Devil’s advocate: couldn’t she have become a “pro-Mumia nut” because she overheard the statement she says she overheard?
One would think she would have done so sooner.
This boils down to being
a) a lie
or
b) criminally irresponsible as she failed to report it when it happened to anyone, and failed to mention it to anyone before or during all of Mumia’s late 90’s appeals.
Then why didn’t she bring up, oh, I dunno, 19 years earlier? Why isn’t there a single procedural error from the trial, other than the bogus one mentioned? Seriously, what are we supposed to do with this unsubstantiated “testimony”? Overturn a trial that has withstood every appeal with regard to the verdict? Based on what? Is this the threshold we’d set for the defense? The “some pro-defendant lady says she heard something racist almost twenty years ago, something no one else heard, and she just decided to make it public” threshold when NOTHING else substantiates it?
Sorry, I know you’re just playing Devil’s advocate.
Why did it take her 19 years to bring it up, then? If hearing this statement was enough to change her mind, wouldn’t she assume that it might change other people’s minds, too? And wouldn’t it be better to bring it up sooner rather than later, just in case there is someone who could corroborate her story?
I mean, it says right in the article I linked that she claims she’s been telling people about it for years and no one wanted to listen.
I hate being forced into the role of defending Abu-Jamal here, since he’s pretty clearly guilty and his most vociferous partisans are insufferable hard-left professional activists and Calvin Klein Campus Communists who I don’t want to associate myself with. But it’s really hard to avoid backing into the “pro-Mumia” camp when the other side spins in outrage at the idea that somewhere in America, a black man accused of killing a white cop may not have gotten a fair trial. I’m just asking that the legal process be followed and everyone receive equal protection under the law, and you seem so emotionally invested in…well…“helping them fry that nigger” no matter what the reasons for hesitating are, and in tarring everyone who questions any aspect of the case as some sort of fanatic. It doesn’t make you look good, is what I’m saying.
I certainly don’t want Abu-Jamal to be set free, nor would I cry many tears if he were executed. I just think it would be a good thing for the interests of justice if he were to get a new trial, which is bound to be more fair due to the scrutiny, and at which he will surely be found guilty without the cloud of suspicion, closing the book on this case for all but the most fanatic “he should be able to shoot whomever he wants!” people.
You ain’t kidding, brother. Faulkner was killed by the weapon purchased by Mumia and found right at the scene. By Mumia’s side, where a cop kicked it aside so that Mumia couldn’t reach it. Mumia had a slug from Faulkner’s gun in his chest, the shot that ultimately incapacitated him. Multiple people on the scene witnessed the entire exchange, where Mumia shot Faulkner five times, once in the back, four more times as he lay prone (once in the face; his gun had five empty chambers). They identified Mumia as the killer–it not being a particularly difficult exercise, since he never moved from the scene, being shot and all.
They needed to create a new verdict for this trial. Super Guilty, maybe. Really Fucking Guilty. Something like that. It defies common sense, it defies the simplest of logic, it defies description, frankly, to have familiarized yourself with the facts of this case and then to have decided that Mumia might not have killed Faulkner.
I don’t know why? Do you? It is not the first time a witness decided to reveal what they knew long after a trial.
Yes, she says. Who did she tell? Not a single person can corroborate even this. This is the definition of an unsubstantiated claim.
I have no trouble believing that this has happened. It is not incredible at all. Who do you hear denying this? the point is that there is NO credible evidence that it occurred in this case. None. The legal process was followed. Every appeal. What exactly do you think should happen? A new trial based on what specific legal basis?
Suppose I tell you right now–just suppose–that I heard this woman tell someone that she made it all up, it was a lie. Is that enough for you to discount her testimony? Suppose I swear to it. If you won’t accept this, why not? If you answer that, you’ve answered your own question. Anyone can say anything. Her 19-year delay alone makes her testimony–did I mention it’s unsubstantiated?–completely unbelievable. The fact that someone asserts something is not, by itself, enough to reverse a verdict or force a new trial. Do you concede that? If it were, no one would ever be guilty.
Yes, so if someone says something, we should just assume it’s worthy of being considered, despite the complete absence of any corroborating fact to support it. Because, after all, there was that other time where somebody waited, you know, that other time. Remember? That’s good enough for me.
Your statement that she had “no reason to lie” ignores the messy world of how humans operate. People view things according to how they want to view them. She can even be sincere in her statement that she now thinks she heard him say that, even if he never said anything like it 20 years ago.
Even if I could be assured that she is 100% not lying, sincerely saying that she believes she heard the judge say those words, I still would put very little weight on her memory of it.
It’s OK. I was just probing the logic of asserting that her statement is implausible because of her support for Mumia without addressing the possibility that cause and effect were reversed.
I have no knowledge of this case, but from what you are describing, the main evidence seems to be eye witness testimony, something which is famously unreliable. SO if that is the only evidence and it occured at night, well yes there is doubt.
