamal's attorneys to be incredible. The matter was handed up to the State Supreme Court.

In the midst of conducting their review of the 1995 PCRA testimony, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided to grant Mumia Abu-Jamal a highly unusual supplemental PCRA hearing. At the behest of Jamal's attorneys, this 1996 PCRA hearing was convened to hear the testimony of an individual they claimed they could not locate in 1995. This "newly discovered" witness was Veronica Jones, who had also testified in the 1982 trial as a defense witness. With great fanfare Leonard Weinglass touted Jones to the press as someone whose testimony would prove Jamal's innocence and demonstrate that there was "rampant police intimidation and coercion at the original trial."

The 1996 PCRA hearing, which was now moved to the new Criminal Justice Center, lasted several days and was again plagued by the same disruptions and delays. Jones claimed to have perjured herself in her 1982 testimony, instantly casting doubt on her 1996 account. She was also caught in several additional lies while offering her 1996 testimony. She ultimately produced no credible evidence in support of the notion that Mumia Abu-Jamal was innocent. In 1982, what Jones basically stated was that, after the shooting she had walked around the corner. Then, from a distance of roughly 300 feet, she had supposedly seen two black men near the fallen Officer Faulkner who had remained at the scene. In her 1996 version, supposedly her "true" version, Jones said she had waited several minutes after the shooting, and had then walked around the corner and allegedly saw two men who "jogged across Locust Street" before police arrived. (It's likely these two men were Desie Hightower and Robert Pigford. See the map posted on this site.)

Due to her repeated inability to tell the truth, the Court found that Jones was not a credible witness. The Court further found that, because she had consistently admitted that she had not seen the shooting, Veronica Jones could not identify either of the two supposedly running men as the "real killer," where four eyewitnesses at trial had testified to watching Jamal shoot Officer Faulkner to death. Therefore, the Court found, her testimony in no way exonerated Mumia Abu-Jamal.

In June 1997, prior to completing their review of the case, the State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted a highly unusual third PCRA hearing. This time, Jamal's attorneys had come across another individual allegedly unknown to them until 1996. This newest witness, Pamela Jenkins, was a prostitute and, supposedly, a former police informant. Ms. Jenkins claimed that Cynthia White, a key prosecution witness in 1982, had recently told her that police had intimidated her into giving her 1982 testimony and that she was now fearful of the police. According to Jenkins, as recently as a month before the 1997 hearing, she had personally met with Cynthia White and discussed this matter. Jenkins claimed that Cynthia White told her that the police had forced her to testify falsely against Jamal, at the 1982 trial.

The problem with Jenkins' insistence she had spoken to Cynthia White only two months before the 1997 hearing was that Cynthia White had been dead for five years. The prosecution produced a death certificate from the Camden County, New Jersey Coroner's Office verifying that Cynthia White had been dead since 1992. The identify of the corpse had been verified by its fingerprints.

The hearing came to a halt while Wineglass and his associates sat in stunned, slack-jawed silence for several minutes at the revelation that their witness was either insane or an all-out liar. It had never occurred to them to take the elementary step of using one of their many investigators to check on Jenkins' story.

On the morning after the prosecution's bombshell, Leonard Weinglass was interviewed on a California radio program. There, he claimed that he had been fully aware of the existence of the death certificate. This spin meant that he knew Jenkins was perjuring herself, and had knowingly attempted (and botched) a fraud on the court. It's difficult to say whether the spin or the reality made him look worse.

Not surprisingly, the court found that Jenkins, who claimed to have been given important new information by a dead person, was not a credible witness.

On October 31, 1998, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled on the numerous issues raised by Mumia Abu-Jamal's attorneys in their 1995, 1996 and 1997 PCRA appeals. (These issues make up the greater part of the myths about this case, which we address on this website.) In their unanimous decision to deny Jamal a new trial, the Justices of the Supreme Court found that all of the issues raised by Mumia Abu-Jamal and his attorneys were without merit. The "Opinion of the Court," (posted at danielfaulkner.com) was written by Justice Cappy, a former Public Defender. It was not only a resounding rebuke of the issues that allegedly show Jamal's innocence and the evidence of an unfair trial, it is a blistering indictment of the underhanded tactics employed by Jamal's lawyers. In addition to finding many of the claims made by Jamal and his attorneys, "preposterous," on no less than 5 separate occasions the Court chastised Leonard Weinglass for misrepresenting the facts to support his arguments.

A short time after this defeat, Jamal's attorneys filed a petition in the United States Supreme Court for a "Writ of Certiorari." Early in the spring of 1999 the US Supreme Court again declined to review Jamal's claims.

In October of 1999, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge again signed Mumia Abu-Jamal's Death Warrant. Jamal's attorneys again waited the maximum period of time permitted by law before taking his case to federal court, by filing a petition for a federal writ of habeas corpus. This appeal suspended Jamal's execution until Judge William Yohn, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania decides on Jamal's petition. Jamal's lawyers continued to do all that they could to prolong the appeals process. In this they have been given significant help from Judge Yohn, who seems to be in no hurry to decide the case. He has now had it before him for nearly two years, without so much as deciding whether or not to schedule an oral argument.

Ultimately, Judge Yohn has one of three choices to make. He can uphold Jamal's conviction; he can grant Jamal a new sentencing hearing; or he can overturn Jamal's conviction and grant him a new trial. Whatever his decision, it will no doubt be appealed to the federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals by the losing side.

[Documad]

Here we go again . . . . We've had this discussion several times.

I think that one or more of the Beasties leant support to this without researching the facts. A lot of famous people have jumped on this and it's too bad.

Here's what I said the first time this came up and Rob posted links to the officer's website:

Wow, thanks Rob for that great link. I had read a lot of other info. that raised questions but they never cite reliable sources.

It answered a few of the questions that I've had for years -- mostly why he wasn't allowed to represent himself at trial. I had never heard that he was allowed to represent himself and then lost his privilege by screaming in court (which of course he has no right to do). Also, I had never heard that he wanted a non lawyer to represent him (which of course is not allowed). And nice see it from the transcript.

A long time ago, I worked on a case where a multiple murderer got to act as his own attorney. It's a nightmare. We had drama almost every day re his bathroom habits, etc. My favorite part was when the murderer cross-examined my cop buddy who had arrested him. Murderer: "were you going to shoot me if I hadn't put my gun down?" Cop buddy: "You betcha."

A judge needs amazing patience to get through a trial with a defendant who is acting as his own attorney. The excerpts from the transcript here seem to show the judge making every effort before finally terminating it. I guess that's why it's been upheld in light of multiple subsequent court challenges. I find it mind-boggling that the federal court judge wrote a 260 page opinion. I guess it was all the publicity. Holy cow. It was too hard to read the whole thing on my tiny laptop screen, so I skipped to the good parts.

I've also always wondered about Mumia's reputation prior to the killing. That Vanity Fair article says that he didn't have much of one. Which would explain a lot.

My heart goes out to the officer's wife. I can't imagine losing a husband and then watching the trial and seeing the guy convicted, and thinking it's over, but finding out that it's never going to be over. (I worked on a few cases where the guys never gave up, but at least Alice Walker wasn't visiting them in prison.

[Documad]

I don't know whether he shot that police officer, but it feels clear he hasn't been given a fair trial either way. And whether he's guilty or innocent, the death penalty shouldn't be used. Period.


A bunch of courts found that he had a fair trial. Because of all the publicity this case has been reviewed and reviewed and reviewed and reviewed and it does not meet the legal standard for a new trial. Not even close.

Sympathetic people read snippets about this case on the internet and they think "oh, if there's an allegation that his trial wasn't fair, then why not give him a new trial?" The answer is that almost every defendant who was convicted by a jury would like a new trial and it would be highly unfair to grant new trials, especially 25 years later. None of the evidence or witnesses would be around anymore. We need some finality. The victim's family needs some finality. That's how our system works, and it's the best system in the world.

