Free Mumia!

:thumbsup:

Although I don't believe in the Death Penalty, this scumbag, although very intelligent, got what he deserved.

Here is a link to the site (Academic Pent State University) picking apart everyone of his claims:

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/a/l/als313/art/two.html

Has TONS of material on the crime, trial, and conviction. Including an analysis of the claims made by Mumia supporters. Here's two of those myths perpetrated as fact (VERY LONG):

MYTH #3

Jamal's supporters claim that prosecutor Joe McGill and Judge Albert Sabo conspired to "racially stack" the jury that convicted Jamal, in violation of his civil rights. Some supporters have gone so far as to claim that there was only one black juror at Jamal's original trial in 1982; others have said there were none. It is alleged that this "racially stacked" jury disregarded all the evidence and found Jamal guilty simply because he was black.

In his book "Race For Justice", Leonard Weinglass states, "During the course of the jury selection, the prosecution used eleven of fifteen peremptory challenges to excuse nearly 75 percent of the eligible black jurors." In his public presentations, Weinglass claims that the sole reason for the dismissal of these prospective jurors was the fact that they were black.

Jamal's lawyers also argue that his absence from an "in chambers conference," in which the Judge, the prosecutor, and Jamal's trial attorney (a black man) discussed and agreed upon the removal of a black juror who had violated sequestration, was a pretext to remove her because of her race.




BRIEF REBUTTAL

Though you wouldn't know it if you spoke to one of Jamal's supporters, the jury that convicted Mumia Abu-Jamal was not simply thrust upon him. Jamal represented himself throughout the jury selection process, and personally participated in the selection of each and every juror. He used his peremptory challenges (each side gets 20 of these, each of which allows them to reject one potential juror at their discretion) to remove an unknown number of white potential jurors -- although, at the time, no one thought to accuse Jamal of rejecting white people because of their race.

It is also of interest that prosecutor Joe McGill -- who was supposedly rejecting potential jurors solely because they were black -- accepted at least four black people for the jury. Further, Jamal personally used one of his own peremptory challenges to remove one of these black persons from the jury.

It is also known that McGill used ten (out of twenty) challenges to remove black potential jurors. But it is important to note that it is not unlawful to reject black potential jurors, any more than it is unlawful to reject white ones. What is unlawful is to reject a potential juror because of his or her race. Jamal has never offered any proof that McGill did that. On the contrary, the record shows a legitimate reason for McGill to have removed each of the black potential jurors he did:

1) Janet Coates. (Black) Indicated that she would be biased against police and that she had listened to Jamal on the radio. (N.T. 6/7/82, 129-30)
2) Alma Austin (Stipulated to being black at 1995 PCRA hearing.) Expressed strong feelings against the death penalty. (N.T. 6/8/82, 2.51-54)
3) Verna Brown (Black) Stated that she had listened to Jamal on the radio. (N.T. 6/8/82, 3.242-245)
4) Beverly Green (Race unknown. At the 1995 PCRA hearing Mr. Weinglass stated that he would verify that Ms Green was black, but later removed her from the witness list and withdrew the claim) Hesitant in answering the prosecutor's questions. (N.T. 6/8/82, 3.242-245)
5) Genevieve Gibson (Black) Listened to Jamal on the radio. (N.T. 6/10/82, 4.78)
6) Gaitano Ficordimondo (Race unknown) (N.T.6/10/82, 4.96)
7) Webster Riddick (Black) Expressed "strong reservations" about the death penalty. (N.T.6/10/82, 4.222-224)
8) John Finn (Race unknown) Stated that he was a member of the clergy, and was very hesitant to answer the prosecutor's questions directly. (N.T. 6/11/82, 5.75-82)
9) Carl Lash (Black) Stated that he had formerly been a "prison counselor". (N.T. 6/11/82, 5.105, 110-111, 113-114)
10) Delores Thiemicke (Race Unknown) At age 24, she was unemployed. (N.T. 6/11/82, 5.192-193)
11) Gwendolyn Spady (Black) Stated that she had listened to Jamal on the radio. (N.T. 6/15/82, 111-13)
12) Mario Bianchi (Race not of record.) Stated he listened to Jamal on the radio and had difficulty understanding the presumption of innocence. (N.T. 6/15/82, 111-113)
13) Wayne Williams (Black) Stated that he had listened to Jamal on the radio. (N.T. 6/15/82, 171-173)
14) Henry McCoy (Black) Stated that his daughter worked at a radio station with Jamal. (N.T. 6/15/82, 223-225)
15) Darlene Sampson (Stipulated that she was black at 1995 PCRA hearing.) Stated that she had listened to Mr. Jamal on the radio, that she had strong feelings against the Death Penalty and that she "could not be fair if the trial was a long one". (N.T. 6/16/82, 276, 281-291, 293-297)

