US Supreme Court Rejects Mumia Abu-Jamal's Appeal For a New Guilt Phase Trial

As reported this morning by CNN, Reuters, AP, and others, the US Supreme Court announced today that they have rejected death-row journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal's appeal for a new guilt phase trial (in official legal terms, they rejected his petition for a "writ of certiorari"). Abu-Jamal's appeal was based primarily on the US Supreme Court's 1986 "Batson v Kentucky" ruling which stated that a defendant deserves a new trial if it can be shown that the prosecutor used peremptory strikes to remove otherwise qualified jurors simply because of their race. At Abu-Jamal's 1982 trial, prosecutor Joseph McGill used 10 or 11 of his 15 strikes to remove otherwise acceptable black jurors.

The US Supreme Court has not yet decided whether it will further consider the Philadelphia DA's appeal of the 2001/2008 rulings of two lower courts, which ruled that Abu-Jamal deserves a new sentencing hearing if the death penalty is to be re-instated. Therefore, if the US Supreme Court rules in favor of the DA, Abu-Jamal can then be executed WITHOUT a new sentencing hearing!

THIS ARTICLE WILL BE UPDATED THROUGHOUT THE DAY, SO PLEASE CHECK BACK FOR THE LATEST

Noelle Hanrahan, Prison Radio: Mumia, what’s your reaction?

Mumia Abu-Jamal: Well all I know is, you know, what Christina told me. So there’s nothing. There’s nothing to read. There is no order, other than my name is on a list of Cert denied.

Mumia Abu-Jamal: So we don't know anything. And you know, if it is the Batson issue, then it just shows you that precedent means nothing, that the law is politics by other means and that the constitution means nothing. That a fair jury means nothing.

Noelle Hanrahan: You said when I just first talked to you something about that it’s another day and how many days?

Mumia Abu-Jamal: When I was at pretrial hearing before Judge Sabo,and he denied the motion. I knew then that he wasn’t working with the constitution. It did surprise me, and it really shocked me because, I’d read the cases. I knew what the law was. I knew what the law books said the law was. I learned then that they’re not going by that kind of law, and apparently they’re not going by that kind of law now. If you read Batson and you read my case then it’s almost as if you’re in two different universes. And in fact you are. You are.

Mumia Abu-Jamal: Well there’s always been different rules for Black people, you know. If you read Batson, what will surprise people who have never done so, it has nothing to do with the accused, the defendant, the person on trial. Batson, in its own terms, says it protects the rights of those people who are allegedly American citizens, who are denied the right to serve as jurors. That’s what it says, that’s what it says. But in fact, how does it do that when it allows people to be removed, after Batson became law, for spurious reasons? Batson can be bested and beaten by exactly the way the DA's office said it could be beaten: by lying, and by getting up and saying, "Well no, we didn’t have any racist reasons, and ah we just ah, we’re not…” Listen, listen to the video tape. <recording from prison says: YOU HAVE SIXTY SECONDS REMAINING> Listen to the video tape and if that doesn't tell you all you need to know then you are deaf dumb or blind.

Mumia Abu-Jamal: The video tape of the DA, the training videotape of Jack McMahon of the Philadelphia's DA office from 1986.

(The above video features a segment of the infamous official DA training video featuring Jack McMahon)

I also received a response today from Linn Washington Jr., who is a columnist for the Philadelphia Tribune and Temple University professor of journalism (full quote below):

"This Supreme Court decision again underscores the 'Mumia Exception' where courts ignore or radically alter existing precedent to reject granting this inmate the same legal relief given to others raising the same legal points."

"Ample evidence exists documenting improprieties by the prosecutor during jury selection at Abu-Jamal's 1982 trial — the same pattern of improprieties that state and federal courts have cited in overturning over a dozen murder convictions in Philadelphia occurring before, during and after the trial of Abu-Jamal. Exposing the political underpinnings of Abu-Jamal's decades long persecution, none of those overturned convictions involved a noted black man charged with killing a white police officer whose case has become an embarrassment for America in the eyes of millions around the world."

"If the current members of this Supreme Court simply applied the motto that is chiseled in stone above the entrance of their court building -- equal justice under law -- they would have voted to grant Abu-Jamal a new hearing on the mound of legal violations in this case instead of sidestepping their duty to ensure justice."

"However, this Court, in the early 1990s, sidestepped that duty to justice when it denied Abu-Jamal relief on a First Amendment related issue while granting relief on the same legal issue to a white racist prison gang member facing execution for a murder during a prison escape and a white devil worshipper facing execution for killing his grandparents."

"The continuing refusal of US courts to equally apply the law in the Abu-Jamal case constitutes a stain on America's image internationally." **(END OF QUOTE)

J. Patrick O'Connor, author of The Framing of Mumia Abu-Jamal, responded to today's decision by telling me (direct quote below):

Once again, a court, in this case the highest court in the land, the US Supreme Court, has created what Philadelphia journalist and legal expert Linn Washington has dubbed "The Mumia Exception"--that is to say a precedent that applies only to one person: Mumia Abu-Jamal. The decision in this case, which involved the high court's refusal to consider and reverse last year's Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruling rejecting Abu-Jamal's claim that his jury was unconstitutionally purged of qualified black jurors by the prosecution's use of peremptory challenges to remove 10 or 11 blacks from the panel, was particularly offensive since it was Justice Samuel Alito, at the time a member of the Third Circuit Court, who wrote an opinion stating that if even one potential juror is removed from a panel for reasons of race or religion, that trial's verdict is fatally flawed and must be overturned. Alito's opinion in that case was soundly reasoned and important, but apparently now, in his exalted position as Supreme Court Justice, Alito thinks the precedent needn't apply to Abu-Jamal.

    By simply not hearing Abu-Jamal's case, the Supreme Court, which itself has also already established the precedent that the tainting of a jury by even one racially motivated removal of a juror, has left intact its precedent on this issue, while at the same time leaving Abu-Jamal outside its protection. This is a shameful act of political cowardice on the part of all 9 justices and a betrayal of the fundamental promise of "equal justice under the law."

    It is almost a certainty that the Third Circuit will revisit this issue on another death penalty case, and that it will re-affirm the precedent, already in place in the Third Circuit, that any racial motive in purging a juror cannot be tolerated. Then we well be left with the Mumia Exception again, where laws are temporarily suspended to keep this one man on death row, or in jail all his life.

    The media reports on the court's latest decision in this case have all gotten it wrong. The court was not ruling that there was "no bias" in his jury, which was composed of two blacks and 10 whites. What the court was refusing to do was hear his appeal of a 2-1 Third Circuit opinion that Abu-Jamal had not objected soon enough or with adequate evidence to what he claimed was a concerted effort by Prosecutor Joseph McGill to remove over 10 qualified potential black jurors from his jury.

     In a stinging minority opinion, Appellate Judge Thomas Ambro had criticized his two fellow jurists, asking why, for this one petitioner, they were raising the bar for demonstrating evidence of race-based jury selection, insisting that Abu-Jamal should have protested the removal of black jurors at the time it happened, despite the fact that it was only five years later that such actions were even found to be unconstitutional. He also asked why his two colleagues were ignoring the precedents of both the Supreme Court and the Third Circuit. As Judge Ambro wrote in his dissent: "The Supreme Court has never announced a rule requiring a contemporaneous objection...and I see no reason for us to do so now." He also wrote, "The US Third Circuit Court's own history bears witness against the use of a contemporary objection rule, signalling that our Circuit does not have a federal contemporaneous objection rule---and I see no reason why we should not afford Abu-Jamal the courtesy of our precedents."

    Judge Ambro's indictment of his two fellow judges now hangs over the reeking air of the Supreme Court Building in Washington, where placating the politically powerful police union and the right-wing death is seen to be more important than dispensing justice.

    The Supreme Court did not rule on the appeal by the Philadelphia District Attorney of a federal district court's overturning of his death penalty. The High Court could still reverse that ruling, which would leave Abu-Jamal facing death with no more avenue of appeal. Alternatively, if the High Court were to leave standing the Third Circuit's unanimous decision supporting the district court's overturning of the death penalty, the DA could ask for a new trial on the penalty alone, in an effort to convince a new jury to reimpose a death sentence.