I agree that there should be no death penalty for anyone.

[Documad]

SURE, Why not go ahead and give him a retrial, in fact I think we should give a retrial to everyone in prison who says "...but I'm innocent".


Just because Mumia has a voice with the media and Ramona Africa organizing protests for him doesn't mean he's innocent.

This is what makes me furious. There are so many people in prison whose cases did not have 1/1000th of the scrutiny this case has had. Why don't these people help some poor people who are currently on trial for capital offenses? There are so many people, guilty and innocent, who could use some support. It's appropriate to lend that support on the front end--before the jury's verdict.

[Documad]

my opinion is based on the news reports and commission testimony that the police used excessive force and were acting homicidal. i am unsure if mumia was guilty, but im on the bandwagon that supports a retrial because he was unfairly tried to begin with. established.

im not trying to insult mrs faulkner.

and yes, the belief of inequality led to slavery which led towards the civil rights movement which led towards MLK, the black panthers, and MOVE amongst many other groups and events. its the struggle for freedom we are talking about here. whether its a group of people fighting for equal rights and freedom, or one man who is in jail and deserves a retrial.

You said a lot of similar things, but I'm only highlighting this one. It's my opinion that your statements are embarrassingly simplistic and ill-informed. What exactly did you personally do to investigate before forming your opinion that Mumia had a constitutionally unsound trial? Judges from the highest courts of this country have examined the ACTUAL record containing the actual evidence and they disagree with you. I'm willing to rely upon their work myself.

You are saying that even if he murdered a cop in cold blood he deserves some amount of respect -- he's a freedom fighter! That is an insult to all the people of all colors who fought for civil rights.

I was alive when the local police wiped out those blocks because of MOVE. I was a kid but I was still appalled by it. It has nothing to do with Mumia's guilt.

[Documad]

Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases as a violation of human
rights. The organization is therefore calling for a new trial in which should preclude the re-imposition of a death sentence.

Amnesty International can take no position on the guilt or innocence of Mumia Abu-Jamal.

I've been a member of Amnesty International for over 20 years. That organization opposes the death penalty in all cases, as do I. Amnesty International believes that Mumia should not receive a death sentence. I agree. No one should receive a death sentence.

That has nothing to do with whether he is guilty. I do not defer to Amnesty International's assessment of the quality of the trial. I'll continue to rely on all of the appellate courts that have reviewed the case.

[Documad]

rob you are not going to make an effective point by overloading the page and confusing people. be clear and concise. get to the points, select what is relevant and necessary to your argument. edit.

i doubt you have even read all that
It's far easier to read a press release or skim a website devoted to a cause, isn't it? You don't want to read the actual transcripts, to find out what the witnesses actually testified to, do you? You're not even willing to read the excerpts that are quoted on that one website. The courts that reviewed the case and then decided that the trial was constitutionally sound had to read the actual transcripts. They probably filled a whole room at the courthouse.

I don't want to pick on you. I think that your sympathy to a stranger is endearing. I just think you picked the wrong case.

I just back and re-read parts of the 270 page federal court opinion (http://www.danielfaulkner.com/docs/yohnsorder.pdf) discussing the motions Mumia and his supporters filed. I can't believe the amount of paperwork Mumia filed -- 1000s of pages -- and I can't believe the judge waded through nearly 30 legal issues. It's too bad he didn't get life without parole instead of the death penalty because it would have saved the government a ton of money.

[Knuckles]

Hey alien autopsy, how did it feel to have Documad hand you this (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v482/chickencow/assplatter.jpg)?

[DroppinScience]

I do admit, Documad is most persuavive and knows her shit! (y)

[Bob]

if only she'd been hired to defend mumia, none of this would have had to happen

[pshabi]

Bravo to R$ and Dmad.

[alien autopsy]

the difference we have hear is that there are thousands of sources all over that claim mumia had an unfair trial...and as matter of fact, you are all citing one source which claims he is a cop killer. and its the website of the dead cop.

as i mentioned before, im basing my claims on the numerous occassions i have turned on the radio and heard about mumias trial, the numerous instances where i have spoken with people about mumias case at concerts, political rallies and protests, and the different articles i have come across on the net referring to his case. im surely not the only one who feels this way.

i am simplistic when it comes to targetting individuals and groups who advocate similar goals- freedom. MOVE was fighting for what they believed in, and they took up arms when it was apparent that they were being targeted and taken out. its almost beyond racism. its the standard treatment people get when they want to be different. the standard is alienation, attacking and destroying so that the status quo is saved and we can all live in peace under one fucked up system.

im interested to know more about MOVE. if you all have any links or articles on them, please pass along. im curios to know why you dislike them so much.

[pshabi]

the difference we have hear is that there are thousands of sources all over that claim mumia had an unfair trial...and as matter of fact, you are all citing one source which claims he is a cop killer. and its the website of the dead cop.

as i mentioned before, im basing my claims on the numerous occassions i have turned on the radio and heard about mumias trial, the numerous instances where i have spoken with people about mumias case at concerts, political rallies and protests, and the different articles i have come across on the net referring to his case. im surely not the only one who feels this way.

i am simplistic when it comes to targetting individuals and groups who advocate similar goals- freedom. MOVE was fighting for what they believed in, and they took up arms when it was apparent that they were being targeted and taken out. its almost beyond racism. its the standard treatment people get when they want to be different. the standard is alienation, attacking and destroying so that the status quo is saved and we can all live in peace under one fucked up system.

im interested to know more about MOVE. if you all have any links or articles on them, please pass along. im curios to know why you dislike them so much.


Here ya go. (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare)

[alien autopsy]

A bunch of courts found that he had a fair trial. Because of all the publicity this case has been reviewed and reviewed and reviewed and reviewed and it does not meet the legal standard for a new trial. Not even close.

Sympathetic people read snippets about this case on the internet and they think "oh, if there's an allegation that his trial wasn't fair, then why not give him a new trial?" The answer is that almost every defendant who was convicted by a jury would like a new trial and it would be highly unfair to grant new trials, especially 25 years later. None of the evidence or witnesses would be around anymore. We need some finality. The victim's family needs some finality. That's how our system works, and it's the best system in the world.

I agree that there should be no death penalty for anyone.


how many people are exhonerated after 25 years!! everday it seems, here in illinois, we have another person (almost 100% of the time an african american) who is let out of jail because someone else finally admitted to the crime, DNA evidence proved innocence or some other proof came forward. if you believe after 25 years, the case for retrial is moot, you might as well be for the death penalty.

[alien autopsy]

You are saying that even if he murdered a cop in cold blood he deserves some amount of respect -- he's a freedom fighter! That is an insult to all the people of all colors who fought for civil rights.

I was alive when the local police wiped out those blocks because of MOVE. I was a kid but I was still appalled by it. It has nothing to do with Mumia's guilt.

mumia was a member of MOVE. MOVE was being watched because they decided to become militant and were serious about their cause. they were stirring up some shit and were literally at war with the philly police. every cop who went down, every MOVE member who went down...they are all a part of the same struggle and are all linked. all the cops want to erradicate MOVE, and all the MOVE members wanted to erradicate the cops.

judges whose job it is, is to protect the "law" and "the governing body" are of course going to rule against mumia. judges allow all sorts of bullshit to happen in this country. corporate corruption, police corruption, intimidation...etc... how is it that we are forced to pay taxes when they are unconstitutional? because the judges are protecting the IRS, the federal reserve and the governing body at large. judges always rule in favor of the cops. 99.99% of the time. have you ever tried to fight a traffic ticket?