In Pennsylvania -- as in most states that employ Capital Punishment -- it is a legal requirement in capital murder cases that any person not willing to consider a death sentence be dismissed from the jury. Several prospective jurors in Jamal's trial were released from service because they expressed profound disagreement with the use of the Death Penalty and stated that they would not be willing to consider it as an option if they found Jamal to be guilty. Others were dismissed because they listened to Jamal on the radio, or knew someone who knew him personally, or because they were hesitant in answering questions or had difficulty understanding key concepts. There is nothing to suggest that the prosecutor was acting on the basis of anyone's race.

McGill, who started with 20 peremptory challenges, had five that he never used -- yet the first juror selected by McGill and Jamal (Jeannie Dooley, or Dawley) was black. Lacking any real evidence for their claims of racial animus, Jamal's lawyers now like to talk about statistics. But in the 1982 trial, Jamal -- who was representing himself -- failed to note the race of each prospective juror so it would become part of the official record. Today, there is no way to tell how many of the people on the panel of prospective jurors was black, or how many of them were rejected by Jamal (thus reducing the number of qualified black potential jurors available to McGill).

Weinglass' pronouncement that the blacks rejected by McGill made up "75%" of all of the black people in the jury pool is, quite simply, a lie. He made the figure up out of thin air.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has twice reviewed the court record in this case to determine if McGill used his peremptory challenges with discriminatory intent. Both times, it found that he had no such intent.




THE AGREEMENT TO DISMISS
THE WANDERING JUROR

Jamal's supporters often note that Jamal was absent from an "in chambers" conference in which it was determined that one of the initial jurors should be removed. While it is true that Jamal was not present at this conference, lost in all the pro-Jamal rhetoric is the reason why Jamal was not present. The record shows that had Jamal wanted to present, he could have been. But Jamal had failed to heed the warnings given to him regarding his obstructive actions in the courtroom. He was not present at this "in chambers" conference because he had once again been removed from the courtroom as a result of his own disruptive and contemptuous actions -- not because of a plot to have him absent, as Jamal's supporters allege.

Jamal was represented by his counsel at the conference. Jamal's attorney -- Anthony Jackson, an experienced criminal defense attorney who was hand pick by Jamal and a black man -- agreed that, because she had deliberately violated sequestration, Dawley should be removed. This is exactly what would have happened to any juror who violated sequestration. Jackson had a further reason, moreover -- he felt that Dawley had been "very belligerent" towards Jamal. The argument of Jamal's new lawyers -- that Dawley was removed simply due to her race -- is discredited by Jamal's own lawyer.




FACTS SUPPORTING OUR REBUTTAL

The jury selection process in Mumia Abu-Jamal's trial was unlike that of most trials, because Jamal was in control -- he was representing himself. At one point Judge Albert Sabo took over the questioning for both sides for a short time, and later agreed to let the parties return to asking the questions if Jackson did the talking. The record verifies that at all times Jamal was making the decisions as to how his peremptory challenges were used.

Though Jamal's supporters choose not to mention it, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has twice (1989 and 1998) reviewed the notion that the jury in Jamal's trial was unfairly stacked with "white" jurors. The Justices of the Supreme Court found this argument to be baseless. Given the record, it's easy to see why they came reached this conclusion.




THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS

On May 13, 1982, two weeks before the trial began, Mumia Abu-Jamal abruptly chose to remove his hand picked attorney, Anthony Jackson and proceed "pro se" (as his own lawyer). Jamal represented during jury selection.

After three days in which Jamal personally questioned each prospective juror (venierperson), a full third of the entire jury panel was used up, while only one juror was selected. Prosecutor Joe McGill told the Court that he felt the jury selection process was taking an inordinate amount of time. He also noted that several prospective jurors appeared to be frightened by Jamal's appearance and his manner of questioning them. In fact, one prospective juror, Ruth Swenk, said that Jamal "scares me to death." (6-8-82 T.R. 2.138)

Jamal's supporters often point to an article printed in the Philadelphia Inquirer in which it is stated that Jamal was "intent and businesslike" as he questioned perspective jurors. But this argument diverts attention from the real issue raised by McGill, which went to the delay Jamal was causing and the fear being expressed by the potential jurors. McGill moved that Judge Sabo begin questioning prospective jurors for both the prosecution and the defense, as was authorized by the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure. McGill noted that this process would accomplish three things: quicken the pace of jury selection, ease the concerns of the prospective jurors, and protect Jamal from being judged by people who had adverse feelings towards him.