     If the DA were not to seek a new penalty phase trial, Abu Jamal would face life in prison with no possibility of parole, and no more avenue of appeal of his sentence.

Philadelphia District Attorney Lynn Abraham, in a graphic illustration of the ugly politics that surround and continue to pollute this case, immediately grabbed the news of the Supreme Court's decision as an opportunity to trumpet her own bloodthirsty credentials as a government execution-monger. Calling Abu-Jamal "nothing short of an assassin," Abraham once again repeated a fundamental lie of the Abu-Jamal death squad--that he was somehow gunning for Officer Faulkner as a rabid cop-hating Black Power advocate.

In fact, the prosecution never even attempted to make such a case. Even if one were to accept the story line created by Prosecutor Joe McGill for the jury at the trial at face value, with all the tortured and falsified testimony of prosecution witnesses, it was that Abu-Jamal, who happened to be at the scene of an altercation between his brother and Faulkner, came to his brother's aid and ended up shooting Faulkner. There was never any claim of premeditation or planning. which is part of the definition of an "assassination." As always, Abraham and her ilk keep attempting to portray Abu-Jamal not just as a killer of a police officer, but rather as a coldly-calculating political assassin bent on attacking not just Faulkner, but all cops.**(END OF QUOTE)

According to a new CNN report, the US Supreme Court has turned down Mumia Abu-Jamal's petition for writ of certiorari, aiming to open the way for a new trial, as usual without giving a reason, while the court has still taken no decision on the prosecution's petition for writ of certiorari, which aims at reinstituting the death penalty against Mumia, which was thrown out by a federal court on December 18, 2001.

If true, as it appears to be, this report marks one of the darkest days in the history of the US judicial system. An innocent prisoner who was consecutively framed by the police, the prosecution, and a whole succession of courts has apparently just been denied the very least he can demand: not even a new trial, but a hearing about a new trial.

At the same time, this seems to mean that Mumia is in greater danger to be executed than ever before.

The US Court can now decide at any moment that it will grant the prosecution's petition for certiorari. And if so, it can decide within a relatively short time span - about this, one would have to ask experienced lawyers - that the prosecution's demand to reinstate the death penalty is justified and that the December 18, 2001 decision to throw out the death penalty for Mumia is null and void.

From that point on, the legal barriers against Mumia's execution would only be paper thin. Pennsylvania's governor Ed Rendell (who served as the head of the District Attorney's office in Philadelphia when Mumia was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death for murder in 1982) has repeatedly made clear that should such a situation arise, he would loose no time in signing a new execution warrant.

In the light of what has been done to Mumia before, the courts decision to turn down his petition is not surprising. It's another application of what has been called the "Mumia Law." Mumia is singled out for the most unfair treatment imaginable, reserved for true opponents of the system.

In J. Patrick O'Connor's review of Mumia's latest book, 'Jailhouse Lawyers,' O'Connor mentions the fact noted by Mumia himself that of all the prisoners in the American Gulag of 2.5 million people, who are incarcerated in one or another form, the "jailhouse lawyers," the one fighting for the rights of other prisoners and their own rights, are singled out for the most brutal and inhumane treatment by the guards and the prison administration.

The same appears to be true for the courts. I have talked to lawyers, including people who have worked as clerks for State Supreme Court judges, and I was told that Mumia's brief to the US Supreme Court was extremely strong and convincing, but all the same, the brief was turned down, and the US Supreme Court rejects to even consider the case.

This despite the fact that the brief cites a whole litany of precedents where the Supreme Court itself and the various federal appeals courts in the country have granted relief in exactly the same circumstances where the US Supreme Court now says it is not even ready to deal with the matter.

In sum: Here, too, Mumia is being punished for being who he is and acting like who he is, for being Mumia and acting like Mumia, which is exactly what has sparked such a strong international movement around this particular case over the years.

That said, I do believe it will have negative consequences and will weaken positive US Supreme Court decisions such as the ‘Snyder’ case, where even reactionary justices such as Sam Alito, took a clear stance against racism in jury selection. The message is: “Look, we can and are ready to grant you these rights, but only if you have the right posture, that of one who doesn't raise his/her head. If, on the other hand, you dare to speak out against injustice, all rights will be taken away from you.”

From our side, I think that means we must step up the fight: The absence of racism in jury selection and during the trial as a whole can't be conditioned on some proper behavior of the defendant as defined by "the master." It is either a right that applies to everybody or it doesn't offer a real guarantee to anybody.

On a separate point, the consequences are alarming, that, as reported by CNN and others, the court has already turned down Mumia's petition while it is still considering the prosecution's brief.

And by alarming I mean just that. "Alarming" doesn't and mustn't mean going into the shock mode - on the contrary, this is the point where we must raise hell and mobilize anything and everybody in our powers to prevent the ultimate injustice, Mumia's execution, from happening.

That said, the prosecution of course has a lot to fear from even a new sentencing hearing "for" Mumia. Facts would come out that would call their entire card-house of lies into question and in fact would bring it down in no time at all. So it's only too understandable that this is something they are fighting against in "tooth and nail" fashion.

To sum it all up, this is not the time to bow our heads in disappointed silence. On the contrary, at no point in this whole struggle is it more important to say that THE STRUGGLE FOR MUMIA'S LIFE AND FREEDOM CONTINUES!

Brave activists in Philadelphia have stood by Mumia right from the beginning, joined by others at the end of the eighties. Even in a far away country such as Germany, activists joined the fray already in 1989. Others all around the world joined, and this would be exactly the wrong point to give up.

As far as I understand, even now the defense can ask the court to reconsider its decision. Our first and foremost task as a movement would be to support such a move with all that is within our powers. Apart from that, we must raise hell against the DA's countermove to have Mumia executed. And third, last but by no means least, we must not give up our struggle to finally free this innocent man, by any means possible and by any means necessary.

On this last point, we will need to have intense and open consultations about what to do next. As far as I can see, there are various options here, and apart from what lawyers can still do (for example, ask the court to reconsider), two things seem promising to me: 1) a massive campaign about the facts of the case, which show that Mumia is innocent of murder, and 2) a campaign for an amnesty for all the prisoners we consider "political," and who have already served such an incredibly long time.

[I think this latter point is necessary anyway, as will be evident to at least some of those who read the names Herman Bell, Veronza Bowers, Romaine "Chip" Fitzgerald, Jalil Abdul Muntaqim, Leonard Peltier, Ruchell "Cinque" Magee, Mondo we Langa, Hugo "Yogi" Pinell, Edward Poindexter, Russell "Maroon" Shoats, Herman Wallace, Alber Woodfox, and so many others whose names don't spring to mind so readily or who we haven't even heard about.]

The long and the short of all this is that this is a serious setback, but that the struggle continues.

This essay by Jeff Mackler of the SF Bay Area Mobilization to Free Mumia has just been released:

The U.S. Supreme Court refused on April 6 Mumia Abu-Jamal's appeal (writ of certiorari) for a new trial based on the racist exclusion of Blacks from the jury panel (using 10-11 of his 15 peremptory strikes) in his 1982 frame-up murder trial. The decision left in place Mumia's conviction and turned a blind eye to its own ruling in the famous Batson v. Kentucky case and related decisions that nullify murder convictions where Blacks are systematically excluded from juries without cause. The court ruled without comment.

Even worse, the court left open the possibility that it might consider Pennsylvania prosecutors' cross appeal to re-instate the death penalty without granting Mumia a new sentencing hearing. A previous ruling had voided the jury's imposition of the death penalty on the grounds that "hanging" Judge Albert Sabo had improperly instructed the jury regarding mitigating circumstances sufficient to impose a sentence of life imprisonment without parole as opposed to execution by lethal injection. Should the court later rule in favor of the prosecution, an order for Mumia’s execution by lethal injection could be signed by the Pennsylvania’s governor and Mumia could be executed in approximately 90 days.

Meanwhile Mumia's attorney, Robert R. Bryan, told this writer,"We have lost a battle but not the war." Bryan plans to file another petition before the Supreme Court for a re-hearing on a critical issue related to the death penalty, thus keeping Mumia's legal options alive, at least for the time being.