[pshabi]

mumia was a member of MOVE. MOVE was being watched because they decided to become militant and were serious about their cause. they were stirring up some shit and were literally at war with the philly police. every cop who went down, every MOVE member who went down...they are all a part of the same struggle and are all linked. all the cops want to erradicate MOVE, and all the MOVE members wanted to erradicate the cops.

judges whose job it is, is to protect the "law" and "the governing body" are of course going to rule against mumia. judges allow all sorts of bullshit to happen in this country. corporate corruption, police corruption, intimidation...etc... how is it that we are forced to pay taxes when they are unconstitutional? because the judges are protecting the IRS, the federal reserve and the governing body at large. judges always rule in favor of the cops. 99.99% of the time. have you ever tried to fight a traffic ticket?


Please, just stop.

[alien autopsy]

pshabi do you just sit there all day on your knees waiting for someone to piss in your mouth?

[alien autopsy]

im sorry, that was harsh, i take it back:(

[yeahwho]

I have absolutely no opinion about Mumia and am not going to even bother trying to figure out what seems to be the problem with Mumia, seems as if everybody else here has done more than enough (on several different occasions and different threads) throughout the years.

What I'm really going to convey is this to alien autopsy, most of the people here have already been through this case, it has been brought up before, the facts being displayed multiple times. There is nothing new being said and no earth shaking evidence has surfaced since the last time the folks speaking to you have gone through this topic.

So just as with myself on that stupid Barbara Olsen flight 77 call your running into massive resistance. At some point rational thought combined with burden of proof enters into these claims and reasonable doubt exits.

just sayin'

[Documad]

how is it that we are forced to pay taxes when they are unconstitutional? because the judges are protecting the IRS, the federal reserve and the governing body at large.

If I had realized that you are one of those people who believes every bit of nonsense you read on the internet -- like that crap about income taxes being unconstitutional -- I wouldn't have bothered to reply to you in the first place.

I cited the police officer's website because it has links to the actual documents. The court order I linked to looks like a regular federal court order except that it's about 20 times longer than the ones I usually see. If that's not the real court order, please expose it. I don't know how to retrieve a copy of the order from the federal court's own website without billing my employer and I'm certainly not going to do that.

Read the court's order for yourself.

There is a big difference between people who had a fair trial but were convicted anyway. That has happened and sometimes DNA has gotten them out of prison years later. An example of that happening would be where the rape victim thought she identified the right guy but it turns out that she made a mistake and identified the wrong guy. DNA evidence could show that the inmate's semen couldn't be the semen found at the crime scene. There are also instances where someone else confessed. Neither of those things happened in the Mumia case.

You are saying something else. You are saying that his actual trial wasn't fair. I haven't why you think that's true, except for some vague sense of unfairness because you think that a black man in the 1970s couldn't possibly have had a fair trial. I acknowledge the racism present in the US now and then, but I also see a case with a lot of evidence that this guy was the right guy. The things people are trying to pick apart don't seem to hold up to scrutiny. There is a legal standard he has to meet to get a new trial at this late date and he hasn't met it. It's a high standard.

You hear claims like "he wasn't allowed to represent himself" or "he didn't get the attorney he wanted." From what I read in the court records, he wanted to make a political spectacle in the courtroom instead of having a proper criminal defense. That's something that a tiny percentage of criminal defendants try to do (I've only seen guilty people do it by the way). They do it as a political protest. They are saying that they violated the law but they think the law was wrong. That's what civil rights advocates did when they got arrested for sitting at whites only lunch counters. That's what my friend's mom gets arrested for when she trespasses at the nuclear power plant. That's what the Chicago 7/8 were trying to do at their trial. That's sort of the angle you're arguing in saying that he's a freedom fighter. You're saying that he's guilty but that he had some kind of right to murder a police officer as part of that political statement. The 1970s were seriously fucked up but no one had a right to kill a cop in cold blood.

Mumia wasn't looking to be represented by a qualified attorney at his trial. He got mad that the judge wouldn't let him be represented by a non-attorney activist from MOVE. Mumia was wrong and the judge was right. You have no right to have a non-attorney speak for you in court and make political statements to the jury. I'm glad people aren't entitled to do that, because I have a tremendous amount of respect for judges and for our criminal justice system.

The system has flaws for sure, but this isn't one of the cases I'm losing sleep over. Again, I don't believe he should be executed because I'm against the death penalty in all cases.

[Documad]

By the way, I don't have a single traffic ticket on my record. I've always gotten them dismissed. ;)

Oh, and I would usually avoid threads like this. I think I'm worked up because our little SLA terrorist has been in the news all week. :p

[alien autopsy]

If I had realized that you are one of those people who believes every bit of nonsense you read on the internet -- like that crap about income taxes being unconstitutional -- I wouldn't have bothered to reply to you in the first place.

I cited the police officer's website because it has links to the actual documents. The court order I linked to looks like a regular federal court order except that it's about 20 times longer than the ones I usually see. If that's not the real court order, please expose it. I don't know how to retrieve a copy of the order from the federal court's own website without billing my employer and I'm certainly not going to do that.

Read the court's order for yourself.

There is a big difference between people who had a fair trial but were convicted anyway. That has happened and sometimes DNA has gotten them out of prison years later. An example of that happening would be where the rape victim thought she identified the right guy but it turns out that she made a mistake and identified the wrong guy. DNA evidence could show that the inmate's semen couldn't be the semen found at the crime scene. There are also instances where someone else confessed. Neither of those things happened in the Mumia case.

You are saying something else. You are saying that his actual trial wasn't fair. I haven't why you think that's true, except for some vague sense of unfairness because you think that a black man in the 1970s couldn't possibly have had a fair trial. I acknowledge the racism present in the US now and then, but I also see a case with a lot of evidence that this guy was the right guy. The things people are trying to pick apart don't seem to hold up to scrutiny. There is a legal standard he has to meet to get a new trial at this late date and he hasn't met it. It's a high standard.

You hear claims like "he wasn't allowed to represent himself" or "he didn't get the attorney he wanted." From what I read in the court records, he wanted to make a political spectacle in the courtroom instead of having a proper criminal defense. That's something that a tiny percentage of criminal defendants try to do (I've only seen guilty people do it by the way). They do it as a political protest. They are saying that they violated the law but they think the law was wrong. That's what civil rights advocates did when they got arrested for sitting at whites only lunch counters. That's what my friend's mom gets arrested for when she trespasses at the nuclear power plant. That's what the Chicago 7/8 were trying to do at their trial. That's sort of the angle you're arguing in saying that he's a freedom fighter. You're saying that he's guilty but that he had some kind of right to murder a police officer as part of that political statement. The 1970s were seriously fucked up but no one had a right to kill a cop in cold blood.

Mumia wasn't looking to be represented by a qualified attorney at his trial. He got mad that the judge wouldn't let him be represented by a non-attorney activist from MOVE. Mumia was wrong and the judge was right. You have no right to have a non-attorney speak for you in court and make political statements to the jury. I'm glad people aren't entitled to do that, because I have a tremendous amount of respect for judges and for our criminal justice system.

The system has flaws for sure, but this isn't one of the cases I'm losing sleep over. Again, I don't believe he should be executed because I'm against the death penalty in all cases.

you do have a right to defend yourself. mumia was well educated. he was powerful. he speaks poetically and with intensity. he was sane enough to defend himself, and should have been allowed to. he didnt make any political statements to the jury by representing himself, because he wasnt allowed to represent himself. you cant use that as an argument for why "mumia was wrong".

and btw, the income tax is unconstitutional.

