Mumia Abu-Jamal is scheduled to give a graduation speech at Antioch College next month. Today my local paper ran an article written by the wife of the slain Philadelphia police officer. She states that she plans to attend carrying a picture of her dead husband.
What does everyone here think? Is this guy guilty or is he a political prisoner, framed for a crime he didn’t commit?
Needs2know
Guilty…
I’m curious, if he speaks, and if that officer’s widow shows up - how do you think she will be treated?
Sad to say but in my opinion, she’ll be villified (sp?)!
The Sleeper has AWAKENED!
What do I think? Fry Mumia!!
TMR
If you believed in yourself, and tore enough holes
in your pants, there was always a mist-filled alley
right around the corner.
Are you kidding? Framed? Poliical prisoner?
Officer Faulkner was shot several times including the final fatal shot to the face by a gun registered in Jamal’s name. The gun found laying next to Jamal at the scene was matched to the bullets that killed Officer Faulkner.
Four eyewitnesses testified that Jamal was the shooter and fired first.
Jamal’s own brother William Cook, who had been stopped by Officer Faulkner, wasn’t called to take the stand in Jamal’s defense.
Jamal was found at the crime scene having been hit once by Officer Faulkner. Ballistic tests showed that the shot that hit Officer Faulkner in the back was at very close range (2 feet IIRC). The bullet which hit Jamal, which was shown to be from Faulkner’s gun, was from the same range.
Jamal is guilty guilty guilty. If there is a God I hope he rots in the worst possible aspect of hell.
On a personal, “Ben & Jerry” are supporters of Jamal’s freedom and so I boycott their products and I always will.
I am glad you posted this thread. I am sending a letter to Antioch College tonight expressing my concern for that this killer is allowed to speak at their graduation ceremony.
“mumia” is guilty. Period. There exists, however, another, reasonable point that the death penalty is evil, and should not be applied in mumias case. I am not saying I agree with this point, but we must differentiate between those who feel Mumia was framed (not thinking very well), and those who oppose the death penalty (who have a stong arguement).
Amnesty International has called for a new trial for Mumia Abu-Jamal.
(see the full Amnesty International Report)
I will try to condense some of the points here. Direct quotes will be in italics.
[ul][li]The judge was biased in favour of the prosecution, and appeared to be more concerned with expediency than fairness. For example, during the proceedings of 17 June, he stated “I don’t want to be held up on lousy technicalities…what do I care?”[/li][li]His defense counsel was ill-prepared, and Mumia Abu-Jamal, dissatisfied with his attorney’s performance, asked to represent himself, but was forbidden by the judge to do so. (After this, M. Abu-Jamal became increasingly belligerant and was removed from the courtroom on several occasions.)[/li][li]The defense was denied adequate funds to hire independent experts.[/li][li]The jury was not racially representative. The prosecution, out of its 15 challenges, used 11 of them to remove black jurors. The remaining jury had 2 black jurors (the population of Philadelphia, at the time of the trial, was 40% black.) The jurors selected for the trial of Mumia Abu-Jamal appear to have received different treatment from the court according to their race. Jennie Dawley, black, was the only juror selected while Abu-Jamal was conducting his own defence. Dawley requested, before the trial started, that she be allowed to take her sick cat to the veterinarian during the evening, thereby not disrupting the court proceedings. Judge Sabo denied this request without informing the defence. Juror Dawley was dismissed from the jury when she failed to abide by the Court’s instruction. In contrast, a white juror requested permission to take a civil service exam during court time. Judge Sabo granted this request, temporarily halted the trial and instructed a court official to accompany the juror and ensure that he saw no media coverage of the trial.[/li][li]Three police officers who reported having heard Mumia Abu-Jamal confess did so more than two months after the shooting. One of them had written in his (original) report that “we stayed with the male at Jefferson [hospital] until we were relieved. During this time, the negro male made no comments”. When the defense attempted to call that officer to testify, it turned out he was on vacation (though he was not supposed to be) and the judge did not allow the trial to stop to try and locate him.[/li][li]The three witnesses: Based on a comparison of their statements given to the police immediately after the shooting, their testimony during pretrial hearings and their testimony at the trial, the key witnesses did substantively alter their descriptions of what they saw, in ways that supported the prosecution’s version of events. Several of the prosecution witnesses seem to have received preferential treatment from police after the trial. One was a prostitute who was arrested twice after the shooting but not prosecuted; another was a cab driver who was driving with a suspended license at the time, but not charged for it, and whose description differed from Mumia Abu-Jamal’s description on several points. The third witness, in one of his original statements, stated several times that he did not know whether Abu-Jamal or his brother shot Faulkner. A witness for the defence testified in court that a police officer tried to coerce her into testifying against Abu-Jamal (her testimony was disallowed by the judge and never heard by the jury.)[/li]The ballistics evidence: Mumia Abu-Jamal’s gun was not tested to see if it had been fired in the immediate past, and his hands were not tested for gunpowder residue (another suspect, however, did have his hands tested.) The Medical Examiner first wrote in his notes that the bullet (in the victim’s body) was “.44 cal.” (Abu-Jamal’s gun was a .38 calibre weapon and could not possibly have fired such a bullet).[/ul]There is much more information at the site about the death penalty issue, but that’s not really relevant to the OP. In the sentencing portion of the trial, Mumia Abu-Jamal’s political statements made as a youth were (some say improperly) used against him.