Comments

At last

Submitted by jon peppers (not verified) on Mon, 04/06/2009 - 4:38pm

we, who search for Justice, may see closure and the convicted affirmed murderer Mumia Abu Jamal, will spend the rest of his life in prison and rightfully so . Well Hans Bennett, Lynn Washington and your German supporters...who is your next quest since y'all failed in your support for this murderer. Fools led by fools is the only way I can describe the J4M crowd.

" Life is tough..it's even tougher if you're stupid"
John Wayne

Jon Pisano
Justice for Officer Daniel Faulkner
DanielFaulkner.com

It is shameful...

Submitted by HansBennett on Mon, 04/06/2009 - 5:49pm

...that you would rejoice in just a racist injustice, as this court decision is.

it is shameful

Submitted by jon peppers (not verified) on Mon, 04/06/2009 - 7:22pm

as to WHY you and your group champion a convicted PROVEN and affirmed murderer. Tell us...where, in supporting the Courts decision, is that racist?
Jamal is a killer of another human being. Is it racist only because Jamal is Afro and the Officer was (note was) caucasian? Tell us WHERE the racial injustice is?

As I posted on another site..quote" Life is tough...it's even tougher if you're stupid"...John Wayne. Look in the mirror Hans.

its racist because...

Submitted by HansBennett on Mon, 04/06/2009 - 8:25pm

....prosecutor McGill used 10-11 of his peremptory strikes to exclude otherwise acceptable black jurors. this is an obvious "prima facie" example of racist jury selection, and according to the 'Batson' precedent, a defendant deserves a new trial under these circumstances.

yet, the court's reversed precedent on this issue to deny Mumia a new trial.

That is racist!

rejection

Submitted by jon peppers (not verified) on Mon, 04/06/2009 - 8:37pm

of jurors...what makes them qualified?...because they are black and the defendant is black? Do YOU know what questions were asked of the jurors that would exclude them? If a potential juror had a relative in the Police Dept and that person was black but excluded only because of the relitive connection...would YOU consider THAT racist?

Double standered here

jon pisano

Oh..I forgot

Submitted by jon peppers (not verified) on Mon, 04/06/2009 - 8:29pm

the Political Prisoner bullschmidt. Didn't work did it Hans. It would be nice if you and your co- "journalists" would champion Jamal or O'Connor or M.S. to forward any profits from their books to the Daniel Faulkner Educational Fund. Be men about this, you supported a proven affirmed murderer and your "journalistic" articles missed their mark as to FACTS regarding this murderer.

Fools led by fools

Jon Pisano

by the way...

Submitted by HansBennett on Mon, 04/06/2009 - 8:28pm

We've had to delete a comment 3 times (make that '4' now) now that used explicitly racist language, by a poster, who made these references to lynching -- another dark chapter (which continues today in a somewhat milder form today) from US history.

Mumia is a KILLER, let justice be done reinstate the sentence

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 04/07/2009 - 2:45pm

He has been convicted and has had his appeals. The facts are clear and the lies thrown out by Mumia and his supporters have been shown to be false. Singeltary and Beverly were both liars. Mumia and his attorneys knew it yet they presented them both as if they were trutful people.

Mumia is a murderer and you people that advocate for his freedom are blind.

Reinstate Mumia's death sentence and let justice for Officer Danny Faulkner be served.

time to delete the racist mumia

Submitted by the judge (not verified) on Tue, 04/07/2009 - 8:06pm

hey Jon, anarchists lack the basic emotions that enable moral people to care about Officer Danny Faulkner and those he left behind. Officer Danny Faulkner is a hero and is appreciated by the overwhelming majority of the society he died trying to protect from the likes of the murdering mumia.

He needs to accept

Submitted by Danny (not verified) on Tue, 04/07/2009 - 10:05pm

Jamal needs to accept punishment for what he has admitted to doing. Killing another person in cold blood. It's time to let the Faulkner family live in peace.
Anyone who supports this piece of trash is just as guilty and should really step back and review their lives. And don't give me that racism BS. The only racism here is that color is being used to try to support and free a cold blooded killer. He deserves no better that execution.

again and again, guilty and guilty

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 04/07/2009 - 11:59pm

this is absurd that this man is still alive 28years later. bullets matching his gun, him not speaking of that night, 4 EYEwitnesses! blatent lying from defense appointed witnesses. Please, i urge everyone to view the trial, it is easily accessed on the internet and anyone who reads the trial will see the proof in print that this man is a killer, and is trying to use race to escape what he deserves. anyone who claims to be intelligent read the trial then speak on behalf of this killer. i cant believe the foolishness...

as usual, the 'fry mumia' crowd twists the facts...

Submitted by HansBennett on Wed, 04/08/2009 - 3:06am

Far easier than reading all the transcripts (a real straw man here, since it takes SOOOO much time to read them--speaking as someone who has), I'd recommend J Patrick O'Connor's book which is based almost entirely on the transcripts:

http://www.abu-jamal-news.com/article.php?name=vidframe

However, for a short breakdown on some of the facts, here you go:

A Racially Mixed Jury?

---On May 17, before The US Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Christina Swarns of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund argued that that there is strong evidence of racist jury selection at the 1982 trial. The LDF Amicus Brief concludes, “it becomes abundantly clear that he has set forth a prima facie case of discrimination,” based on the standards established by the US Supreme Court’s 1986 Batson v. Kentucky ruling, establishing a defendant’s right to a new trial if proven that jurors were excluded on the basis of race.

---The LDF argues that DA prosecutor McGill's conduct “strongly suggested discriminatory intent,” and other evidence “strongly suggests” that this discrimination “was common practice,” in the DA's office. At Abu-Jamal’s trial, McGill used 10-11 of his 15 peremptory challenges to remove otherwise acceptable black jurors.

---Philadelphia was over 40% black, but the jury had 10 whites and only 2 blacks. A survey of homicide cases tried by McGill from Sept., 1981 to Oct., 1983, reveals, “the odds that Mr. McGill would peremptorily challenge an African-American potential juror were 8.47 times greater than for non-black jurors.”

---From 1977-1986 (when current Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell was the District Attorney), Philadelphia prosecutors struck 58% of black jurors, but only 22% of the white jurors.

Abu-Jamal’s Own Confession?

The alleged “hospital confession,” where Abu-Jamal reportedly declared, “I shot the motherf***er and I hope the motherf***er dies,” was first officially reported to police over two months later, by hospital guards Priscilla Durham and James LeGrand (Feb. 9, 1982), P.O. Gary Wakshul (Feb.11), P.O. Gary Bell (Feb.25), and P.O. Thomas M. Bray (March 1). Only 2 of these five witnesses were called by the DA: Gary Bell (Faulkner's partner and “best friend”) and Priscilla Durham.

---Gary Bell testified that the 2 month lapse resulted from him being so upset over the death of Faulkner.

---Priscilla Durham testified, and added for the first time, that she had reported the confession to her supervisor the next day. Neither her supervisor, nor the alleged handwritten statement were presented in court. The DA sent an officer to the hospital, returning with a suspicious typed version. Sabo accepted the paper (not signed or dated) despite both Durham’s disavowal, and the defense’s protest that authorship and authenticity were unproven.

---Gary Wakshul was not a prosecution witness, and on the final day of testimony in 1982, Abu-Jamal's lawyer discovered Wakshul's statement from Dec. 9 (Abu-Jamal’s supporters cite this late discovery as one of many examples of incompetent representation--to which defense attorney Anthony Jackson testified about at the 1995 PCRA hearings). After riding with Abu-Jamal to the hospital and guarding him until his treatment, Wakshul reported: “the negro male made no comment.” When the defense immediately sought to call Wakshul as a witness, the DA reported that he was on vacation. On grounds that it was too late in the trial, Sabo denied the defense request to locate him for testimony. Subsequently, the jury never heard from Wakshul or about his written report. When an outraged Abu-Jamal protested, Sabo cruelly declared: “You and your attorney goofed.”

---At the 1995 PCRA Hearings, Wakshul testified that both his contradictory Dec. 9 “the negro male made no comment” report and the 2 month delay were simply bad mistakes. He repeated his earlier February 11, 1982 statement given to the police IAB investigator: “I didn’t realize it had any importance until that day.”

---Wakshul also testified to being home for his 1982 vacation—in accordance with explicit instructions to stay in town for the trial so that he could testify if called. After studying the alleged confession, Amnesty International concluded that: “The likelihood of two police officers and a security guard forgetting or neglecting to report the confession of a suspect in the killing of another police officer for more than two months strains credulity.”