[yeahwho]

By the way, I don't have a single traffic ticket on my record. I've always gotten them dismissed. ;)

Oh, and I would usually avoid threads like this. I think I'm worked up because our little SLA terrorist has been in the news all week. :p

Your probably feel like I did in the 9/11 Barbara Olsen thread, I usually will not give the truthouters the time of day (Stop the War it is Real/Don't Postulate) but at some point I feel as if it is just time to go head to head with claims that really do nothing to improve society as a whole.

Our current insanity here in the USA is more than enough to work on.

I'll prolly get sniped for saying that.

[Documad]

you do have a right to defend yourself. mumia was well educated. he was powerful. he speaks poetically and with intensity. he was sane enough to defend himself, and should have been allowed to. he didnt make any political statements to the jury by representing himself, because he wasnt allowed to represent himself. you cant use that as an argument for why "mumia was wrong".

and btw, the income tax is unconstitutional.

You have the right to represent yourself unless you disrupt the proceedings. You have to follow the rules just like a lawyer would. You can question witnesses and testify. You have to wait for the appropriate time to speak. You can't create a circus like atmosphere. AND YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED BY A NON-ATTORNEY MEMBER OF MOVE which is what Mumia wanted.

Income tax is constitutional. It's also a darned good idea. :) Don't believe everything you read on the internet. ;)

[Documad]

Your probably feel like I did in the 9/11 Barbara Olsen thread, I usually will not give the truthouters the time of day (Stop the War it is Real/Don't Postulate) but at some point I feel as if it is just time to go head to head with claims that really do nothing to improve society as a whole.

Our current insanity here in the USA is more than enough to work on.

I'll prolly get sniped for saying that.

What if Cheney is behind the "truth" movement? It would be convenient, wouldn't it? What if the plan was for millions of Americans to waste time on the fake conspiracies while Cheney and Rumsfeld were dismantling all the protections in the federal government? We're all on the internet chasing after the fake story while no one is reporting on the real one. How about that?

[Bob]

you do have a right to defend yourself. mumia was well educated. he was powerful. he speaks poetically and with intensity. he was sane enough to defend himself, and should have been allowed to. he didnt make any political statements to the jury by representing himself, because he wasnt allowed to represent himself. you cant use that as an argument for why "mumia was wrong".

and btw, the income tax is unconstitutional.

documad already said it, but representing yourself is about more than being sane, there are rules you have to follow when conducting a trial. people who represent themselves get more leeway than lawyers do, but they still have to follow them. apparently mumia didn't, and that's why, after a period in which he in fact was allowed to represent himself, the judge stopped him.

also the income tax is constitutional, there are words in the constitution which make it constitutional, those words are

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

courts have interpreted those words to mean that income tax is constitutional, therefore income tax is constitutional because that's how law works in this country.

[Documad]

Bob, the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified! What about that?

[saz]

i dunno though, it all seems very complicated to me and i'm really not familiar with the facts at all. i refuse to have an opinion on the matter

same here. i've always been more inclined to follow the cases of those like elmer geronimo pratt and others who were clearly framed and wrongly imprisoned through cointelpro. i did try briefly in the past to inform myself of the facts of mumia's case, but it seemed very complicated and convoluted, with the evidence on both sides being dissected and torn apart, while both the supporters of mumia and those opposed to him turned me off.

[alien autopsy]

rat·i·fy http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pnghttp://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2 Fratified)/ˈræthttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngəˌfaɪ/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rat-uh-fahy]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -fied, -fy·ing. 1.to confirm by expressing consent, approval, or formal sanction: to ratify a constitutional amendment. 2.to confirm (something done or arranged by an agent or by representatives) by such action.

[alien autopsy]

the MOVE 9 were setup and imprisoned by cointelpro (counter intelligence program).
cointelpro is a generic name for more than 2000 operations directed towards domestic dissidents and political activists.

from the words of MOVE member Ramona Africa on MOVE:

MOVE is a revolutionary organisation started in the USA, which fights to protect all life by spreading information and standing against the systems that harm life. They were strident anti-racism and environmental campaigners long before the mainstream took up the issues.The word MOVE is not an acronym. It means exactly what it says: MOVE, work, generate, be active. Everything that's alive moves. If it didn't, it would be stagnant, dead. Movement is the principle of Life.

heres what John Africa had to say about the MOVE 9:

The MOVE 9 are innocent men and women who have been in prison since August 8, 1978, following a massive police attack on us at our home in Powelton Village (Philadelphia). This was seven years before the government dropped a bomb on MOVE, killing 11 people, including 5 babies. The August 8, 1978 police attack on MOVE followed years of police brutality against MOVE and was a major military operation carried out by the Philadelphia police department under orders of then-mayor, Frank Rizzo, whose reputation for racism and brutality is well known; it followed him up thru the ranks of the police department to the police commissioner's office to the mayor's office. During this attack, heavy equipment was used to tear down the fence surrounding our home, and cops filled our home with enough tear gas to kill us and our babies, while SWAT teams covered every possible exit. We were all in the basement of our home, where we had 10 thousand pounds of water pressure per minute directed at us from 4 fire department water cannons (for a total of 40 thousand pounds of water pressure per minute). As the basement filled with nearly six feet of water we had to hold our babies and animals above the rising water so they wouldn't drown. Suddenly shots rang out (news reporters and others know the shots came from a house at 33rd and Baring St., not our home, because they actually saw the man shooting) and bullets immediately filled the air as police through-out the area opened fire on us. Officer James Ramp, who was standing above us on street-level and facing our home, was killed by a single bullet that struck him on a downward angle. This alone makes it impossible for MOVE to have killed Ramp, since we were below street level, in the basement. MOVE adults came out of the house carrying our children through clouds of tear gas, we were beat and arrested. Television cameras actually filmed the vicious beating of our brother Delbert Africa (3 of the 4 cops that beat Delbert went to trial on minor charges). Despite the photographic evidence, the trial judge (Stanley Kubacki) refused to let the jury render a verdict and himself acquitted the cops by directed order. Nine of us were charged with murder and related charges for the death of James Ramp. Within a few hours of our arrest, our home (which is supposed to be the "scene of the crime" and therefore evidence) was deliberately destroyed, demolished, by city officials when they were legally obligated to preserve all evidence, but we were held for trial anyway. We went to trial before Judge Edward Malmed who convicted all nine of us of third degree murder (while admitting that he didn't have "the faintest idea" who killed Ramp) and sentenced each of us to 30 - 100 years in prison. Judge Malmed also stated that MOVE people said we are a family so he sentenced us as a family; we were supposed to be on trial for murder, not for being a family. It is clear that the MOVE 9 are in prison for being committed MOVE members, not for any accusation of crime. Three other adults that were in the house on August 8th did not get the same treatment as those that this government knows are committed MOVE members. One had all charges dismissed against her in September of 1978 with the judge saying that there was no evidence that she was a committed MOVE member when the issue was supposed to be murder. The second one was held for trial but released on bail; she was acquitted. The third one was held for trial with no bail, convicted of conspiracy and given 10-23 years; she was paroled in 1994. It is obvious that everything depended on whether or not the courts thought it was dealing with a committed MOVE member, court decisions had nothing to do with the accusation of murder. It has been 25 years since the August 8, 1978 police attack on MOVE, 25 years of unjust of imprisonment, but despite the hardship of being separated from family-members, despite the grief over the murder of family-members (including babies), the MOVE 9 remain strong and loyal to our Belief, our Belief in Life, the Teaching of our Founder, JOHN AFRICA. We have an uncompromising commitment to our Belief, which is what makes us a strong unified family, despite all this government have done to break us up and ultimately exterminate us.

[RobMoney$]

Firstly, the fact that you keep trying to connect the events that happened with MOVE and the murder of Officer Faulkner by Mumia Abu-Jamal only goes to reinforce your ignorance on the two, actually 3 seperate issues(2 MOVE events & the Murder that Mumia committed).
Mumia himself has said he was not a member of MOVE.