eh. he’s guilty.
he won’t be at the college in person…it’ll either be recorded (this happened last year i believe, at some other college [in california ? ]), or teleconferenced.
at the speech last year, many students and other people stood up and turned around, facing away from the speakers/tv monitor/podium.
while he’s a decent commentator, i do believe he’s guilty, and therefore should be punished appropriately.
Guilty. There. I said it. I have heard him on NPR, read about him, and seen him swooned on by many causes. I do believe he has something to say. I believe that the trial was not conducted well, but shooting a cop gets you very little love from the jury. He opened fire, killing someone who was doing his job. He should be allowed to teleconference at Antioch though. He, as I stated before, has something to say. After that, he should meet Mr. Sparky.
I’m surprised that so many people are sure of his guilt. What do you base that on? How do you know that it wasn’t his brother, who was also present at the scene?
I oppose the death penalty, in all cases. I don’t really know enough about the case to make a reasonable, or well thought out statement as to Mumia’s guilt or innocence; however from what I have read, it sounds like he did not receive a fair trial.
Having said that, I think there is another point that needs to be made. I personally believe that it is inappropriate, under any circumstances, for a convicted murderer to be asked to speak at the commmencement for a college, high school, or morning day care.
The message that Mumia’s appearance sends to the student body at Antioch College is one of contempt for the American justice system, and the law. Mumia Abu-Jamal MAY be actually guilty of the murder, and a jury of twelve men and women found him guilty beyond all reasonable doubt in their opinions. As for the “racial representation” of the jury, I will note that a unanimous jury verdict is required for the death penalty, so the one remaining black juror must have been convinced of his guilt.
BTW, the college at which he spoke last year was Evergreen State College, right here in Washington. Our state Governer Gary Locke was originally scheduled to attend, but pulled out once he learned of Abu-Jamals presence.
QUOTE.
I believe that the trial was not conducted well, but shooting a cop gets you very little love from the jury. He opened fire, killing someone who was doing his job. …
I am increasingly reluctant to accept the states version of what happened in any case. And I’m about as fearful as I can be of police in general.
I beleive that most cops are honest, diligent public servants. But I live in southern California, where we have had cops convicted of moonlighting as hit-men. So far this year, 20 people have been released from prison in connection with the Rampart scandal. All 20 had been framed by members of LAPD’s elite ‘CRASH’ anti-gang unit.
From everything I’ve heard about this case, (from 20/20,A&E, etc…)I’d have to say that there is reasonable doubt.
It is obvious to me that many people believe in his innocence, death penalty or no. What always worries me about cases like this, (I’m also very interested in the West Memphis 3.) is that regardless of the falacies in the legal system, the opinions of the public and the debate over guilt or innocence…the victim and their loved ones always get lost in the shuffle. Their lives become facts in a case. They are reduced to lumps of flesh to be autopsied, studied and argued over. The perpetrator, guilty or innocent becomes the entire focus of the debate. It’s no wonder that the families and friends of these victims often lose faith in the legal system and their fellow man. So often they are the forgotten victims, looking for answers as to why one horrible act can never be laid to rest. And perhaps even wondering if the truth will ever be known.