Ownership of the Murder Weapon and Matching Ballistics?

---Police never officially performed the standard “wipe test” checking for gunshot residue on Abu-Jamal’s hands and clothing, or the “smell test” on his gun, which Amnesty International has criticized as “deeply troubling.”

---44 or 38 Caliber? The original medical examiner's report (never seen by the 1982 jury) stated that the deadly bullet was a .44 caliber. Abu-Jamal's gun was a .38 caliber, Charter Arms revolver, which uses a significantly smaller bullet than a .44. Later, the official police ballistician, Anthony Paul, would conclude that the bullet was a .38. This initial contradiction is arguably suspicious, but even if the medical examiner made a legitimate mistake, the evidence presented by the DA about the alleged .38 bullet is also contradictory and inconclusive.

---Particular rifling traits identify a particular bullet as coming from one specific gun. Official police experts have always said that the fatal bullet was too damaged to link the particular traits to Abu-Jamal’s gun.

---General rifling traits can only link a bullet to a particular type of gun. In his report, Paul first identified the bullet’s general traits as “indeterminable.” Contradicting himself in the same report, Paul later noted a general trait: a “right-hand direction of twist.” Paul’s 1982 trial testimony then went further by identifying another general trait never mentioned in his written report “8 lands and 8 grooves.” Therefore, after deeming the general traits “indeterminable,” Paul then alleged two general traits that served to further implicate Abu-Jamal’s gun type.

---Multiples of Millions? Even if these general traits cited by Paul did exist on the bullet, it was not a reliable link to Abu-Jamal’s gun. The defense asked Paul in 1982, “approximately, how many millions of guns have eight lands and grooves and how many would provide this bullet?” He acknowledged that it could have come from “multiples of millions,” including many millions of guns not manufactured by Charter Arms.

---Crime scene photos discovered in 2006, by German author Michael Schiffmann, add even more evidence of police misconduct. As Abu-Jamal's lead attorney Robert R. Bryan notes, "The newly discovered photographs reveal the fact that the police were actively manipulating evidence at the homicide scene."

---The Abu-Jamal-News.com website displays 4 of the photos to demonstrate these 4 points:

---1. Mishandling the Guns - Officer James Forbes holds both Abu-Jamal's and Faulkner's guns in his bare hands and touches the metal parts, which suggests he perjured himself in court when he testified that he had properly preserved the guns’ ballistics evidence.

---2. The Moving Hat - Faulkner's hat is moved from the top of Billy Cook's VW, and placed on the sidewalk, where it remained for the official police photo.

---3. The Missing Taxi - Robert Chobert testified that he was parked directly behind Faulkner's car, but the space is empty in the photo.

---4. The Missing Divots – On the sidewalk, where Faulkner was found, there are no large bullet divots, or destroyed chunks of cement, which should be visible in the pavement if the prosecution scenario was accurate, according to which Abu-Jamal shot down at Faulkner – and allegedly missed several times – while Faulkner was on his back. Dr. Michael Schiffmann writes: “It is thus no question any more whether the scenario presented by the prosecution at Abu-Jamal’s trial is true. It is clearly not, because it is physically and ballistically impossible.” This "missing divots" observation is supported by the official police crime scene photo, which reveals no large bullet divots, or destroyed chunks of cement.

Eyewitness Testimony?

Schiffmann contends that since 3 prosecution witnesses testified to this scenario (discredited by the missing divots observation), most likely Cynthia White (a prostitute), Robert Chobert (an arsonist on probation, driving his cab without a license), and Michael Scanlan (a motorist driving under the influence) were vulnerable to police pressure and subsequently coerced into giving false testimony.

---Amnesty International documented how both White and Chobert “altered their descriptions of what they saw, in ways that supported the prosecution's version of events,” providing more evidence of coercion.

---3 independent witnesses have said the police terrorized Cynthia White.
Veronica Jones (1996) and Pamela Jenkins (1997) testified that White was blackmailed into her testimony by the police, who had the power to pursue or drop prostitution charges against her. In 2002, Yvette Williams testified that White feared for her life because of threats by the police.

---Robert Chobert’s probation was never revoked while he continued to illegally drive his cab at least until the 1995 PCRA hearing, with an occasional fine being his heaviest punishment.

---More on Veronica Jones:

The story of Veronica Jones merits closer attention because her 1996 PCRA testimony exposed police coercion of witnesses and further discredited the 1982 testimony of the DA's star witness: prostitute Cynthia White (the only one to actually testify to seeing Abu-Jamal pull the trigger).

The story begins on Dec.15, 1981 when Jones (a prostitute who was working nearby on Dec.9) first told police that she had seen two men “jogging” away from the crime scene before police arrived. Testifying in 1982, Jones recanted and denied ever making the statement. However, when asked if she had talked to the police since her first statement, Jones testified that police had visited her in jail the next month:

“They were getting on me telling me I was in the area and I seen Mumia, you know, do it...They were trying to get me to say something that the other girl [Cynthia White] said. I couldn't do that.” Jones reported that police offered to let her and White “work the area if we tell them.”

Calling her testimony “absolutely irrelevant,” the DA moved to block the line of questioning and strike the previous statements. Because Sabo happily complied, the jury was ordered to disregard Jones' statement regarding White and a police offer of freedom to “work the area” in return for testimony that Abu-Jamal shot Faulkner.

The DA and Sabo's efforts to silence Jones continued through to the PCRA hearings.

Unable to locate her earlier, the Defense found Jones in 1996, and (over the DA's protests) obtained permission from the State Supreme Court to extend the PCRA hearings for Jones' testimony. Sabo vehemently resisted—arguing that there was not sufficient proof of her unavailability in 1995. However, in 1995 Sabo had refused to order disclosure of Jones' home address to the defense team.

Over Sabo’s objections, the defense returned to the State Supreme Court—which then ordered Sabo to conduct a full evidentiary hearing. Sabo's attempts to silence Jones continued as she took the stand. He immediately threatened her with 5-10 years imprisonment if she testified to having perjured herself in 1982. In defiance, Jones testified to perjury in 1982 when she recanted seeing two men “run away” and “leave the scene.”

She testified to changing her version of events after being visited by two detectives in prison, where she was being held on charges of robbery and assault. Urging her to finger Mumia, the detectives stressed that she faced up to 10 years in prison and the loss of her children if convicted. Afraid of losing her children, Jones testified to having met the police halfway: she didn't actually finger Mumia, but she did lie about not seeing two men running from the scene. Accordingly, Jones only received probation and was never imprisoned for these 1982 charges.

During cross-examination, the DA announced that there was an outstanding arrest warrant for Jones on charges of writing a bad check, and that she would be arrested after concluding her testimony. With tears pouring down her face, Jones declared: “This is not going to change my testimony!”

Despite objections from the defense, Sabo allowed New Jersey police to handcuff and arrest Jones.

While the DA attempted to use this arrest to discredit Jones, her determination in the face of intimidation only made her more credible. Outraged by Jones' treatment, even the mainstream Philadelphia Daily News reported: “Such heavy-handed tactics can only confirm suspicions that the court is incapable of giving Abu-Jamal a fair hearing. Sabo has long since abandoned any pretense of fairness.”

Hans

Submitted by jon peppers (not verified) on Wed, 04/08/2009 - 9:21am

are you still regurgitating the same tired and worn out "speculation" as to evidence, of which IF there were an OUNCE of factual truth, the defence attorneys or the reviewing Courts would have taken some sort of action...BUT....all the Courts have affirmed the trial was fair, GUILT was PROVEN and Mumia's verdict stands. What don't YOU, Schiffman and the rest of the J4M crowd understand....who are you trying to convince..certainly not those learned in the Law. Mumia will die in Prison, with or without the help of the State.

Jon Pisano

Burn him down

Submitted by the judge (not verified) on Wed, 04/08/2009 - 8:05am

the anarchists who support murders like mumia lack the basic emotions that enable moral people to care about Officer Danny Faulkner and those he left behind. Officer Danny Faulkner is a hero and is appreciated by the overwhelming majority of the society he died trying to protect from the likes of the murdering mumia.

Burn him down?