Secondly, the issue has been settled. Mumia will not recieve a retrial, it's gone as high as the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and they've rejected it.

It's over, move on with your life now.

[alien autopsy]

WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT MOVE?
WANT TO KNOW HOW FUCKED UP THE PHILLY POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS?
heres a short movie narrated by HOWARD ZINN, of the peoples history of the united states of america. that book so many of you are so fond of.
part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNnbfnukU_c&feature=related)
part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aU7xsiN-_bY&feature=related)
part 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cZUOp9aO2g&feature=related)
part 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c56Y6yjqh0&feature=related)
part 5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPXJkG41UTs&feature=related)
part 6 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEA0Ot_Px98&feature=related)




WATCH IT










yeahwho, its like you blame "the truthouters" for the war still continuing in iraq. thats totally dillusional.

[RobMoney$]

Mumia Abu-Jamal is not a member of MOVE.


Btw, if you choose to believe some Youtube videos that glorify MOVE as just some peaceful protesters, you're a fool.

[RobMoney$]

I would just like to take this opportunity to say God Bless Frank Rizzo.

[alien autopsy]

lol

[alien autopsy]

Mumia was president of the Philadelphia chapter of the association of black journalists at age 26.
was known as "the voice of the voiceless" in philadelphia and in 1981 was honored in philadelphia magazines "81 people to watch" for his excellence in journalism and contributions to black culture.

he met move back in 1981 when he covered them for a story. sympathized with their cause and struggle. and began writing frequently about them, covering their trials, their beatings given by the police, and racist antagonizing at the order of one of the most corrupt and evil mayors ever to exist in america, frank rizzo.

mumia also had a radio show where he spoke frequently about these injustices. he would go to the jails where the move members were held and interview them to get their side of the story. he was a good journalist.

[alien autopsy]

I love MOVE and what they stand for. and id like to take this opportunity to say god bless the members of MOVE and MUMIA

[yeahwho]

OJ Simpson led the nation in rushing in 1967 when he ran for 1,451 yards and scored 11 touchdowns. He also led the nation in rushing in 1968 with 355 carries for 1,709 yards. He was a Heisman Trophy candidate and a star in the 1967 USC vs. UCLA football game. His 64 yard touchdown run in the 4th quarter tied the game, with the PAT the margin of victory. This was the biggest play in what is regarded as one of the greatest football games of the 20th century.

He also hired one of the best legal teams to defend an accused murderer ever.

[alien autopsy]

haha. i dont like OJ though

[Bob]

I love the buffalo bills and what they stand for. and id like to take this opportunity to say god bless the bills and OJ

[alien autopsy]

whatever happened with OJ and that vegas blitz

[Documad]

MOVE was an anti-government cult similar to the Branch Davidians and the Weaver family. As with those cults, the government faced a difficult situation and sadly overreacted and some innocent people were hurt. None of that has anything to do with the murder Mumia committed.


I have no problem with people questioning the justice system. We should all do that. But to read a few articles and then say "I don't really know what happened but I know he had an unfair trial" really bothers me. Why assume the worst?

On a related note, I was listening to a podcast about the making of some new movie about the Chicago 7/8/10. While I'm completely sympathetic to the anti-war movement and I am willing to believe the worst about the Chicago police, when the podcast played clips from the recording of the actual trial and I heard what the judge had to put up with, I actually felt sorry for him. He's been portrayed as a horrible person but no judge should have to put up with that nonsense.

[alien autopsy]

please list the similarities between MOVE and the weaver family and the branch davidians. im really interested because thats a very bold assumption.

to be honest, when i first heard about mumias case and that he was a black man on death row for a crime he didnt committ i said "yeah, that makes sense". ive grown used to hearing about black men being framed by city cops for crimes they didnt committ and either dying before being freed or being let go 75 years later.

then when you takea look at it, you see, yeah, the trial was botched and mumia is a political prisoner.

[alien autopsy]

but we all choose what sources we find credible and deem reliable.
i think for mumias case, there is a majority of sources in his defense. many educated and very-much public figures have come forward to support his cause. many media stories have been released about his trial. mainstream media as well. it really suprises me that more bboys fans here dont support his cause. then again, im sure this board isnt a totally accurate sample of the bboys fan base either. i really thought the political board would host a crowd that was a little more "educated activist".

[Bob]

but we all choose what sources we find credible and deem reliable.
i think for mumias case, there is a majority of sources in his defense. many educated and very-much public figures have come forward to support his cause. many media stories have been released about his trial. mainstream media as well. it really suprises me that more bboys fans here dont support his cause. then again, im sure this board isnt a totally accurate sample of the bboys fan base either. i really thought the political board would host a crowd that was a little more "educated activist".

i thought you didn't like educated people? i thought they sounded impotent?

[alien autopsy]

i never meant that about all educated people. just some

[alien autopsy]

Mumia Abu-Jamal is not a member of MOVE.


Btw, if you choose to believe some Youtube videos that glorify MOVE as just some peaceful protesters, you're a fool.


correct me if im wrong, but didnt you quote wikipedia? and by the way, it wasnt a shoebox movie put together by some 9th grader for his american history class. it was a professional documentary narrated by howard zinn.

[RobMoney$]

correct me if im wrong, but didnt you quote wikipedia? and by the way, it wasnt a shoebox movie put together by some 9th grader for his american history class. it was a professional documentary narrated by howard zinn.


The fact still remains that he's not a member of MOVE and the two subjects really have little to do with one another. You're desperately trying to find something, anything to rebel against.

As soon as we shot you down on your Mumia "theories" you switched gears to your MOVE "theories". What's next, 9-11 theories?
Quit being so desperate and try to stick to the topic at hand, the MURDER that Mumia committed.

[RobMoney$]

OJ Simpson led the nation in rushing in 1967 when he ran for 1,451 yards and scored 11 touchdowns. He also led the nation in rushing in 1968 with 355 carries for 1,709 yards. He was a Heisman Trophy candidate and a star in the 1967 USC vs. UCLA football game. His 64 yard touchdown run in the 4th quarter tied the game, with the PAT the margin of victory. This was the biggest play in what is regarded as one of the greatest football games of the 20th century.

He also hired one of the best legal teams to defend an accused murderer ever.


I'd also like to take this opportunity to say God Bless Yeahwho.

[Bob]

i never meant that about all educated people. just some

the ones you disagree with you mean

[RobMoney$]

i really thought the political board would host a crowd that was a little more "educated activist".

Perhaps the people here are more intelligent than to just protest things the media tell them to.
Like I said, I'm not choosing who to believe based on some columnist with an agenda to report on a contorversial story in order to make a name for himself. I'm basing my opinions on how I personally remember the events happening. Apparently every court that has reviewed the case has agreed that the trial was fair. End of story.

[afronaut]

Perhaps the people here are more intelligent than to just protest things the media tell them to.
Like I said, I'm not choosing who to believe based on some columnist with an agenda to report on a contorversial story in order to make a name for himself. I'm basing my opinions on how I personally remember the events happening. Apparently every court that has reviewed the case has agreed that the trial was fair. End of story.

Hey now, you're starting to sound like me!

But yeah, I don't really get why there are so many ardent supporters behind this cause. I'm still not taking a position one way or the other, because I'm not educated on it at all. But it seems to me that there are much more concrete (and important) causes to get behind than this one. The Mumia issue seems very muddled, at best. If he does happen to be innocent, then thats sad, and I hope he gets justice. But it doesn't seem to look very good for him.

And to alien autopsy, I'd rather deal with an educated person who sounds self important than some non-educated person who doesn't know what he's talking about.