McGill: "I was going to make a motion. Judge, my motion is that your Honor take over the voir dire (jury questioning). That will, of course, mean taking over the voir dire for questions from both sides, not just Mr. Jamal's but also mine. I wouldn't be able to ask any either.

The authority your Honor, would be Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 1106D, where it says that the Judge may permit the defense and the prosecution to conduct the examination of prospective jurors or may itself conduct the examination. This is clear authority for Your Honor to do this.

The reasons for this request are twofold: The first reason is that I believe that the speed of the voir dire or should I say the pace of voir dire is extremely and deliberately, very slow. However, either because of Mr. Jamal's maybe inexperience in asking specifically framed questions or his decision to ask questions, not all I believe to be relevant for the purposes of voir dire, it has caused in the last two days only 20 jurors to be questioned and one to be chose. That means 30 in the first panel, and this will be the third day of panel one. There are 30, more than half, as a matter of fact, 60% remain to be questioned.

I believe, Your Honor, that if the Court would ask the questions, questions that would safeguard the rights of both the Commonwealth and the defendant, this would expedite the matter without in any way infringing upon the rights of the defendant.

The second reason is because of my own experience in past trials. I could say that in reference to what I have observed during the course of this voir dire, it appears to me and it will appear on the record, certainly on the last two witnesses, it appears to me that in many cases throughout the voir dire there is an unsettling effect when the defendant, who is charged with such a heinous crime, if the facts are accepted by the jurors, particularly that of shooting a policeman in the back and then shooting him in the face at close range, it tends to create in the venierperson an unsettling feeling, as a matter of fact in a few jurors outright fear.

Now, when we have a situation where an individual himself is asking questions and creating that type of anxiety, which would be different that the anxiety where another individual, his attorney, would be asking them, referring to a third party in the courtroom, the possibility for answers which are not clear, that are confused or that in fact unfortunately, I believe that these jurors in as much as some of them are fearful, will begin to find reasons that they don't want to serve. Even though they would be arguably good jurors, because of the emotion that is presented to them, they are not giving clear answers or are too upset to be able to answer correctly.

N.T. 6/9/82, 3.2 -8

Jamal objected to the court conducting voir dire, walked away from the sidebar conference where the matter was being discussed, and ordered his back-up counsel not to participate in the proceedings. He announced that he wanted a non-attorney, John Africa, to question the proposed jurors on his behalf. The court denied this and indicated that it would review proposed questions for its conduct of the voir dire. He announced that he considered court-conducted voir dire a "damned farce" (N.T. 6/9/82, 3.19-3.45).

The court then conducted the voir dire for both sides, questioning twelve prospective jurors in what was left of the morning session (N.T. 6/9/82, 3.46-3.105). After the luncheon recess, Jamal told Jackson to inform the court that he wanted John Africa to represent him, but that he had agreed to let Jackson ask the defense voir dire questions. Jamal petulantly refused to speak when the court asked him to confirm that he had agreed to proceed in this way. As if addressing a pouting five-year-old, the Judge invited Jamal to object if Jackson had not correctly represented his preference. Jamal did not respond. The court therefore allowed Jackson to ask the remaining voir dire questions (N.T. 6/9/82, 3.106-3.129). But while Jackson gave voice to the questions, Jamal continued to represent himself, and made all of the decisions regarding jury selection.

The resulting jury was one that Jamal personally picked out himself.




DID THE PROSECUTION USE 10 PEREMPTORY
CHALLENGES TO EXCLUDE BLACKS?

In his book "Race for Justice," Jamal's lawyer Leonard Weinglass states, "The prosecution used 11 of 15 peremptory challenges to exclude 75 % of the eligible black jurors." In his public presentations, Weinglass regularly states that prosecutor Joe McGill purposely and knowingly used 11 of the 15 peremptory challenges he exercised in 1982, to "exclude otherwise qualified black prospective jurors from serving on the jury, simply because they were black."

This attack on Joe McGill's moral and ethical standards is also one of the key issues raised on appeal by Mr. Weinglass. This allegation is also blindly repeated by many of Mumia Abu-Jamal's celebrity supporters, such as Tom Morello (Rage Against the Machine), Mike Farrell (M*A*S*H) and Ed Asner, each of whom regularly speaks out to the media offering allegedly "factual" support for Jamal.