Submitted by Philly for Mumia (not verified) on Thu, 04/09/2009 - 2:24pm

what exactly is that supposed to mean? Burn Mumia? His supporters?

This reminds me of the KSS neo-Nazi skinheads at a Mumia rally last year that held signs saying "fry mumia and his supporters".

hansbennet

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 04/08/2009 - 2:55pm

how would a wipe/smell test ever be solid evidence in court? and you forgot to mention that as written in the actual court documents that jenkins told the court that white had recently informed her of her alleged bargaining but you forgot to point out mr hans that cynthia white died 5 years prior to the time jenkins stated that she spoke with white about the matter. so guess what another blotched attempt at fabricating a story

and to add

Submitted by jon peppers (not verified) on Wed, 04/08/2009 - 4:43pm

the death certificate of White ,who died in Camden N.J., was presented by a member of my Office. Also, a test to determine if there were gunshot residue on Mymua's hands would have been compromised due to the FACT he was on the ground holding his wound and struggled with Officers who arrested him within 30 to 45 SECONDS after he killed Officer Faulkner. Also there is NO qualified admissible "sniff test".. none.

Someone once said...such as to the posting of this article...tell a lie big enough and long enough...yadda yadda yadda. Fools led by fooled fools who post untruths and twisted logic regarding the cold blooded murder of another human being, namely Officer Daniel Faulkner.

jon pisano

Couldn't they have simply

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 04/09/2009 - 11:20pm

Couldn't they have simply tested the gun to see if it had been fired? I'm not a cop so I don't know but wouldn't there have been plenty of gun powder residue on there for a while? If they had then maybe none of this would have ever been an issue. Now we have 28 years of bickering over evidence that cannot be scientifically qualified. The bullet doesn't match the gun and there's no real proof it was fired. If Kenneth Freeman shot Faulkner it could have very well been a .38 - it is a common gun.

ALSO No one is debating whether or not Cynthia's death certificate was presented - just whether she is really dead or not. Since nothing that came out of her mouth was true (read the transcripts for evidence of her totally shoddy testimony) then it begs the question if her death was true.

it was a .38!

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 04/08/2009 - 5:31pm

a pathologist, not a qualified ballistician made a guess as to the size, then to professionals concluded that the lands and grooves were that of a .38 slug. defense's own ballistic expert determined it was a .38. you know the bullet that was removed from a human brain that conveniently came out of the gun registered to the murderer it sat next to as he was brought into custody.....

perhaps you have trouble reading?

Submitted by HansBennett on Wed, 04/08/2009 - 5:45pm

Below is what I wrote:

more ingnorance

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 04/08/2009 - 6:33pm

wow im appalled at the fact that at approximately 3:30 in the morning someone else would be carrying around the same gun as the one sitting next the CONVICTED murderer. why werent there bullets in jamal's gun? it was more than one bullet in Faulkner, they were all that of a .38 so one that was to mangled to determine, youre tellin me the shooter put a different bullet in during the middle of a shootout. i really hope you dont believe all this absurd nonsense that he didnt kill him its to obvious, only the ignorant would deny.

OR

Submitted by jon peppers (not verified) on Wed, 04/08/2009 - 7:04pm

their objective is to sell $$$ books here and in Germany AND from a prison cell. Here's a scenario for you...O'Connor, German author M.S. and Mumia Jamal wish to donate any income derived from their book sales to the Daniel Faulkner Educational Fund in an effort to assist families of children , whose parent or parents were murdered, to help furthur their education upon graduation from High School

WoW...what an announcement...don't hold your breath

jon pisano

Did John Hayden give any of

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 04/09/2009 - 11:27pm

Did John Hayden give any of the proceeds of his book "The Patron Saint of Cop Killers" to the Danny Faulkner fund? I can't find any evidence of that.

38 calibers were and still are very common...

Submitted by HansBennett on Wed, 04/08/2009 - 7:06pm

Also, I recommend you check your facts, because there was only one bullet found in Faulkner. The one shot through his back was never recovered.

Furthermore, according to the DA theory, Mumia allegedly shot down at Faulkner and missed several times... yet, there are no marks in the pavement there where they should be if that scenario was correct.

try this

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 04/08/2009 - 8:11pm

maybe u should have a family member shot within 12 inches and have the gun matching the murderer matching the motive next to him and a jury and several appeals tell you that the murderer did it. He is a known racist referring to cops as "pigs" praising MOVE who are responsible for the death of a cop years prior. why was he fired before he started driving a cab? radical? why was he dismissed from the courtroom during trial so many times? causes hes a class act? race card? of course its always the convenient way out of trouble, they wanted to know why over 80 percent of blacks are on death row maybe because they are the ones committing the crime? statistics prove it. not you're black go to death row. And the MOST PAINFULLY question he can never answer. WHAT WERE YOU DOING DECEMBER 9, 1981???? if he's so innocent maybe he or his brother can give an answer over the million opportunities they have been given. if i'm innocent i'm explaining not using the color of my skin

correction

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 04/08/2009 - 8:14pm

not 80% of blacks on death row. Death row is made up of over 80% blacks.

the mumia debacle

Submitted by Tony Allen (not verified) on Wed, 04/08/2009 - 11:14pm

I find the pro-Jamal sort of "propaganda", as espoused by Bennett to be as interesting as watching paint dry on a cold day, but I must make ask a question that are just begging to be asked

Hans, tell me how well the whole "cut and paste" thing is working out for you as far as convincing people of your position goes? Especially considering that the whole Jamal thing is not on anybody's radar screen, but yours and the 5 people who are still trying to cash in on it.

Secondly, how do you sleep at night knowing that the garbage you are spewing has already been effectively debunked and discredited? I mean really, the whole .38 caliber thing for example has been dead since '95.

Let it go Hans, you will feel better.

38 or 44? you're being dishonest here, Tony

Submitted by Philly for Mumia (not verified) on Thu, 04/09/2009 - 1:47pm

In Hans' post, this is what he wrote:
----------------
---44 or 38 Caliber? The original medical examiner's report (never seen by the 1982 jury) stated that the deadly bullet was a .44 caliber. Abu-Jamal's gun was a .38 caliber, Charter Arms revolver, which uses a significantly smaller bullet than a .44. Later, the official police ballistician, Anthony Paul, would conclude that the bullet was a .38. This initial contradiction is arguably suspicious, but even if the medical examiner made a legitimate mistake, the evidence presented by the DA about the alleged .38 bullet is also contradictory and inconclusive.
----------------

It reveals the contradiction, and fairly states both sides, so how exactly can you write "the whole .38 caliber thing for example has been dead since '95"? By misrepresenting the argument you appear quite dishonest.

What I found far more important and interesting was Anthony Paul's testimony about it only being matched to "multiples of millions" of 38s, which is certainly NOT the 'slam-dunk' ballistics match that so many of Mumia's detractors claim.

the gun and the truth

Submitted by Tony Allen (not verified) on Thu, 04/09/2009 - 4:20pm

It is completely dishonest to even pretend that Bennett presented "both sides".

The murder weapon was a .38 caliber and the barrel had 8 lands and grooves with a right-hand direction of twist. Abu-Jamal’s weapon was caliber 38 and the barrel had 8 lands and grooves with a right-hand direction of twist.

The murder weapon contained two different types of ammunition. Two or more bullets were from the manufacturer Federal and at least one bullet was a different type (projectile with copper jacket). Abu-Jamal’s weapon contained four casings from Federal and one casing from Smith & Wesson.

The entrance wound in Daniel Faulkner’s head was very severe and was consistent with +P ammunition. The wound was so severe that Dr. Hoyer estimated a bigger caliber. The casings in Abu-Jamal’s weapon were marked as +P ammunition. The PCRA hearing showed one additional result.

In 1995, the defense got a chance to have the ballistics evidence reexamined by a defense expert and they simply ignored that chance. No innocent man would do that. Supporters of Abu-Jamal always insist that it was not possible to compare the bullet to a specific firearm. It’s true that theoretically multiple millions of weapons could have fired that bullet but these millions of weapons weren't found at the crime scene just seconds after the murder containing five spent casings. It is true that the murder weapon cannot be determined with 100% scientifically certainty to be the one carried by Jamal.

However, the evidence available is sufficient to determine the murder weapon beyond a reasonable doubt. Abu-Jamal’s Charter Arms revolver was the murder weapon!