[alien autopsy]

the ones you disagree with you mean
yeah, some of them. but not all. people who are arrogant.

[alien autopsy]

Perhaps the people here are more intelligent than to just protest things the media tell them to.
Like I said, I'm not choosing who to believe based on some columnist with an agenda to report on a contorversial story in order to make a name for himself. I'm basing my opinions on how I personally remember the events happening. Apparently every court that has reviewed the case has agreed that the trial was fair. End of story.

you arent choosing your side based on the media. youa re chosing it based on daniel faulkners website and his teams side of the story. which btw is corroded and inconsistent. you personally remember them happening. i personally go to sleep at night and wonder if im dreaming or awake. its easy to let your perception (especially when bombarded by it from all angles as you probably were as a kid) confuse things.

[alien autopsy]

Hey now, you're starting to sound like me!

But yeah, I don't really get why there are so many ardent supporters behind this cause. I'm still not taking a position one way or the other, because I'm not educated on it at all. But it seems to me that there are much more concrete (and important) causes to get behind than this one. The Mumia issue seems very muddled, at best. If he does happen to be innocent, then thats sad, and I hope he gets justice. But it doesn't seem to look very good for him.

And to alien autopsy, I'd rather deal with an educated person who sounds self important than some non-educated person who doesn't know what he's talking about.

its about the struggle from oppression. thats mumias case, thats MOVEs case, thats the story of the black population in philly int he 60's and 70's...its the story of the black struggle for equality all over the country and the world.

[alien autopsy]

its about the struggle for all people in all places against tyrannical governments.

[alien autopsy]

The fact still remains that he's not a member of MOVE and the two subjects really have little to do with one another. You're desperately trying to find something, anything to rebel against.

As soon as we shot you down on your Mumia "theories" you switched gears to your MOVE "theories". What's next, 9-11 theories?
Quit being so desperate and try to stick to the topic at hand, the MURDER that Mumia committed.

you dont have to be desperate to find injustice in this country. and if you believe in equality, in truth, and hope, then you should jump on the bandwagon for any cause you find just.

[DroppinScience]

Okay, I'm thinking out loud here, so Documad and others, be patient:

Is it possible that the courts framed a guilty man (that does happen) who also just happens to be a quite articulate dissident voice on the prison system, the poor, etc?

Perhaps his case is not nearly as clear-cut as, say, Nelson Mandela (but then again, there were/are a lot of asshole pro-apartheid people who would beg to differ) which makes the "Free Mumia!" movement a little more troubling.

Even if he never gets a re-trial, I hope the death penalty will not end up being used because he's become an icon of resistance for many and he would almost certainly be martyred, which is definitely something the establishment wouldn't want to grant to Mumia.

[alien autopsy]

what do you mean by frame a guilty man?

[DroppinScience]

what do you mean by frame a guilty man?

Well, in some police forces (the LAPD was notorious for this), it's been fairly common for the police to "plant" evidence in a murder case simply to speed things up and not have to be bogged down building a case against their prime suspect. And it just so happens that the prime suspect IS indeed guilty of the crime, but the police added some extra stuff "just to make sure." That's what I refer to when I say "frame a guilty man."

Think of O.J. Simpson. In all likelihood, he did indeed kill his wife, but the reason he got acquitted was because of Mark Fuhrman's bungling of the evidence (who more than likely planted the bloody glove) and his rampant racism, thus putting the murder case into doubt.

[Documad]

Well, in some police forces (the LAPD was notorious for this), it's been fairly common for the police to "plant" evidence in a murder case simply to speed things up and not have to be bogged down building a case against their prime suspect.

Define "fairly common" please. Yes, there are bad cops, and yes the Rampart scandal exposed some horrible, horrible behavior, but I could not sleep at night if I truly believed that cops are routinely framing people for murder. It's not how the world works. Most cops are trying hard to do a difficult job, even in our major american cities. Most mistakes are honest mistakes. And you might be surprised to find that it's not a job that tends to draw our best and brightest young people. :rolleyes: As for "courts" framing people, even guilty people, I don't understand what you're talking about. What is it that you think judges are doing and where did you get the idea? I don't mean to be hostile, but this is bumming me out. Is this paranoid world view a product of the movies or what?

If you're interested in the OJ case, I recommend the Vincent Bugliosi book or the Daniel Petrocelli book. While Fuhrman was a disaster, I believe that the two prosecutors lost that case by doing a really shitty job. I mean they were just awful from start to finish. The fact that Marsha Clark made a career off of losing a rock solid case in front of a national audience astounds me.

The cases you hear about, where an innocent guy is released from prison are rare cases. It's important to examine those cases because we have to do everything in our power to stop that from happening again. But the reason those cases get on 60 Minutes is because they are rare cases. Real criminal cases tend to be pretty damned boring. Most people plead guilty for good reasons.

[Documad]

I can't believe you think Fuhrman planted the bloody glove. I'm giving you a pass because you were probably too young to remember the actual trial and because I generally have a soft spot for you but jesus christ almighty. If DS is believing this crap without question I'm not sure I can go on.

[RobMoney$]

If DS is believing this crap without question I'm not sure I can go on.

I'll gut DS like a deer if you stop posting.

[Carlos]

yeah DS, you don't wanna fall out of tha 'BBMB cool gang'.. :p

[Whatitis]

it really suprises me that more bboys fans here dont support his cause. then again, im sure this board isnt a totally accurate sample of the bboys fan base either. i really thought the political board would host a crowd that was a little more "educated activist".

Most of us are into the bboys but that doesn't mean we don't have a mind of our own. I think the bboys have opened a lot of eyes on cirtain issues in the world and I for one appreciate that. There are some things I agree with them on and others I don't. Does that make me less of a fan, I don't think so. "Educated activist" is such a loose term.

[mathcart]

Is it possible that the courts framed a guilty man (that does happen) who also just happens to be a quite articulate dissident voice on the prison system, the poor, etc?

Perhaps his case is not nearly as clear-cut as, say, Nelson Mandela (but then again, there were/are a lot of asshole pro-apartheid people who would beg to differ) which makes the "Free Mumia!" movement a little more troubling.

Even if he never gets a re-trial, I hope the death penalty will not end up being used because he's become an icon of resistance for many and he would almost certainly be martyred, which is definitely something the establishment wouldn't want to grant to Mumia.

I hope the death penalty will not be used because ITS WRONG, on just about every level (talk about an issue where rampant racism totally overshadows any other aspect).

As for Mumia's case it is possible he is guilty, I certainly concede that from the material I've seen/read about the case, but that always seemed irrelevant because of how flawed the case against him turned out to be handled. As I said before I don't believe in this day and age its OK to execute anyone, but I completely disagree that the legal standard for state sponsored murder should be low enough that, whoops, were OK with killing people who are "probably" guilty. That shit is fucked up.
Thats my 2 cents.

[DroppinScience]

I can't believe you think Fuhrman planted the bloody glove. I'm giving you a pass because you were probably too young to remember the actual trial and because I generally have a soft spot for you but jesus christ almighty. If DS is believing this crap without question I'm not sure I can go on.

Hey, my memory COULD be off, but I watched a PBS Frontline documentary during the 10th anniversary of the OJ verdict (2005), and it suggested that Fuhrman and/or the LAPD planted some evidence, even if he was already guilty, which is what cost the trial for the prosecution's case (i.e. Furhman testifying in court).

There was a discussion among law students in one aspect of the program and in the discussion one said: "The LAPD framed a guilty man." Nevertheless, it was an interesting speculation, even if I didn't spend my then 12-year-old life sitting in front of the couch 24/7 watching the OJ trial (my mom sure was, though).

If you have a different version of the Frontline doc and I got it wrong (I haven't watched it in two years), please tell me so. I ain't no alienautopsy or Carlos, so let me set the record straight. :P


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/

You can even stream the whole program, if you're interested.