I’m sorry, but this is an insult to the City and people of Philadelphia.
The Mumia trial was covered extensively. The papers ran daily articles on the events of the trials. Reporter groups such as the Black Journalists Association watched the unfolding events like a hawk, as well as very liberal leaning newspaper columnists. There was even a decent level of national coverage, but Mumia wasn’t the poster child for the anti-death penalty groups at that time.
Your comment above implies that somehow the City of Philadelphia sneakily tried him in some kind of Star Chamber with no scrutiny, or that Mumia was shoved into some dark alley with a judge and sentenced to death before he could get a word in edgewise.
Even after the fact, the case was pored over by legal experts and judges. Most legal experts can find absolutely no fault, the judges ruled unanimously that there was nothing wrong with the trial procedure. Only a few lawyers found faults and they were notoriously vague about what exactly they thought was wrong. This showed painfully in the appeals process.
I’m sorry, but there are problems with this:
a) We don’t just give criminals retrials because they have a cult following
b) Any retrial would be based on now almost thirty year old memories
c) Some of the witnesses are dead
and finally
d) Giving nutcases what they want never solves the problem. 9/11 nutters want ‘A new investigation’ but can’t define what they want in one, JFK nutters got the HSCA and still weren’t satisfied with it because it didn’t point fingers at anyone they wanted blamed (and with JFK nutters that is everyone). The list like this is endless, and unfair to our system as this is a case where the courts worked exactly as it was supposed to, but people didn’t like the results.
I want a new trial because the original one was (despite the “nuh-uh” countering) unbelievably perverse to the course of justice, not because I think Abu-Jamal is innocent, or care about his “cult following,” or think that accused criminals are automatically entitled to do-overs.
I am not a nutcase, I don’t think you should go out and shoot cops because you’re angry at them, and I don’t think Abu-Jamal should be freed. The fact that one side of this debate characterizes “I want the established procedure for criminal trials to be fairly and consistently followed in all cases” as the “nutcase” position (with the subtext of “because ANYTHING that might get in the way of convicting and executing any black man who is accused of a crime is the exclusive province of Marxists and agitators” often rising to the level of text) speaks volumes about where you are in relation to the sober, one-step-back look at things.
Please learn about what you are talking about before making such claims.
Stratocaster actually described a fraction of the evidence involved.
The eyewitnesses identified Mumia at the scene. They were able to do so because Mumia didn’t get away. Mumia couldn’t get away because he was shot. Mumia was shot by Faulkner. Why? Almost certainly because Mumia shot Faulkner in the back.
Now, in the area where Faulkner was executed there were only three people. Mumia, Mumia’s brother, and Officer Faulkner. Nobody else. Witnesses saw someone run across the street and shoot an officer. It wasn’t Faulkner who ran across the street, and it wasn’t Mumia’s brother. Who does that leave.
Two guns were found at the scene. One was Faulkner’s, the other belonged to Mumia. Faulkner had fired one round, and Mumia’s had 5 empty casings in it. Either Mumia likes to walk around with empty shells in his revolver and has the worst luck in the world (since the invisible ‘real killer’s’ gun fired the exact type of ammo that killed Faulkner as Mumia had of spent shells) or he did the deed himself.
There’s a lot I am missing, but in this matter, the eyewitnesses don’t really need to be super accurate.
Had Mumia managed to escape, this case would be a lot more murky. As it stands, it was open-and-shut. This is why Mumia tried to turn his day in court into some kind of Chicago 7 mistrial. Didn’t work.
It was not “unbelievably perverse”, and the Supreme Court of PA unanimously agreed. The SCOTUS didn’t see anything even remotely wrong to bring it up in front of them - (hence why this recent issue was over his sentencing). I’ll trust the judgement of these diverse and experienced judges over your unfounded assessment, thank you.
I’d also say that having the Supreme Court of PA unanimously state that the trial was fair is a lot more than “nuh-uh” countering as you claim.
On the other hand, you have produced absolutely nothing to support your claim but an unsupported affidavit of something ‘revealed’ 19 years after the fact.
Funny how conservatives suddenly have so much respect for the “activist judges” in the appellate system when they uphold your plan to execute someone after a sham trial.
Funny how multiple numbers of the highest judges in both state and federal levels, coming from a wide range of political backgrounds, disagree with your assessment of ‘sham trial’.
There are very few social conservatives who even post on this board, so it’s not like we’ve decided to kill off an uppity black because a cop was shot. You’ll also probably find that the majority here would prefer to see him serve a life sentence instead of be executed.
It’s just that I haven’t seen a shred of information that would make me think he didn’t get a fair trial. Like Mr. Miskatonic said, it’s not proper to give criminal retrials just because a certain political segment would like it.
On the other hand, if you have any information that shows he didn’t get a fair trial, I would like to see it. Otherwise I’m content to see him locked up for the rest of his life.
Please read what I wrote before making such claims.