Abu-Jamal’s Sworn Declaration

On 3 May 2001 Mumia Abu-Jamal signed a sworn declaration. Since that day, commentators have criticized the declaration and have pointed out many holes. Even some supporters of Abu-Jamal question it's believablity. Dave Lindorff and Michael Schiffmann, two authors of books in favor of Abu-Jamal, are among those critics. Lindorff explicitly contradicts the declaration while Schiffmann ignores it when he describes how the murder could have happened.

The reality is that Abu-Jamal’s declaration was part of a conspiracy. Former Mumia attorney Eliot Grossman, and his colleagues clearly initiated this conspiracy in order to get the confession of Arnold Beverly admitted into evidence. In spite of the many holes in Jamal's declaration, it does raise some interesting issues regarding the gun that was found at his side and has been the subject of so much controversy.

Mumia does not mention his weapon in his afadavit, not a single word. Did he carry the gun or not? It has been found at the crime scene with 5 spent casings and he wore an empty shoulder holster. If he carried the gun he has to explain at what time he did fire it. Did he really carry an empty gun or did he fire into the air? If he did not carry his gun he has to explain where it was or who carried his gun. In this case it would be interesting to know why he wore an empty shoulder holster. He claims that he was unconscious after he was shot in the chest, but with that claim he cannot explain why he did not give any information regarding his gun in his declaration.

The crucial facts about his gun are based on the situation before the shooting. He still knows the facts no matter whether he really was unconscious or not. Additionally, Abu-Jamal is smart enough to know how important these things are. In reality, the purpose of his declaration was not to explain, but to hide. Abu-Jamal’s refusal to provide useful information had a negative effect on the question whether his gun was the murder weapon. Before that declaration there was no reasonable doubt. Only some very weak doubts without credibility could have been made up. The idea that he carried an empty gun could be a doubt but for sure no reasonable doubt. The idea that another person pulled out the gun from his shoulder holster is even less credible.

I would like to hear a factual rebuttal to the case Hans makes

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 04/09/2009 - 2:59am

So far there have only been scant comments referencing any factual situations or incidents that would attempt to counter what sounds like a pretty tight assessment presented by Hans. The only other comments are bound up in expressing anger over trying to understand racism and making assumptions that if the courts say it's true than it's true even though the evidence presented so far seems to suggest that the problem is that the courts have never followed the correct protocol - nor their own precedent time and time again. I would love to hear Jon Pisano or someone from Daniel Faulkner.com speak to these points as I'm curious to know what the factual basis is for their arguments.

Please address Hans' points about: The confession, the crime scene photos, Veronica Jones, Cynthia White, and fact that the bullet was never matched to Mumia's gun.

Also what is it about the transcripts that would make someone feel certain that Mumia got a fair trial? Which parts of the transcript would present that case? I would love to hear them! This is all very interesting and I hope to learn more.

Also I've always been curious as to why people would spend so much time and energy researching this case if it were not a big deal. I can understand losing an appeal but in a case where a world wide movement persists for 28 years? Isn't that a special enough circumstance where a new trial can be granted so we can just move on? If there is to be Justice for Maureen wouldn't that be the best way for her to sleep at night and finally quell the dissenters and really really be sure that she knows the truth and let everyone move on?

Right now with Officer Thrasher in the news and what happened to Rep. Williams the Philly police seem to be incessantly showing examples of racism that they never seem to think is racist.

Also I understand that Gary Wakshul was beaten by cops at the court house before his appearance at the PCRA hearing. Can a cop explain to me why this would have happened to him?

Lots of questions I know! Thanks so much for your time. I appreciate the education lesson from both "sides".

Mumia

Submitted by Tony Allen (not verified) on Thu, 04/09/2009 - 11:01am

A main point to raise is that Hans has already and repeatedly confronted with facts that counter every issue that has been raised on this thread on previous occassions.

All of his pro-Jamal assertions have been answered either at danielfaulkner.com or antimove.blogspot.com or on a couple of other websites. If you had already done your homework before crafting your comment you would know that.
I invite you to research these sites in addition to the trial transcripts and than should you have residual concerns please feel free to email me directly at sept27th2002@yahoo.com. As a former Jamal supporter who worked with ICFFMAJ for several years, I know the case very well from both sides.

A few things for you to consider as you research this issue. Why have no pro-Mumia websites posted the totality of the trial transcripts? Why do no pro-Mumia websites allow for debate?

As far as Bennett is concerened, it will be a sad day for him when those creeping doubts in his head come to a kind of fruition and he wakes up to the fact that he and the whole fraudulent Mumia cause was a gigantic excercise in failure.

I just checked the Journalists for Mumia site

Submitted by Philly for Mumia (not verified) on Thu, 04/09/2009 - 2:18pm

and, they do have the full transcripts posted at the top of the page, which links to here, if anyone wants to read the transcripts:

http://againstthecrimeofsilence.de/english/copy_of_mumia/legalarchive/

I must say that I have recently read O'Connor's book "The Framing of Mumia" and found it to be quite interesting. Particularly in how he cites the trial transcripts and police reports themselves.

I think there are way too many problems in this case, and a new trial is the only true solution to this debate.

Really

Submitted by Tony Allen (not verified) on Thu, 04/09/2009 - 4:08pm

One rather obscure pro-Mumia website that has some transcripts does not mitigate the fact that the major groups have no such links, allow for no discussion, tolerate no counter opinions. As for “The Framing Of Mumia Abu-Jamal” by J. Patrick O’ Connor, it has to be the worst book on the issue ever written.

Previous books about the case at least rose up to one’s expectations of the author. “Race For Justice” by former Jamal attorney, Leonard Weinglass, was essentially Jamal’s case for innocence written by a man paid to free his client. You did not expect two sides to that story to be presented. The same went for the book written by another Jamal attorney, Dan Williams called “Executing Justice” , which was decidedly pro-Mumia, but understandably suspect of the cult-like atmosphere surrounding the man who would fire him. Dave Lindorff, feigned objectivity, but his political bias was as transparent as could be in his book on the case “Killing Time”. The most thorough of all of the books on the Jamal case would be the lengthy “Mumia Abu-Jamal “The Patron Saint of American Cop-Killers” by John Hayden. Hayden is working on his second book on the case, and in the interest of disclosure, Hayden is a contributor to this site. Maureen Faulkner’s book (again in the spirit of disclosure, I contributed a few words to) offered the view from the vantage point of the widow and was by far the most successful of all of the books on Jamal’s case.

The problems with O’Connor’s book are so many and so egregious that I found myself unable to write a book review of it in the traditional sense. While reading it and taking notes, I discovered that it would take a book greater than the length of “The Framing Of Mumia Abu-Jamal” to itemize and correct all of the falsehoods, half-truths, and the tyranny of assumptions that make up the core of this unfortunate book.

On the surface, it’s author, J. Patrick O’Connor seems as if he doesn’t have a dog in the fight. There is no obvious political agenda in the way that Lindorff and Weinglass did, with both of their books being published by the far-left Common Courage Press, however O’Connor is on a different trip all together. He is the publisher of an online magazine simply known as “Crime Magazine, that purports to report on the following topics: “true crime: organized crime, celebrity crime, serial killers, corruption, sex crimes, capital punishment, prisons, assassinations, justice issues, crime books, crime films and crime studies.”

O’Connor, who in his book claims that the deceased Kenneth Freeman and not Mumia killed Officer Faulkner, has a habit of blaming dead people for murder. In an article about the killing of Jon Benet Ramsey, the patron saint of pretty, murdered, white girls, who garner world wide interest, O’Connor blames the girl’s dead mother who was never charged with anything for the crime of killing her child This, on his ironically titled “Crime Magazine” website.

And while O’Connor has no clear-cut, political, proclivities, his pro-Mumia bias seeps out of every page of his book and the fact that he is clearly enamored by MOVE is disturbing to say the least. He is also given to some pretty baseless ideas that he seems to enjoy inflicting on his readers. O’Connor also has what seems to be a savage streak as in his acknowledgments, he thanks the “Justice For Daniel For Daniel Faulkner Website” and writes of his “hope...his book...may aid...Faulkner’s family...in achieving justice”. It is the kind of grotesque cynicism that does not even warrant a response, only an observation that O’Connor fails to mention the address of the Faulkner site, or that it contains the trial transcripts, and he certainly fails to mention that much of pro-Jamal rhetoric in his book has already been thoroughly been debunked on the Faulkner website.