[alien autopsy]

Well, in some police forces (the LAPD was notorious for this), it's been fairly common for the police to "plant" evidence in a murder case simply to speed things up and not have to be bogged down building a case against their prime suspect. And it just so happens that the prime suspect IS indeed guilty of the crime, but the police added some extra stuff "just to make sure." That's what I refer to when I say "frame a guilty man."

Think of O.J. Simpson. In all likelihood, he did indeed kill his wife, but the reason he got acquitted was because of Mark Fuhrman's bungling of the evidence (who more than likely planted the bloody glove) and his rampant racism, thus putting the murder case into doubt.


i dont see why a police or investigative force would plant evidence to speed up a trial...what do they have to benefit from a speedy trial?

[alien autopsy]

Define "fairly common" please. Yes, there are bad cops, and yes the Rampart scandal exposed some horrible, horrible behavior, but I could not sleep at night if I truly believed that cops are routinely framing people for murder. It's not how the world works. Most cops are trying hard to do a difficult job, even in our major american cities. Most mistakes are honest mistakes. And you might be surprised to find that it's not a job that tends to draw our best and brightest young people. :rolleyes: As for "courts" framing people, even guilty people, I don't understand what you're talking about. What is it that you think judges are doing and where did you get the idea? I don't mean to be hostile, but this is bumming me out. Is this paranoid world view a product of the movies or what?

If you're interested in the OJ case, I recommend the Vincent Bugliosi book or the Daniel Petrocelli book. While Fuhrman was a disaster, I believe that the two prosecutors lost that case by doing a really shitty job. I mean they were just awful from start to finish. The fact that Marsha Clark made a career off of losing a rock solid case in front of a national audience astounds me.

The cases you hear about, where an innocent guy is released from prison are rare cases. It's important to examine those cases because we have to do everything in our power to stop that from happening again. But the reason those cases get on 60 Minutes is because they are rare cases. Real criminal cases tend to be pretty damned boring. Most people plead guilty for good reasons.

big city cops routinely frame people for murder. chicago just underwent some serious scrutiny for their "special forces" unit who routinely tortured people they investigated. they also got busted a few months back for shoving a screwdriver up a guys ass (who was innocent) and sending him to the hospital. about a year ago there were three seperate occassions where off duty chicago police officers were involved in brawls at bars. one of which, a cop punched a woman bartender. this was all in the last year. i havent been paying attention that long, but i can imagine, if this is one year, how bad it really is, and how much we dont know about. big city cops are ruthless, often racist and get away with a lot.

as for rarity of people being released from prison due to their innocence?

heres a ny times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05EFDB123FF93BA25754C0A96F9582 60)article about DNA testing freeing innocents from prison JUST IN NEW YORK AND WITH THE INNOCENCE PROJECT ALONE:


Mr. Scheck is the co-director, with Peter Neufeld, of the Innocence Project at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in Manhattan. The two men have pioneered the use of DNA testing in criminal cases.
Mr. Scheck said 64 people -- more than half of them with the assistance of the project -- have had their convictions overturned as a result of DNA testing. In eight of those cases, the convicts were on death row.
Mr. Scheck said thousands of others ''have been exonerated after an arrest, in the middle of a trial, things like that.''


Madison Hobley Speaks Out
Will He Be The 14th Innocent Man Freed From Death Row (http://www.nodeathpenalty.org/newab021/hobley.html) (in illinois)

from the same organization (http://www.nodeathpenalty.org/content/page.php?cat_id=1&content_id=21)who sponsored that article:

Criminologist Michael Radlet notes that between 1900 and 1992, there were 416 documented cases of innocent persons who have been convicted of murder or capital rape—a third of whom were given a death sentence. He discovered that in 23 of these cases, the person was executed.

*note that is only for murder and capitol rape

these are cases that we are aware of...who knows how many people truly are innocent and behind bars for every offense imaginable.

and i think oftentimes, people are framed to coverup the actions of another "more important" person...or they are framed because someone is needed to eb the fall guy. to speed up the process, to calm the public, or to place the blame and make it look like they have caught the evildoer. sometimes, people are even framed because of who they are, not what they did or didnt do.

[alien autopsy]

Hey, my memory COULD be off, but I watched a PBS Frontline documentary during the 10th anniversary of the OJ verdict (2005), and it suggested that Fuhrman and/or the LAPD planted some evidence, even if he was already guilty, which is what cost the trial for the prosecution's case (i.e. Furhman testifying in court).

There was a discussion among law students in one aspect of the program and in the discussion one said: "The LAPD framed a guilty man." Nevertheless, it was an interesting speculation, even if I didn't spend my then 12-year-old life sitting in front of the couch 24/7 watching the OJ trial (my mom sure was, though).

If you have a different version of the Frontline doc and I got it wrong (I haven't watched it in two years), please tell me so. I ain't no alienautopsy or Carlos, so let me set the record straight. :P


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/

You can even stream the whole program, if you're interested.

show me an instance where i havent cited a credible source where i was making a point of truth, not of opinion. i ONLY use credible sources and i look to the bottom of each source i read so i can better understand the evidence and the case im trying to make by choosing a position. ive learned from the past, that you arent right until you have a larger understanding of the facts. so i frame my arguments upon that foundation. why dont you kiss ass a little more. its like your afraid to upset docu or rob whenever you post in their presence.

you say things like "if im wrong, please tell me so" or "im just thinking out loud here documad, so please bare with me". you dont owe anyone anything, you dont need to apologize to anyone for your opinions, and you dont have to go on and insult me in your posts to be a part of the gang.

[RobMoney$]

You know what's the most annoying thing about this whole "Mumia" topic?
In 6 months from now there will be another "alien_autopsy" that comes along wanting to "Free Mumia" all over again.

I can only imagine what Mrs. Faulkner has gone through over the years.

[yeahwho]

You know what's the most annoying thing about this whole "Mumia" topic?
In 6 months from now there will be another "alien_autopsy" that comes along wanting to "Free Mumia" all over again.

I can only imagine what Mrs. Faulkner has gone through over the years.

That equation never enters the minds of conspiracy buffs, the actual families who uncover and roll over every stone of evidence looking for justice, not sitting in front of google reading half baked arguments with no substantial societal hope for anybody.

Meanwhile the whole Countries Civil Rights have been impinged upon while they're concentrating on cheap ass theory.

[Documad]

Hey, my memory COULD be off, but I watched a PBS Frontline documentary during the 10th anniversary of the OJ verdict (2005), and it suggested that Fuhrman and/or the LAPD planted some evidence, even if he was already guilty, which is what cost the trial for the prosecution's case (i.e. Furhman testifying in court).

There was a discussion among law students in one aspect of the program and in the discussion one said: "The LAPD framed a guilty man." Nevertheless, it was an interesting speculation, even if I didn't spend my then 12-year-old life sitting in front of the couch 24/7 watching the OJ trial (my mom sure was, though).

If you have a different version of the Frontline doc and I got it wrong (I haven't watched it in two years), please tell me so. I ain't no alienautopsy or Carlos, so let me set the record straight. :P


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/

You can even stream the whole program, if you're interested.
I watched the whole thing. I like the woman who directed it. She did some incredible ones on the child sexual abuse scandals in the 1980s. I wish those were available online because I've wanted to see those again for years.

I didn't like the one on the OJ verdict though. I think because it focused on the verdict and the reaction of the black community rather than the trial itself. Anyhow, Scott Turow said in the documentary that Fuhrman might have planted the glove. Then he said that he didn't know (how could anyone know). It was one of the black guys at the barbershop who said it happened.

