Not quite. The prosecution was not able to show conclusively that Mumia’s weapon fired the bullets that killed the officer. They were able to establish that Mumia’s weapon had the same caliber and type of ammunition, and that the grooves and rifling matched the weapon that killed the officer.
No, I would think you need to know a bit more than that.
Did you have a cite for this?
Regards,
Shodan
Court Reporter Terri Maurer-Carter is the source. She has testified to that effect in appeals. I have yet to meet someone who wants Abu-Jamal to receive the death penalty that has had any knowledge of the content-basis of his appeals. This includes, unfortunately, the victim’s family who refuses to even address the legality of the sentencing issue as worth anything. In some ways, who can blame them? If your family member was gunned down, you might also want to do anything in your power to make sure the person you thought did it was killed, “legality” or “justice” notwithstanding.
In 2001, an appeals judge reduced Abu-Jamal’s sentence to life without parole.
I couldn’t find a direct cite, as any relevant article would be older than the Philly Inquirer’s 180 day archive. Indirect cite in a recent column: http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/pennsylvania/cities_neighborhoods/philadelphia/7215440.htm
I recall Michael Moore, in his suggestions on how to win over Republicans, as saying that sure Mumia probably killed that guy and that what a lot of liberals have a problem with is the fair trial part. It seems that there are a lot of people who would like to seem him retried fairly and then sentenced to life in prison (or even death).
I don’t know about most jurisdictions, but the California statute, at least, only ups the penalty if the cop was acting in his or her official capacity and the perpetrator knew it when he or she intentionally killed the cop.
If off-duty, same penalties as an ordinary civilian.
I wouldn’t necessarily say that the one follows from the other. I would certainly agree that Mumia deserves a much fairer trial than he got, and there is plenty of evidence that should be presented at the trial (for instance the confession of Arnold Beverly, which to my knowledge hasn’t yet been refuted).
I guess the whole point is we shouldn’t be the ones judging whether Mumia killed Faulkner or not - let a fair trial, run by an impartial judge, review all the evidence available and make that decision. The death penalty should be off the table from the start - the fact that it was applied in such an irresponsible manner in the first place should invalidate it as an option in a new trial. And if he is found guilty? I guess that’s up to the judge and the statutes of Pennsylvania obtaining at the time the murder occurred, but the 20 years he’s done so far ought to count towards it.
He already had that. He was found guilty. He has never produced sufficient evidence to contravert the established fact of his guilt.
Horseshit. He is a cop killer. He should not be wasting oxygen.
He shot Faulkner in the back, then walked over and shot him in the face.
That’s nineteen years and six months more than he deserves.
Regards,
Shodan
So far in this thread, I haven’t heard anything about whether or not it might be a frame up. Any one have an opinion on that?
If it was a frame up, do framed him and why?
So far, I haven’t seen anyone put forward any doubts that he is the actual killer.
The really sick part is Mr. Jamal’s near celebrity status with the oh-so-hip brie crowd. Giving college graduation speeches via video link. “Free Mumia” graffitti at our institutions of higher learning. I had never heard of this guy till I went to university. I was not impressed with the rhetoric I heard. The police have a largely thankless job anyway, I can only imagine the pain that this kind of thing adds to Mr. Faulkner’s family.
Do you have a cite for this? Shodan linked to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision, which included 3 pages of discussion on whether the trial judge had some bias or prejudice against Abu-Jamal. Apparently, no one told the Supreme Court about such racist remarks. I can’t imagine why the defense would have not brought such statements to the Supreme Court’s attention, especially if they did bring them up in front of the Pennsylvania Court of Appeals.
Except, I guess, the judges in at least 4 of the 5 courts that have heard his appeals (the 5th court ordered a second sentencing hearing at which a jury could sentence Abu-Jamal to either life in prison or death), the lawyers on the other side, the Pennsylvania governors that have heard his pleas for commutation and stay of execution, and at least a few people that have spoken up in this thread.