Oh well, I’m still interested. Keep going guys anybody else?
Needs2know
The so-called mis-matching bullet myth
The Other Eyewitness Seeing A Fleeing Shooter Myth
The Racist Jury Myth
The Insufficient Money For Defense Myth
NOt Allowed To Defend Himself Myth
Jackson the Incompetent Lawyer Myth
My apologies for all the quotes. As I am sure the moderators know to refute some simple one sentence claims can take more than one sentence in return.
I have tried to keep this a brief as possible. If you wish to see the full detals including where this all can be found as a matter of public record see:
http://www.danielfaulkner.com
Yeah, I bet that’s an unbiased source. :rolleyes:
Let him have his retrial. If the evidence refuting his claims is strong enough, nothing will happen. If not, we may have saved another innocent man from being killed by the hands of the State.
Of course, I’m against the death penalty. So I’m not the most unbiased source either. But posting the refuting evidence from the website run by the family of the slain police officer…well, that’s a bit too stilted for me to handle.
This is a question I have also asked in the “Paradise Lost” thread…what is the difference between retrial and appeal? Doesn’t the appeal process give opportunity for addressing these issues? And isn’t an appeal mandatory when a death sentence has been issued? I thought that was why people sat on death row so long? Someone explain to me why these questions are not addressed during this time? And am I wrong in assuming that every state has this mandatory appeal?
Needs2know
Drain, did you check the site and its sources? Most everything from that site comes from public records in particular court record. So what if they are pro-Faulkner. Big whoop de do. Is the scientific evidence on a pro-evolution site in doubt because it is biased? Of course not, if their source is a reputable source.
Amnesty International is highly anti-death penalty, so is it little doubt that they support Jamal? Does that mean that whatever they have to say is immediately in doubt or wrong? I didn’t question what Amnesty International or Jamal’s lawyers provide as evidence because of their bias, I refuted the evidence. What don’t you try that instead?
P.s. - I am anti-death penalty too. That doesn’t change Jamal’s guilt.
For those interested:
Trial Transcripts available here:
http://www.justice4danielfaulkner.com/index.html
Penn. Supreme Court Decision Transcript
http://www.danielfaulkner.com/Pages/supreme.html
ABC’s 20/20 Investigation
http://www.frontpagemag.com/panthers/unlikely12-14-98.htm
There is just too much real evidence to the contrary for me to believe he’s not guilty. Unfortunately, the media latched on to this story and Mumia got some fortuitous breaks from the circumstances of the trial, so now the case has gotten a lot more life and infamy than it should have.
Glitch, thank you for the additional information. I posted “simple one sentence claims”, as you say, to prevent having a long post that was all quotes. I was tyring to summarize. But I guess I can also post longer sections of text. As mentioned above, you can read the the full Amnesty International Report. As in my first post, quotes will be in italics.
First I need to expand on Glitch’s statement.
Let me clarify Amnesty International’s position, it seems many people are unclear about that.
a) Amnesty International (AI) opposes the death penalty in all cases. So Abu-Jamal’s guilt or innocence would be irrelevant as far as that goes.
b) AI does not claim that Abu-Jamal’s trial was innocent, they claim that the trial was unfair. The reason they adopt Amu-Jamal’s case is because one of AI’s objectives is to obtain a fair trial for prisoners “whose case has a political aspect.” AI has not identified him as a political prisoner, but is 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.
To refer to the points that you mentioned above:
The mis-matching bullet:
Your additional information seems to refute this claim that the bullet might have been a .44 caliber bullet. However, please note as mentioned above that Mumia Abu-Jamal’s gun was not tested to see if it had been recently fired, and Mumia Abu-Jamal’s hands were not tested for gunpowder residue (the fact that the police tested the hands of another suspect show that they realized this would have been useful information.)