The point is that we can speculate about that and everything else in that case and in every other case in the media. But we don't have any proof that it happened. I object to people assuming that a rumor is true just because it's often repeated.

The documentary also rubbed me the wrong way because it gave all the credit to Cochran. He did a great job but I think it was Barry Scheck who should get a lot of the credit. It makes sense to focus on Cochran in this show though because it was about the black community's opinion of the case rather than the case itself. The judge also deserves a lot of the credit because he did a horrible job of running the trial. They didn't allow cameras in the courtroom future high profile cases because of his performance in the OJ case. By the way, I watched the verdict in a judge's chambers at our local courthouse. The room was packed. My boss's husband is a very successful private criminal defense attorney and he had predicted the acquital from the beginning (he figured Cochran would be the local expert and would pick a good jury for his client) but the only person who rejoiced at the verdict was the only black clerical worker present and she tried hard to mute her reaction because the rest of the room was white.

I will add that the OJ case fucked up a lot of black male defendants around the country for years after that verdict. Many of them believed that they would get acquitted and so they would insist on turning down good deals to go to trial. They would say that they wanted to "get OJ'd." They didn't understand that OJ won because he had a shitload of money to spend on attorneys and his own DNA expert. Sometimes our defendants would take the deal after they saw the all white jury get seated in the jury box. It took a few years for that to wear off.

[Documad]

You know what's the most annoying thing about this whole "Mumia" topic?
In 6 months from now there will be another "alien_autopsy" that comes along wanting to "Free Mumia" all over again.

I can only imagine what Mrs. Faulkner has gone through over the years.

Yes, my heart goes out to her.

[Documad]

I've recommended this movie a dozen times, but everyone should see Murder on a Sunday Morning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_on_a_Sunday_Morning) for a real story about an innocent kid who was accused of a murder because he was the wrong color and was in the wrong place. It won an academy award so it is hopefully still easy to find. It's a real story and quite accurate in my opinion. The two public defenders are just marvelous--hard working and frumpy. You would hope that every defendant had attorneys like them.

Don't read a lengthy review that gives the story away. It's better to see it without reading too much ahead of time.

[pshabi]

how many people are exhonerated after 25 years!! everday it seems, here in illinois, we have another person (almost 100% of the time an african american) who is let out of jail because someone else finally admitted to the crime, DNA evidence proved innocence or some other proof came forward.

The cases you hear about, where an innocent guy is released from prison are rare cases.

Hmmmmmm, I'm confused. Which of our two experts is right??? :confused:

[alien autopsy]

gee-whiz in your mouth

[DroppinScience]

why dont you kiss ass a little more. its like your afraid to upset docu or rob whenever you post in their presence.

you say things like "if im wrong, please tell me so" or "im just thinking out loud here documad, so please bare with me". you dont owe anyone anything, you dont need to apologize to anyone for your opinions, and you dont have to go on and insult me in your posts to be a part of the gang.

Good God, you never fail to antagonize the very people you hope to convince, huh?

First off, me and Documad got a history of 4 years of mutual respect on this forum. I value her view point because I know she is an extremely informed woman. When she corrects me or calls me out, 99% of the time, she knows what she's talking about more than I do. She knows a lot more about this trial than I do (and I'm willing to bet you as well). I'm not claiming to be an authority on the subject (yet you seem to be despite the facts not on your side), so I'm deferring to the smarter one.

But if you think that courtesy extends to Rob$ as well, you haven't been on the forum very long. Neither of us will be members of each other's fan clubs, let's just put it that way. And he's not particularly well-received by many other members of this board either.

[Bob]

But if you think that courtesy extends to Rob$ as well, you haven't been on the forum very long. Neither of us will be members of each other's fan clubs, let's just put it that way.

exhibit A

I'll gut DS like a deer if you stop posting.

i rest my case

[RobMoney$]

but I'm INNOCENT and I demand a new trial.
Someone call Amnesty International, someone get Howard Zinn on the line.
I want my "Freedom Fighter" bio-pic to be filmed.


The prosecuter was clearly biased. (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v304/RobMoney004/droppintransppj6.gif)

[Bob]

haha

[DroppinScience]

Power to the People (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v482/chickencow/evenmore.jpg)

[afronaut]

I'd just like to say that while the nation is obsessed with stupid black preacher, barack/hillary or elliot spitzer bullshit, we still have time to argue about other things. It makes me proud it does.

[Documad]

I love all you guys. <3

[Knuckles]

I'm feelin' the love as well. Who would have guessed this thread would have turned out to be so funny. (y)

[King PSYZ]

asshattery always brings the political board together

[mathcart]

asshattery always brings the political board together

asshattery > douchebaggery

or put another way

asshattery : douchebaggery

serious thread dissolving into fun silliness : using stupid SAT metaphors to make a (stupid) point

DAMMIT! why can't I partake in the prevalent asshattery!?!
:mad:

[King PSYZ]

But you just did...

[RobMoney$]

Here's an extremely interesting film that's coming out by an acclaimed Philadelphia filmmaker Tigre Hill (who YES, is black) called "Barrel of a Gun" which takes the position of telling the tale of Abu-Jamal/Wesley Cook/Convicted Cop Killer's guilt.
And Yes, that's his name...Abu-Jamal/Wesley Cook/Convicted Cop Killer.
Take your pick which one you call him by. All three apply.

Suprise, Suprise,...the Black community is outraged at him.


http://www.phillymag.com/articles/movies_the_gospel_according_to_tigre/

[RobMoney$]

And here's a link to a FB page for the film.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Barrel-of-a-Gun/21747061158

There's a couple of trailers for the film on it.

[DroppinScience]

No matter what happened, Mumia shouldn't be executed.

If he's guilty (and he likely is), he should be in prison the rest of his life.

[b i o n i c]

Here's an extremely interesting film that's coming out by an acclaimed Philadelphia filmmaker Tigre Hill (who YES, is black) called "Barrel of a Gun" which takes the position of telling the tale of Abu-Jamal/Wesley Cook/Convicted Cop Killer's guilt.
And Yes, that's his name...Abu-Jamal/Wesley Cook/Convicted Cop Killer.
Take your pick which one you call him by. All three apply.

Suprise, Suprise,...the Black community is outraged at him.


[URL]http://www.phillymag.com/articles

No matter what happened, Mumia shouldn't be executed.

If he's guilty (and he likely is), he should be in prison the rest of his life.


D: like (http://www.entertonement.com/clips/vqsffmmhtp--Twilight-Zone-Guitar-RiffThe-Twilight-Zone-)

[freetibet]

RESURRECT THAT WHITE POLICE OFFICER!

:rolleyes:

[RobMoney$]

You know what's the most annoying thing about this whole "Mumia" topic?
In 6 months from now there will be another "alien_autopsy" that comes along wanting to "Free Mumia" all over again.

I can only imagine what Mrs. Faulkner has gone through over the years.


And the nightmare continues for the Faulkner Family...



http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131200895


Judges Debate Sentencing Of Abu-Jamal
by The Associated Press

November 9, 2010


Police widows and supporters of death-row activist Mumia Abu-Jamal listened Tuesday as federal appeals judges in Philadelphia debated whether the former Black Panther deserves a new sentencing hearing in a police officer's death.

The appeals court had granted the new sentencing hearing on the grounds that the jury at Abu-Jamal's 1982 trial was not given proper death-penalty instructions. But the U.S. Supreme Court this year, in rejecting a similar Ohio case, ordered the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges to rethink its decision.

[RobMoney$]

Here's a song and music video written by Gary Cherone for the film "Barrel of a Gun".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzlOu0Ig46o&feature=player_embedded

[yeahwho]

I don't know how many nights I've stayed wide awake longing for those Van Halen Gary Cherone glory days.

That was rock and roll.

* tear rolls down face*