The judges who hear Jamal's appeals will certainly have the last word on this matter. However, for the benefit of those interested in this case, we have listed the facts as they are shown in the court record.

In 1982, the jury cards filled out by prospective jurors did not require them to disclose their race. One of the responsibilities assumed by Mumia Abu-Jamal as he represented himself, was the task of asking each prospective juror their race and noting it for the record. Judge Sabo actually encouraged Jamal to do so. The record clearly reflects that Jamal chose not to follow Sabo's advice and failed to note the race of each prospective juror. Therefore, to this day, there is no definite way to tell what the race of each prospective juror was. It is thus easy for Weinglass to level his accusation against the prosecution outside the courtroom; there is simply no way to prove him wrong on this issue. However, inside the courtroom, where accusations must be backed up with fact, Mr. Weinglass has failed to support his myth. His accusation has twice (1989 and 1998) been reviewed by the State Supreme Court, and was dismissed as being without merit.




DID THE PROSECUTION RACIALLY FIX THE JURY?

The two facts that most undermine the defense allegation that the prosecution "racially fixing the jury" with discriminatory intent, is the fact that McGill accepted four African-American jurors and that he still had five (5) unused peremptory challenges when the final jury was seated. Had Joe McGill intended to racially "fix" the jury, as Weinglass suggests, he could have exercised these unused challenges to exclude the three black jurors that were seated, as well as James Burgess -- one of at least four black jurors accepted by McGill and peremptorily struck by Jamal. These facts also show that McGill was striking individuals, black or white, for their potential biases, not because of their race.

At the 1982 trial, each side began jury selection with 20 peremptory challenges. By definition, "peremptory challenges" afford both the prosecution and the defense the opportunity to strike any prospective juror without offering a reason to the Court. However, this system leaves open the possibility that either side might use their peremptory challenges to exclude qualified individuals solely because of their ethnicity. In 1986, the U.S. Supreme court established legal precedent forbidding this in Batson vs. Kentucky.

As stated in the 1998 Supreme Court decision (posted on danielfaulkner.com), to support a "Batson" claim the defense must establish that the prosecution chose to "purposefully discriminate" against blacks by excluding them "solely on the basis of race."

In 1989 and again in 1998, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that McGill had no such intent:

"We have examined the prosecution's questions and comments during voir dire, along with those of the appellant and his counsel, and we find not a trace of support for an inference that the use of peremptories was racially motivated".

There is no evidence at all to support Weinglass's claim that the prosecutor struck any black person "solely by virtue of the fact that they were black."




THE RACIAL MAKE UP OF THE JURY

When evaluating the validity of the racially stacked jury myth, it's important to understand that at the beginning of the 1982 trial, 3 of the 12 jurors seated were black. In Jamal's own Federal appeal, he states that four black jurors were accepted by the prosecution (Jamal habeas petition, p. 120), at least one of those black jurors, James Burgess, was struck from service by Mumia Abu-Jamal himself with one of his peremptory challenges. The record shows that the first two jurors accepted by prosecutor McGill were black. In the 1996 case, United States vs. Wills, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the prosecution's willingness to accept minority groups weighed against any claim that it was striking jurors solely for being members of that group.

It remains unknown exactly how many blacks (or members of other racial or ethnic groups) served on the jury. At the outset of the trial, one of the black jurors, Jennie Dawley, violated sequestration to attend to a sick cat. Both the defense and the prosecution agreed to her removal.

Jamal's supporters appear to argue that the white jurors who voted to convict Jamal did so simply because he is black; and that black jurors (excepting, apparently, those who actually served and heard the evidence) would have voted for acquittal simply because he is black. This argument strikes us as not only absurd, but demeaning to people of both races. The jurors (some of whom were white and some black) heard the evidence, and the evidence compelled them to convict. There is no reason to believe that an equally qualified jury composed of a different mix of races would not have done the same.




THE JENNIE DAWLEY INCIDENT

Leonard Weinglass now asserts that Judge Albert Sabo is a "racist," because he had earlier made special arrangements for a "white juror" to take a civil service exam, while he failed to display the same flexibility when a "black" juror, Dawley, asked to leave the hotel and attend to her sick cat.