In the face of overwhelming and inexcusable “Free Mumia” falsehoods, I am going to go beyond merely pointing out and challenging the mountain of O’Connor’s falsehoods, and cut to the heart of the idea that Mumia was “framed” head on with facts, some of which have yet to be discussed.

Also, I will show that the idea of Kenneth Freeman as the killer of Officer Faulkner is patently absurd, not supported by facts, and is not even one that is endorsed by Jamal or his legal team. Another conspiracy theory in O’Connor’s treatise is that of now deceased , former Police Commissioner and Philadelphia Mayor, Frank Rizzo had a role in Mumia’s frame-up. O’Connor asserts, falsely, that the former Philadelphia Mayor “threatened” Mumia.

These two false assertions by O’Connor are by no means the only ones in his book, but they do stand out as examples of myth making so irresponsible and reckless that they are worthy of meticulous repudiation. As they not only represent concepts rejected by prosecutors, but apparently be the revolving door, scheme teams, that comprise Jamal’s legal defense apparatus.

A few other examples of O’Connor running roughshod over the facts are as follows:

-He claims that in 1978 that Police fired “10,000 rounds of ammunition into the MOVE house and that the nine MOVE members were convicted for the killing of Officer Ramp. In another paragraph about MOVE, O’Connor claims that there was “no ballistics to prove that Officer Ramp was killed by a bullet from the compound”

The fact is that he pulled the “10,000 round s fired out of the MOVE confrontation in 1985. MOVE members were not just convicted of killing Officer Ramp, but for the attempted murder of several other Police and Firefighters, some who were gravely wounded by MOVE gunfire, one of them disabled and forced into retirement

Officer Ramp was shot by a gun taken from the MOVE compound. The bullet matched a MOVE weapon removed from the basement and was of the same type of gun MOVE members were observed with in the basement and purchased by a MOVE member. Ballistically speaking, you can’t get much more of a smoking gun than that.

-He claims that Mumia carried a gun because he had “been robbed at gunpoint”

Mumia purchased that gun two years and five months prior to him using it to kill Officer Faulkner. It was a gun he purchased well before he was a cab driver. I have also not ever heard of any police reports of Jamal being robbed. As a cab driver, working for any company, the policy would have demanded his reportage of such an event. Moreover, when the Police had secured Jamal’s gun, all of the rounds were reported to have been fired, a fact that neither Mumia nor his defense team have ever approached. Was he going to throw an empty gun at robbers? If he fired the weapon at a gun range, certainly staff would have recognized him and could vouch for him, just like the gun dealer had remembered the well-dressed, articulate, dread locked man, had from two years earlier The unavoidable fact however is that Mumia had fired that gun the night he killed Officer Faulkner and no amount of avoiding the issue of the gun can alter that fact. In a twist of words, O’Connor tells readers that an Officer kicked Jamal as he was reaching towards “a gun”, when in reality it was Mumia’s gun. A very subtle, but deliberate attempt at manipulation.

-Although Billy Cook is mentioned numerous times in his book O’Connor omits a few key facts concerning Jamal’s brother

O’Connor leaves out the fact that Billy told arriving Officers that he “aint got nothing to do with it”, exonerating himself, but not his brother Mumia. He fails to mention Cook’s affidavit contradicts that of his brothers.

-Typical of all Jamal supporters, O’Connor thinks little of Jamal’s supposed “confession”.

Certainly, reasonable people need to ask just exactly why it took trained, Police Officers months to come forward with an allegation of a murder confession from a cop-killer. However, if you take the confession evidence in it’s entirety, it does gain a level of believability not so easily dismissed. For example, should Jamal get the new trial O’Connor and others think he deserve, he will have to deal with a whole new set of issues regarding the confession.

A problem for Jamal lay in the sheer number of
“earwitnesses” who heard Jamal confess in one fashion or another.
Priscilla Durham, Officer Alphonse Giordano, Officer Gary Bell, Officer Thomas Bray, Officer Gary Wakshul, Officer Tom Brady, and NBC Producer Kathleen Gerrow all made statements to the effect that Jamal confessed to killing Officer Faulkner.
Back in 1981, Kathleen Gerrow was a radio reporter when she went to the hospital to cover the story when she heard a very distinctive voice shouting, 'I shot the mother f----er, I shot the mother f----er,” said Gerrow. That voice, Gerrow said, belonged to Abu-Jamal.

In total, that means that seven people who allegedly heard Jamal confess. Are they all lying?

-Chapter 32 of O’Connor’s book asks the question “Was Faulkner An FBI Informant”. Although he admits himself that this was “highly unlikely”, he follows crackpot, former Jamal attorney Rachel Wolkenstein right down the conspiratorial rabbit hole when he casually reprints her hearsay, alleged anecdotes, and un-named sources, that combined amount to nothing more than the desperation of a crack-pot attorney who was just lucky to be where she was at the time.

To add insult to injury, O’Connor lists two Philadelphia Police Officers that he believes were killed “under circumstances suggesting a directed hit”.

In May of 1985, not long after the MOVE confrontation on Osage Avenue, Police
Officer Thomas Trench was shot while sitting in his patrol car. To O’Connor this must have been a “hit” and further evidence that Officer Faulkner may have been done in the same way. There is a problem with this alleged “hit” scenario. The now twice convicted murderer of P.O. Trench, Willfredo Santiago was not out to silence an informant or a corrupt cop, but rather was out to settle a score with another police officer who had been driving the same patrol car -- number 912 -- just hours earlier, and that Santiago rode up on a bike and shot Trench in the face. It was a case of mistaken identity that has nothing at all to do with Officer Faulkner of Mumia.

The other Police Officer mentioned by O’Connor was Police Officer James Mason. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to get much in the way of information in the media regarding Officer Mason. I did, however, manage to get in contact with a Police Officer who actually had worked in the same district as Officer Mason and was sadly familiar with the circumstances of Mason’s murder. He sent me the following statement on the matter:

“Officer James Mason and Officer Singletary were finished handling a “Disturbance House” radio call on 36th street. The house faced the Mantua Hall housing project. The building “was” 18 floors high and a juvenile was in his apartment window with a rifle. He has discovered the rifle under his mother’s bed and was playing with it and pointing it out the window. The juvenile was watching the police activity across the street and when the two Police Officers had returning to their police vehicle and were filling out paperwork. The juvenile fired the rifle and the bullet struck Officer Mason in the side of the head. He was pronounced dead on arrival at Presbyterian Hospital. The courts found the juvenile guilty of manslaughter and he was sent to a juvenile home until he was 19 years old. He was 15-16 years old at the time of the shooting.”

Clearly, O’Connor, has not just shown himself to care nothing for facts, but also a callous disregard for the families of murder victims other than just the family of Officer Faulkner. His fatuous and disingenuous attempts to link the completely unrelated murders of James Mason and Thomas Trench with that of Daniel Faulkner make that much clear. More than just a poor writer and an inveterate liar, he has shown himself to be a pitiful researcher who has just cut and pasted enough pro-Mumia blather to cobble together a book. Victims, truth, reality be dammed

-O’Connor paints Jamal as a man of “peaceable nature” and notes how shocked Jamal’s friends were at the news that he was arrested and charged with murder. This portrayal of Mumia as a man of peace is disingenuous to say the least, but even if it were true, it underestimates the influence a group like MOVE has upon those in it’s orbit. Certainly cults, especially those like MOVE, are known for altering their adherent’s personalities. Moreover, at the time of Officer Faulkner’s death, Jamal’s personal and professional life had effectively hit bottom. What did remain was his devotion to MOVE, nine of whom Jamal idolized and not-so-coincidentally had just been convicted of amongst other things, murdering a Philadelphia Police Officers.

