Aside from the bias in the case, Abu-Jamal's conviction happened with next to no forensic evidence. The police failed to conduct routine tests generally used in murder investigations. Similarly, testimony about the way in which the bullet that shot Abu-Jamal entered his body suggest that the prosecution's version of events--that Officer Faulkner got off one shot and hit Abu-Jamal as he was falling to the ground--was not true. At the same time, witness testimony and Mumia Abu-Jamal's "confession" were not credible, with evidence emerging in recent years--along with clues during his 1982 trial--suggesting that the prosecutors and/or the Philadelphia Police Department solicited perjured statements and testimony from two supposed eyewitnesses (one was a prostitute and the other was a convicted felon). Some of these flaws could have been highlighted in the Abu-Jamal's trial, but O'Connor clearly demonstrates that Abu-Jamal's counsel was ineffective and poorly prepared to handle the case.