To some, Weinglass' allegation of racial bias may appear to warrant concern. Yet the transcripts directly contradict this claim. The record shows that in 1995, Sabo noted that a juror (whose race is not of record) was allowed to leave the hotel by prearrangement with the court in order to take a civil service exam that required him to be present. On the other hand, Jennie Dawley simply got up and left without asking permission, even though she acknowledged that her husband was at home and could have seen to her cat. At the 1995 PCRA hearing Judge Sabo responded to Weinglass' allegation of racism on this ground:

"She didn't communicate with me Counselor, let's get that straight. I didn't know a thing about it until the Court Officer relayed the information to me ."

N.T. 7/12/95, 26

Assistant District Attorney Hugh Burns also addressed this issue in his 1995 opening statement:

"She didn't get the courts permission to go, she simply chose to go. And then the crier reported it to you and this is a part of the record-when he told her that she should not leave, she said, "I don't care what Judge Sabo or anybody says, I do what I have to do, nobody is going to stop me."

N.T. 7/12/95, 49

Contrary to what Jamal's supporters allege, there is no doubt that Jennie Dawley chose to violate sequestration without bothering to inform the Judge or ask permission to leave. Neither the prosecution or the defense wanted a person on the jury who was so clearly unwilling to follow the directions of the court or submit to the requirements of jury service. The record shows that both the prosecution and the defense agreed to Dawley's removal from the jury, with Anthony Jackson stating, "I thought it was a matter of whose side she ended up on, but she was definitely belligerent." (N.T. 6/18/82, 2.43) Jackson, not unreasonably, did not want to risk that Dawley might end up on the prosecution side and direct her belligerence against his client.

Jamal's supporters bitterly complain that, by random selection, the alternate juror selected to replace Ms. Dawley was "white." Now who's being racist?

In his writings, Weinglass claims this new juror was biased against Jamal and that he said that he would not be able to fairly judge him. This is a simply untrue. Had he done so, he never would have been accepted as an alternate.




WHY WASN'T JAMAL PRESENT WHEN
JENNIE DAWLEY WAS REMOVED?

The day after Jennie Dawley had left the hotel to attend to her sick cat, and subsequently returned to her hotel room, an "in chambers" conference was held at which Jamal was not present. It was during this meeting that the judge, the prosecutor and Jamal's attorney, Anthony Jackson, who was representing Jamal at the time, reached a consensus that Ms. Dawley should be removed as a juror, because she had violated sequestration, and because she had displayed adverse feelings towards Jamal.

Mumia Abu-Jamal's supporters and his attorneys often imply that he was barred from attending this allegedly critical meeting as part of a conspiracy to cull Dawley from the jury simply because she was black. The actual facts contradict this silly allegation. Jamal was not present because he had previously been removed from the courtroom due to his disruptive and contemptuous actions, prior to the topic of Ms. Dawley's violation ever being mentioned. As prescribed by law, Anthony Jackson was representing Jamal as defense counsel during this conference. As was appropriate, Jackson, along with McGill and Sabo agreed to Dawley's removal.

Jamal's supporters and his attorneys place great weight upon Jennie Dawley because she was black and because "she was the only juror personally selected by Jamal." But through his self-representation in the selection process, all of the jurors -- an unknown number of whom were black -- were selected by Jamal. To single out Dawley as "Jamal's choice" is absurd, as McGill too agreed to her acceptance while he still possessed numerous peremptory challenges.

Jamal's lawyers also argue that his being "barred" from attending this conference was a violation of his right to "due process". But in two cases called Snyder vs. Massachusetts (1934) and United States vs. Gagnon (1985), in which the court ruled that:

"Whenever his presence has a relation, reasonably substantial, to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charge, presence of a defendant is a condition of due process to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence, and to that extent only."

Jamal's absence at the time Jennie Dawley was being discussed -- a juror who, according to Jamal's own attorney, was "very belligerent" towards Jamal -- did not "thwart" a fair and just hearing."




CONCLUSION

If one reviews the trial record, all the far-flung allegations of conspiracy to racially fix the jury in Mumia Abu-Jamal's trial are exposed as inaccurate misrepresentations of what actually occurred. Yet, despite the Supreme Court's ruling stating that the "racially stacked jury" myth is "without merit," Jamal, his lawyers and his supporters continue to twist the facts and argue this myth outside the courtroom.

Despite Jamal's propaganda to the contrary, the simple fact is that, even more than most defendants, Mumia Abu-Jamal was given every opportunity to be personally involved in the selection of his jury.



MYTH #4

Mumia Abu-Jamal is a "political prisoner," who received his death sentence, because of his political ideology. The basis for this argument, according to Jamal and his attorneys, is the fact that prosecutor Joe McGill, brought up Jamal's political beliefs and his prior membership in the Black Panther Party, in front of the jury.




