I have watched an interview with Maureen Faulkner in which she makes a very simple, straight forward statement. Nobody wanted to know who callously and in cold blood murdered her husband more than she did. And if for even a second she thought that anybody other than Mumia killed her husband, she would stop at nothing to ensure her husband's killer was found. If that poor woman, who was in that court room each day of that trial is confident, that really should be sufficient. Do you ever stop and think in your unwavering support of Mumia why he has never actually stated that he is in fact innocent? Having followed this situation closely, I find your article full of incorrect and unsubstantiated facts. Are you that desperate to see your name in print? And if you are that desperate support a convicted killer on death row, I am sure there are plenty of other cases you could sink your self serving teeth into other than that of a cop killer who was heard by 5 hospital staff yelling that he did in fact shoot Officer Faulkner that night. As I re - read your article I have sence of urgency to inform you that even though you have been published, you should still be held to any standard that any other writer is which includes ensuring all your facts are actually accurate. If Mumia does ever get a new trial and is once again convicted, I think you and everybody else who has made supporting this convicted cop killer their cause should have to publically apologize for letting your frenzied bias get ahead of your occupational duty.