Jamal’s own animus towards the Police is hardly a secret and his youth wasn’t exactly the one of a perpetual, spiritual quest, and naive political acts. In his Black Panther days, 11 years before shooting Officer Faulkner, he was writing that he was feeling like “putting down the pen” and implored readers of a Black Panther Party publication to “write epitaphs for pigs”. In addition to idolizing MOVE members who killed cops, Mumia to this day, still adores Black Panther co-founder Huey P. Newton. The former black militant, turned crack addict, was gunned down in during a drug dispute in 1989, yet his luster has not been diminished in Mumia’s eyes. Like his MOVE heroes, Newton gunned down Police Officer John Frey, but after careful and very good legal maneuvering, Newton was able to walk out of jail after only three years. Incidentally, Newton’s account of the Police shooting was very similar to Jamal’s 2001 affidavit. Prior to his death, Newton would beat another murder rap, this one for the "alleged" killing of a 17 year old prostitute after two trials ended in deadlocked juries.

Even before Jamal’s days as a Panther and MOVE supporter, it appears he was enamored by violence and may have participated in gang violence. During his 1995 hearing, one of Jamal’s own witnesses, a man named Arnold Howard, blurted out that he and Mumia “used to gang war together”, so much for Mumia’s life of non-violence.

Tony your comment leaves me

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 04/09/2009 - 10:53pm

Tony your comment leaves me with a TON of questions:

1.) If seven people supposedly heard the confession but none of them said anything until 60-days after the fact after McGill begins asking "if anyone heard a confession" then what does that prove? Especially is several are trained police officers. It sounds like none are reliable. Giordano was the only one to say that night but we know he was a crooked cop and that McGill wouldn't touch his story.

When did this reporter hear the confession?

The doctor Anthony Colletta, who worked on Mumia has said repeatedly that he was unable to yell anything due to blood in his lungs.

2.) You never showed how the idea of Kenneth Freeman as the murderer is patently false... please explain. The McGill scenario is just way too hard to believe. Hoe did Mumia get shot with a bullet travelling downward? Where are the bullets in the concrete? (Where are the bullets period?)

3.) The Faulkner as an FBI informant chapter was irrelevant in the book but did present itself as all purely speculation.

4.) You claim that Pro-Mumia websites don't leave room for argument or dissenting opinions... does the Daniel Faulkner site? No.

5.) If Mumia's gun was empty couldn't a police officer have just fired off the shots if they wanted to make it look like he did it? It would be pretty easy to do.

6.) What in Mumia's past suggests any kind of motive for murder? He believed MOVE was innocent of murder - he was not championing killings. He had never committed any other crimes except smoking weed.

7.) Doesn't all this ridiculousness just mean it would be better to just have a new trial?

8.) I love how you thought all the books were "biased" except the one with a title as overdramatic as "The Patron Saint of Cop-Killers". Every argument in that book is debunked time and time again by Lindorff, Schiffman, Weinglass, Williams, and O'Conner. None of them other than the lawyers would have had an agenda. They would have sold books if they wrote negatively about Mumia.

9.) What was the bullet that killed ramp? All of the guns pulled from the MOVE house were reported to be inoperable. What was the gun the bullet came from and where was it found. Can you cite this?

10.) When did Mumia buy his gun? In 1978? Can you cite this? How do you know?

11.) It is obvious that the police history - especially during this time period - of "ends justifies the means" policing where they intimidate witnesses and make-up evidence to get a conviction. Police corruption in Philly has been notorious for decades. Had the police had a history it would be easier to believe their "mistakes" around the confession rather than see it for how preposterous it is. They created this air of suspicion around themselves with years of unethical activities that led to about half of the thirty plus officers who had anything to with Mumia's crime scene and the hospital being kicked off the force for corruption charges.

12.) Why not just give him a new trial? If he's so guilty wouldn't he just get convicted again?

It is pretty arrogant for

Submitted by Tony (not verified) on Fri, 04/10/2009 - 3:39pm

It is pretty arrogant for you to presume that I am here to just answer question after question. Not because I am somebody special, but because of the situation. Never mind the fact that you are posting anonymously, putting me at a disadvantage.

To be sure, it is not up to me convince you that Mumia should be in jail, it is instead up to you to prove that he should be freed. I am very contented with the fact that Mumia is in prison for the rest of his life, as is the judiciary, as are the majority of people who have looked at the case. If you want to squander one minute of your life supporting Mumia than that is on you, it makes no difference.

Your “questions” reflect the kind of infinite regressivness that have become the trademarks of the pro-Mumia side. Once your position is challenged and refuted, you retreat to another and yet another, hoisting rhetorical barricades along the way. By asking a multitude of questions, rather than focusing on one or two that can be adequately discussed, the clear intent is to “gum up the works”, so that when I don’t answer all of your questions, you can say “see he doesn’t have the answers, therefore he is ignorant”.

This is not my first back and forth with Mumia supporters. Being that I was one, I know the drill all to well.

Why don’t you try and respond to the issues I have presented rather than try and conjure up new ones. Since you apparently know all the answers, why don’t you educate me as to a couple of things.

Danny Faulkner is a hero

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 04/09/2009 - 3:11am

Something I noticed that I find fascinating is the idea that supporting Mumia's innocence would somehow intinsically be a statement about the credibility of Danny Faulkner as a hero. I don't understand and I think it's nonsensical to say that someone's feelings about Jamal's guilt or innocence has any bearing on Faulkner's record or the fact that he is a hero or should make an assumption that the individual can't believe both.

If a person believes the facts support innocence why would that mean that they would suddenly not believe Danny is a hero? That should say absolutely nothing about their feelings towards Danny as his heroism is not mutually exclusive of from believing that Jamal is innocent or simply had an unfair trial.

How can one take the question of guilt or innocence or support or dismissal for Mumia as having any impact on the memory or person that was Danny Faulkner? People are reacting as if this is possible and I don't believe that is respectful to his memory. The most respectful thing that could ever be given to Danny's memory or to Maureen is simply the truth.

Mumia is over

Submitted by Tony Allen (not verified) on Thu, 04/09/2009 - 11:33am

Let me just put it out there in as plainly as possible. Mumia is not going to be freed from prison. He is not going to get a new trial. Conversly, he is not going to be executed. He will live out his days a guest of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and that is what he deserves.

I write this and believe it as I have looked into the court rulings, precedents, as well as the fact that the death penalty exists in Pennsylvania anymore on paper only.

Of course, I realize that this is going to be a bitter pill for many people on both sides of the Jamal debate to accept. Those who believe that Jamal's origional sentence of death be carried out for there to be justice are not going to be comforted by the idea of Jamal continuing to churn out essays and books and recieving visitors, while the man he murdered, Daniel Faulkner, remains un-avenged.

For their part, the people who still remain beholden to the myth of Mumia's innocence will still occasionally make their way to Philadelphia to yell profanity at empty buildings and show support for their jailed hero.

From time to time, the issue of Mumia will be raised, some articles will be written and some feelings will be hurt, but for the most part, it is over. And it is over regardless of how anyone feels about it.

That sounds like a bit of a

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 04/09/2009 - 11:05pm

That sounds like a bit of a cop-out (no pun intended) even if it becomes true. The point is not the result but what should have been the result based on the facts and the laws of our judicial system.

oh and ONE MORE QUESTION!

How come the Faulkner sites and folks always encourage people to read the transcripts? How does this prove Mumia's guilt? As far as I can tell reading the transcripts have resulted inspiring authors to write books that support a new trial from Lindorff and O'Conner and in Amnesty International saying that the case did not event meet the base requirements for a fair trial according to international law. Everyone who reads the transcripts becomes a Mumia supporter. So what's the proof of guilt there?

it really is over

Submitted by Tony (not verified) on Fri, 04/10/2009 - 2:54pm

Your comment is the height of absurdity. It is over whether you want it to be or not.

The transcripts arrival on the scene signaled the beggining of the end for the Mumia movement.

The recently published, pro-Mumia, books are attempts to manipulate and distort the transcripts to fit the agenda of the free Mumia movement.

and'...

Submitted by jon peppers (not verified) on Fri, 04/10/2009 - 8:51pm

to SELL books. Ask WHO would benefit from the book sales...mmmm...Mumua Abu Jamal...O'Connor, Michael Schiffman, and others (fledgling journalists) who champion his cause. Sad...fools led by fools to fool others

jon pisano

Recent Posts by HansBennett

Recent Similar Articles

US Supreme Court Rejects Mumia Abu-Jamal's Appeal For a New Guilt Phase Trial

Comments

Post new comment