BRIEF REBUTTAL

Mumia Abu-Jamal was sentenced to death by a jury that heard the monumental amount of evidence pointing to his guilt as a remorseless murderer. It was Mumia Abu-Jamal, not the judge or the prosecutor, who openly and frequently chose to proclaim his political ideology before the jury. The record verifies that there was not a single occasion during the trial in which any reference to Jamal's political ideology was made by the prosecutor or the judge. It was not until the sentencing phase of the trial, after Jamal had already been convicted, that prosecutor Joe McGill addressed, for the first and only time, what Jamal chooses to describe as statements of his "political ideology." In response to character witnesses who said that Jamal was a "peaceful man" and that violence was alien to his nature, the prosecutor asked Jamal if he had written that "All political power grows from the barrel of a gun." The prosecutor's questions went to Jamal's violent nature, not his political ideology.

It is clear to anyone who reads the trial record that the basis for Jamal's sentence was not his politics. Mumia Abu-Jamal was sentenced to death for a violent, cowardly and premeditated act of murder.




FACTS SUPPORTING OUR REBUTTAL

The record reveals that, from the first day of jury selection and throughout the trial, it was Mumia Abu-Jamal, not prosecutor Joe McGill, who, in full view of the jury, attempted to politicize his trial by making the courtroom a forum for his political ideology. Virtually every day of the 1982 trial, Jamal demanded to be "represented by" John Africa, the leader of a violent anti-government group called Move. (In a previous highly publicized trial, several Move members had been convicted of murdering another police officer, James Ramp, in 1978.)

In 1982, Move was an organization that was well known throughout Philadelphia for its violent clashes with its neighbors and the police, and for its civil disruptions. Wearing their distinctive dreadlock hairstyle, dozens of Move members crowded the 1982 courtroom, taking every opportunity to disrupt the trial proceedings. The Move members that attended the 1982 trial -- many of whom would later die in the 1985 Osage Avenue conflagration -- refused to stand when the judge entered the courtroom. When forced to do so, under threat of removal, they stood with their backs turned to the judge, or thrust their arms out in a Nazi salute. Several Move members were involved in fistfights in the courtroom, and regularly shouted out insults at the judge and at witnesses. Additionally, the record reflects that several Move members were used as "legal runners" by Jamal, often conferring with him at the defense table. All of this was done in full view of the jury.

Mumia Abu-Jamal's incessant demands to have John Africa, the leader of this group, "represent" him, was a clear statement to the jury of his political affiliation with Move. With repeated loud outbursts in the courtroom, in full view of the jury, Jamal openly fought with the judge, questioned the authority of the U.S. legal system to try him, insulted the prosecutor and openly ridiculed his own handpicked defense attorney. It's not hard to imagine the negative impact these voluntary actions by Jamal and his friends had on the jury.

In the transcripts we find that Jamal informs the court that he doesn't care what the jury hears, and that he will interrupt the proceedings again and again, as he sees fit, until John Africa is permitted to represent him. He further states that he is "defending himself in the style of John Africa," who advised constant courtroom disruption (as was done in the 1979 MOVE trial) in order to disrupt the flow of the proceeding and gain the jury's sympathy.

Court: "You realize if you interrupt in front of this jury, I'm going to have to remove you again."

Defendant: "Judge, you can remove me again and again and again and again and again and again. I'm going to point out to you what is important to me; that this is my trial; that this man is your employee, not mine; that he is functioning for the court system, not for me; he is not doing what I am telling him and directing him to do but what you are ordering him to do. So I choose to sit down because you can hear me from the seat."

Court: "Okay."

Defendant: "And I would like to have John Africa appointed to assist me in this matter."

Court: "Denied."

Defendant: "Judge, you can call the jury in and I don't care if they hear it, frankly, because it's the truth."

N.T. 6/24/82, 85

There are dozens of examples of Jamal's demands to be "represented by" John Africa, these are just a few:

Defendant: "I'm attempting to get counsel of my choice. I'm attempting to get John Africa."

Court: "I'm telling you Mr. Jamal, if you disrupt the proceedings, I'm warning you --"

Defendant: "Judge, your warning means nothing to me. Do you understand that?"

Court: "And I'm telling you, you may very well be removed as counsel."

Defendant: "You do whatever you have to do."

Court: "And Mr. Jackson will be put in."

Defendant: "Do whatever. It's not your choice, not his choice or Jackson's choice. I want my own counsel of my choice, someone I have faith in, someone --"

McGill: "Is that John Africa he's talking about?"