Huh? Are you arguing that Officer Faulkner’s family opposes imposition of the death penalty on Abu-Jamal, or concedes that the trial was unfair because they haven’t addressed it? Because I feel pretty confident that Maureen Faulkner, Officer Faulkner’s wife, feels pretty strongly about the issue. Here, she reacts to U.S. District Court Judge Yohn’s Order that Abu-Jamal be given another sentencing hearing:
Can you show me where Officer Faulkner’s family conceded that the trial was unfair?
Yes, all we would ever need to know is contained in the completely unbiased “Kill Mumia” website.
{My site was Cecil}
Geez am I the only one with Google?
Here’s a fairly recent update of where things stand, extract the info from the spin…
http://www.sfbayview.com/111903/growingdanger111903.shtml
I expect the supreme court will grant him a new penalty hearing, at which it’s about 2-1 that he gets the death penalty. No one said being a cause celebre martyr was easy…
So, by applying the golden rule, this means if you are ever accused of murder you also want to have your civil rights ignored and be railroaded and executed in a few short months? Right? Good luck! 
Speaking purely from ignorance here…
Crook’d Dope, can you back up your assertion that Jamal had his “civil rights ignored”?
Not trying to be a jerk, just genuinely curious.
Not quite.
Applying common sense, if I am ever convicted of murder because [ul]
[li]I was found next to a dead policeman with a bullet in my chest from his gun[/li][li]My gun was lying next to me[/li][li]My gun matched the murder weapon in caliber, type of ammunition, spiraling, lands, and grooves[/li][li]I had an obvious motive[/li][li]I tried to get to my gun in order to shoot officers arriving at the scene[/li][li]Five eyewitnesses, none of whom knew each other, all identified me as the shooter within minutes of the murder[/li][li]My brother refused to corroborate any of my alibis[/li][li]I was convicted and the fact of my guilt upheld on appeal[/ul][/li]then yes, I would deserve to be executed.
And I don’t think you could reasonably call this a “railroading”, as Mumia is still alive after twenty years or so.
And I would very much like you to show some way that Mumia’s civil rights have been violated.
As far as your allegations about the judge saying “fry the n*gger”, I find it interesting for the same reason I find many such allegations interesting. The accusations of bias against the judge in the case (judge Sabo) were thoroughly reviewed in 1998, and found to be without merit. That is, the defense could not show any instance in which the judge acted improperly, or demonstrated any sort of bias against Mumia. In fact -
In other words, even if the allegation were true, Judge Sabo did a nearly perfect job of setting aside his prejudices, and gave no help at all to the prosecution in “frying the n*gger”, despite numerous provocations from Mumia.
Interestingly, the allegation did not surface until Mumia was running out of appeal fodder. Perhaps, this was simply made up under pressure from the defense nineteen years after the fact. In either case, it makes no difference.
Mumia is guilty of the murder of a police officer, beyond any reasonable doubt.
Kill him.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m really curious as to how Crook’d Dope is going to back up his claims about Jamal’s civil rights being violated.
The Vanity Fair article was particularly devastating in the way it painted his defenders as making up their minds without reading the entire trial transcript. It’s such a cut-and-dried case that I suppose dreaming up conspiracy theories are the only avenue open to them.
My dear, Age Quod Agis,
Have you done any of the following?
[ul]
Furthermore, I think I was very clear that the Faulkner family flat out refuses to accept any argument that some part of the affair may have been unfair to the defendent. I hate to quote myself, but:
Perhaps if you read a bit more carefully you might learn something about what the person’s post was opining. If you want a person killed, you aren’t going to argue over trivialities such as “unfairness”.
I think it is utterly obvious that he did not receive a fair penalty phase given the actions of the judge (check the info in Cecil’s column and google links I gave).
Given that a fair trial is a “civil right”, I’m going to say that this falls in the category of “ignoring civil rights”. YMMV.