Daniel Chobert’s testimony:
Daniel Chobert’s *first recorded statement to police – about which the jury was not told – was that the shooter “apparently ran away”, according to a report written on 10 December 1981 by Inspector Giordano.*As noted above, there are also discrepancies between Daniel Chobert’s description and that of Abu-Jamal. What incentive would Daniel Chobert have to change his story? It is conceivable that police would have put pressure on him. Daniel Chobert had been convicted twice for driving while intoxicated, and was currently driving with a suspended license the night of the murder. (His license was still suspended at the time of the trial.) Daniel Chobert was also on probation for arson of a school. Judge Sabo refused to allow the defence the opportunity to make the jury aware of Chobert’s convictions. According to Chobert’s testimony at the 1995 hearing, he had asked the prosecutor during the trial “if he could help me find out how I could get my license back”, which was “important” to him because “that’s how I earned my living.” According to Chobert, the prosecutor told him that he would “look into it.” (Also see in my first post how another witness who claimed attempts of coercion by the police, to force her to name Abu-Jamal as the killer, was also prevented by the judge from having her testimony heard by the jury.)
As far as the “fleeing shooter myth”, that is not given a lot of airplay in the Amnesty International report, since their main concern is the unfairness of the original trial, not in proving Abu-Jamal’s innocence.
Not allowed to defend himself:
Originally Mumia Abu-Jamal was allowed to represent himself with Anthony Jackson being backup counsel. (Abu-Jamal was dissatisfied with Jackson’s performance.)
During jury selection on the third day of the trial, at the suggestion of the prosecution, Judge Sabo withdrew permission for Mumia Abu-Jamal to act as his own attorney – supposedly only for the duration of jury selection. Judge Sabo based this decision on Abu-Jamal’s alleged slowness in questioning potential jurors and on the grounds that his status as an accused murderer instilled fear and anxiety in the jurors. However, Judge Sabo did concede that “…it is true I have not rebuked Mr. Jamal at any time [during jury selection].”
Jackson objected to the ruling, pointing out to Judge Sabo that “The last case I had before you, it took us nine days to select a jury and it certainly didn’t have as much publicity as this case”. Jackson noted that jury selection in another homicide case had taken five weeks to complete. He went on to state that “in all homicide cases, particularly in capital cases… jurors express some apprehension, some unsettlement, some fear with regard to the whole process.”
The Philadelphia Inquirer described Abu-Jamal’s conduct prior to his removal as lead counsel as “intent and business like” and “subdued”. In the first two days of the trial, Abu-Jamal had questioned 23 prospective jurors, successfully challenging two for “cause” (bias), defeating a prosecution challenge for cause, and exercising two peremptory strikes (the right to remove a prospective juror without giving reasons).
Amnesty International also concluded that Judge Sabo’s comment that “You have indicated to this court that you do not have the expertise necessary to conduct voir dire” (jury selection) is likewise not supported by the record. At no point was he rude or agressive, his examination of the jurors took a similar time than the prosecutor’s examination, and he was instrumental in successfully challenging two for “cause” (bias), defeating a prosecution challenge for cause, and exercising two peremptory strikes (the right to remove a prospective juror without giving reasons).
After the trial proper began, Mumia Abu-Jamal began to represent himself. An indication of the tense situation between Judge Sabo and Abu-Jamal, near the beginning of the trial, is shown by this incident. Mumia Abu-Jamal also requested that John Africa be allowed to sit at the defence table, in order to provide legal and tactical advice throughout the trial. This request was permissible under Pennsylvania law but was denied by Judge Sabo. When pressed by Abu-Jamal, who gave examples of other judges who had allowed non-lawyers to sit at the table of defendants, Judge Sabo stated that unless there was a legal precedent, he did not care what other judges did, and continued to refuse the request. Soon afterwards Judge Sabo prohibited Mumia Abu-Jamal from representing himself. The Amnesty International report says that Abu-Jamal became disruptive after the interdiction to represent himself, but not before.
The ill-prepared lawyer
Please notice that my original post called him ill-prepared, not incompetent. Anthony Jackson admits this himself. See-below.
Jackson also protested at being appointed as backup counsel, stating that he did not know what it entailed, but was told by the judge; “You can fight that out with Mr. Jamal.” Jackson was given no clarification by the court as to his role in the trial as backup counsel.
In a sworn affidavit dated 17 April 1995, Jackson admitted to being “unprepared” for trial and that he “abandoned all efforts at trial preparation” three weeks before the start of the trial after Mumia Abu-Jamal had obtained the right to represent himself.
I forgot one point:
Insufficient funds to hire independent experts.
As far as your statement that This was well in excess of the customary level of support offered to a defendant accused of murder in Philadelphia in 1982.
](http://www.essential.org/dpic[/quote)