Court: "Yes, John Africa he's talking about."

Defendant: "That's right. You have not ruled to my satisfaction. This is my trial."

Court: "I don't care about your satisfaction."

Defendant: "Listen I do --"

Court: "There's satisfaction --"

Defendant: "I do."

Court: "-- in Appellate Court."

N.T. 6/17/82, 1.50-1

Defendant: "I would like to have John Africa Represent me."

Court: "I know. It's there in the record numerous times. You don't have to put it in again. Will you please sit down so we can proceed with the trial?" (6-23-82, T.R. 6.118)

Defendant: "Judge, I am asking the question in the spirit of the proceeding. Obviously I'm not obstructing anything."

Court: "Yes, you are."

Defendant: "Again, I am not."

Court: "Yes, you are."

Defendant: "I would like to protest the continued presence of Mr. Jackson as my defense. He is not my counsel. My counsel is John Africa."

N.T. 6/24/82, 19

After being convicted of First Degree Murder, Jamal chose of his own free will, and against his own attorney's recommendation, to read a rambling political statement to the jury that was to sentence him. In this statement Jamal called Judge Albert Sabo a "Black Robed Conspirator" (N.T. 7/3/82, 11). It was Jamal, not prosecutor Joe McGill as the defense contends, who first brought up the issue of Jamal's political affiliations. Jamal freely chose to make his political beliefs crystal clear to the jury when he quoted John Africa in his statement to them:

"It is the system that is guilty of the crimes of all that is criminal, all crimes are committed within the system not without..."

N.T. 7/3/82, 14

In a final proclamation of his political affiliation with MOVE, Jamal had this to say to the jury that was about to sentence him:

"This decision today proves neither my guilt nor my innocence. It proves merely that the system is finished. Babylon is falling. Long Live Move. Long Live John Africa."

N.T. 7/3/82, 16

Those who argue that it was the prosecutor who first brought up Jamal's political beliefs simply choose to ignore the record and Jamal's own words. Contrary to what Jamal's supporters contend, from the outset of the trial it was Jamal's plan to make the jury aware of his political beliefs in an attempt to transform himself into a victim of an allegedly corrupt legal system, and to make his trial a political referendum on Move.




QUESTIONS ABOUT JAMAL'S
BLACK PANTHER PAST

It is often argued by Jamal's supporters that prosecutor Joe McGill violated Jamal's civil rights when, during the sentencing phase of the trial, McGill asked Jamal about his personal philosophy on violence. While doing so, McGill questioned Jamal about quotes he had made as a young "Panther" in a 1972 newspaper article. Jamal's attorneys argue that this line of questioning violated Jamal's First Amendment rights and that he has been "sentenced to death by free speech." The basis for their argument is a 1992 case, called Dawson vs. Delaware. Jamal's attorneys twist the significance of "Dawson" to argue that Dawson's conviction was overturned on appeal, because the prosecutor in that case had improperly introduced Dawson's affiliation with this prison gang (The Aryan Brotherhood) that was known to be racist, violent and a white supremacist organization. They contend that McGill's questioning of Jamal regarding his Black Panther past was a situation identical to the "Dawson" case, and therefore, Jamal's conviction should be overturned.




WHAT REALLY HAPPENED DURING
THE SENTENCING PHASE?

The trial record clearly shows that after Jamal had been "sworn in" by the court he chose to express his political philosophy to the jury in the lengthy statement he read to them. Subsequently, in order to attack the notion that violence was alien to Jamal's nature, Assistant DA Joe McGill questioned Mumia Abu-Jamal about various political quotes he had made in the past. In particular, McGill focused on a quote Jamal had offered in a newspaper interview, when he was a young Black Panther. In that interview, Jamal had stated, "All political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." While questioning Jamal in 1982, McGill asked Jamal several times, if he still subscribed to this philosophy. Jamal danced around the question, stating that history had proved this philosophy to be true, loosely affirming his continued belief in Mao's statement. He also stated that the Panthers would take "whatever actions where necessary," to respond to perceived police and government oppression.

Jamal's lawyers now argue that this line of questioning violated Jamal's civil rights. But in fact, such questioning was permissible and appropriate in light of earlier testimony given by Jamal's character witnesses, in which they stated that he "was a peaceful man" Responding to the "barrel of a gun" quote and the philosophy it represents, it was Jamal, not the prosecutor, who highlighted his past membership in the Black Panther Party.




