Why would anyone like someone to be shot while thinking they don’t deserve to be shot? How does that work? Am I missing something?
You can provide a cite for this, I’m sure? I have never heard this particular bit of nonsense, and I’ve read a good bit about this case. There is no way this occurred. This is absolute bullshit.
I absolutely can conceive of such a circumstance. That’s just not what occurred here. There is nothing to support that. Nothing. It’s not about political alllegiances, it’s about the facts. Sorry.
The statement of the court stenographer, which she swore to in an affidavit in 2001:
http://www.labournet.net/mumia/0109/philnews.html
It’s very easy to say that you are the one interested in facts when any facts that are inconvenient to you can be dismissed with “didn’t happen, bullshit.”
There is an endless series of “witnesses” with no credibility. The parade has been endless. Take yours:
An unsubstantiated (and denied) quote from a free-Mumia nut, heard only by her. One that she told lots and lots of people, but is doubtful that any will come forward and substantiate. Waited 19 years, right at the point of a key ruling, to make her affidavit. Okee-dokee. That’s a good one.
You sound very interested in facts and not at all concerned with deciding the facts based on politics.
This claim of the quote can hardly be considered a ‘fact’. A sworn affidavit means nothing. Several ridiculous claims in this case have been put to sworn affidavit. Remember the Terry Shiavo case? There was a crazy nurse there who made a sworn affidavit that her husband was trying to kill her. No evidence whatsoever, mind you, but would you consider her affidavit a ‘fact’?
You must have been living under a virtual rock not to have noticed some of the things Smash the State said on these boards a few months ago…
I consider it the role of the court system, including a jury, to weigh the evidence about the credibility of witnesses and come to a conclusion based on that. I don’t think people should be denied a retrial in the wake of such serious allegations about bias because the Internet has decided not to believe them. Frankly, if I heard the judge going on a racist rant about how he was going to fix the outcome of the trial, I would be a “free Mumia nut” too; saying “all the evidence for the trial being unfair comes from people who think the trial was unfair” is a little tautological.
It’s not comparable to the Schiavo case for a lot of reasons. “Killing” Terry Schiavo was a medical impossibility, as she was already dead, so such statements would be irrelevant anyway. No one’s religious beliefs are at stake in the Abu-Jamal case, so there is slightly less reason to lie. No criminal matter was at hand in the Schiavo case, so less stringent protections of people accused of things apply.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100119/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_police_shooting
SCOTUS upholds Mumia death sentence
Now, let’s see what other nonsense the appeals court can come up with to keep him alive another 30 years.
The pro-Mumia people I have met don’t tend to be the most rational people I have ever come across. But also, the people I met most committed to seeing him executed, and there were a bunch of them in the area I lived in up in Philly, also tended to be the sort of people who would move to the other side of the bar if a black person sat anywhere near them. Or, to put it in your terminology, the sort of white supremacists who insist that Mumia is guilty as hell, but also think that the idea of executing “uppity” black folk is awesome.
The trial was preseided over by a racist judge who openly declared an intention to “fry that nigger.” I think that’s grounds for a retrial all by itself. I don’t know if Mumia is guilty or not (I’m not convinced either way), but his trial was a joke.
Again, the trial was presided over by a judge who one person, 20 years later, claimed made that statement.
Hey, if one person says it twenty years later, it must be true.
After all, people never lie. Especially not for what they consider a good cause. Right?
It was a court stenographer who said it in a sworn deposition, and who had no reason to lie.
I read your post, and then read post #23 in this thread, and I say, “no reason to lie”? :dubious:
You cannot have read the trial transcripts and make that statement. It was witnessed by people at the scene who never took their eyes off him. He was wounded and was there when backup arrived. There isn’t anything to be convinced about.
If Mumia’s trial was a joke, it was solely due to his antics. There were no judicial or DA improprieties during the trial, and the Supreme Court of PA agreed UNANIMOUSLY that this was the case. Supreme Courts of the US or any state rarely agree unanimously on matters such as this and I trust their judgement far more than people on the internet who claim otherwise.
With no further evidence it is meaningless.
For the record, the Sternographer claims that she heard the offending statement during the Jury selection process…then waited 19 years when she had the responsibility to report such words to someone…anyone. Mumia’s family, his lawyer, someone. She decides to wait until Mumia is a cause celebre before pulling this out of her hat after his 1995 appeals fell flat.
Judge Sabo categorically denied saying it or anything like it.
“No reason to lie” doesn’t hold water.
I think the jury did just that.
Be that as it may, the courts seem to have ruled that comments remember conveniently 19 years after the fact aren’t really worth that much. My opinion may not count, but their’s does, and they are in a position to judge.
When a claim is made with no corroborating support, by someone who had the ability, no, the responsibility to report such comments at the time or at least within a reasonable time frame I tend to cast a jaundiced eye at the source.
No, they are relevant. The entire series of rulings by the Florida judge was to determine if Terry Shiavo was actually dead and if her husband had the right to decide her ultimate fate.
While not criminal, much hay was made of Mr. Schiavo’s attitude toward the comatose Terry. Much of that included some unsupported statements from some individuals (that was contrary to the physical & corroborated witness evidence that he was actually quite caring for his comatose wife). But again sworn affidavits were made and much was made about said nurses having ‘no reason to lie’.
I am absolutely convinced, and I have read the actual transcripts. This witness has absolutely no credibility. If this is the threshold anyone needs to get over to cast doubt, no one is guilty.
Other than to free Mumia. The context of her “testimony” is ludicrous. No one heard it but her, a pro-Mumia nut. She told loads of people, though she doubts anyone will actually support her (no one did, by the way–this is old). She was quiet, as far as we can tell factually, for 19 years. Not a single procedural error was detected in the trial to support a racist agenda, the only procedural error was identified in the ruling that the jury instructions weren’t clear enough (and I think that was a bogus ruling). This is the standard Mumia bullshit we’ve endured for years. Unsubstantiated nonsense, piled high.