WHAT THE 7 MEMBERS OF
THE SUPREME COURT FOUND

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court first considered Jamal's allegation on Direct Appeal in 1989, and found it to be without merit. Dawson vs. Delaware was then decided in 1992. Based on that case, Jamal's attorneys again raised the same issue in their 1995 PCRA appeal. In response, the 7 members of the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court unanimously found that this argument still held no legal water, stating,

"In Dawson, the state, in order to rebut mitigating character evidence adduced by the defendant, introduced evidence that the defendant was a member of the Aryan Brotherhood prison gang. This evidence was introduced via stipulation, which proved only that an Aryan Brotherhood prison gang which entertains white racists beliefs, originated in California in the 1960's and that a separate gang in Delaware prison system calls itself the Aryan Brotherhood. The Court noted that had the prosecution offered the evidence it initially claimed it had, which would demonstrate that this is a white racist gang associated with drugs and violent escape attempts at prison, and that this gang advocates the murder of fellow inmates, the Court would likely have found no error in admitting evidence of the defendant's membership in that gang, since the violent nature of that gang would be relevant to rebut evidence of the defendant's good character. In other words, the Court made it clear that the admission of such affiliations of a defendant is proper only where there is evidence of the demonstrating some connection between that affiliation and the character evidence sought to be rebutted. In the instant case, Appellant's own quotes in the newspaper article evidence that the Philadelphia chapter of the Black Panther Party, to which Appellant belonged, would use violence if necessary to quell, what the Party perceived to be rampant police brutality against Party members. Accordingly, the nature of the Party was amply demonstrated and the requisite connection between membership in the Black Panther Party and the character evidence presented by Appellant, specifically, that he was a peaceful and genial man, was met. Thus, this issue has been finally litigated and warrants no further review, even in light of the subsequent decision in Dawson."

(Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Opinion of the Court, 1998)




WAS JAMAL A "PEACEFUL AND GENTLE MAN"
AS HE IS CHARACTERIZED?

Though Jamal had no criminal record on the morning he was arrested, there is ample evidence to show that he was not, by nature, a "peaceful man," as he is portrayed by his followers. In a recent biography written about his life and in his own extensive writings, Mumia Abu-Jamal freely admits to his deep-seated hatred for police officers and for the government. As a Black Panther, Jamal wrote of his desire to kill police officers, stating, "I for one feel like putting down my pen. Let's write epitaphs for Pigs!" (The Black Panther, 4/18/70, 12). Is this the rhetoric of a "peaceful man"? On July 1979, Jamal purchased, and registered, a five shot revolver and loaded it with "devastating" high-powered special +P ammunition. Is this the action of a man to whom violence is "alien"? On December 9, 1981, Mumia Abu-Jamal finally acted out what he had been writing and speaking about for years. He pulled his gun and executed Officer Faulkner as he lay wounded and unarmed on the sidewalk.

Several months after his conviction for this act, at the sentencing hearing, Jamal again contradicted his allegedly "peaceful" nature when he threatened Judge Albert Sabo in the courtroom, saying:

"You have just been sentenced to death."

N.T. 5/25/83, 165

CONCLUSION

The facts show that prosecutor Joe McGill's questions about Jamal's attitude toward violence, based on his own past actions and statements, were entirely proper. Jamal's cynical attempt to portray his own violent assertions as "free speech" misses the point. Jamal was free to express, and did express, his hatred of the police and his love of violence as often as he liked. But when he killed a police officer and claimed to the jury that he was a gentle, peace-loving man, he was not entitled to hide what he had said, the better to trick the jurors. It was Jamal, moreover, who tried to make his political views, especially his Move connection, an issue in the trial.

Despite you insinuation that your link is some kind of actual work produce by the University with your qoute below, it really was written by some undergraduate student.

"Here is a link to the site (Academic Pent State University) picking apart everyone of his claims:

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/a/l/als313/art/two.html "

You link to a personal website of a Penn State, it's for a sophmore pre-med student Andrew Lon Seitz. I assume he is the author as no other authorship is given, and most of the other stuff on his site is credited to him at least in part. In fact there is another section on the death penalty on the site that's credited to a group of people, and was for an ART project, not for an academic class. Since this is also in the ART folder I assume it was another project for Art 297A which is for making websites. He has the two projects this is one of them, I would hardly call an Art project, an academic work for this subject.

http://www.courses.psu.edu/art/art297a_jxm22/twentyone.html

Patrick Schoeb

A .38 calibur bullet was pulled from the head of officer Faulkner. A .38 calibur handgun was found at the scene of the crime. Balistics confirmed the bullet came from that gun. The gun was purchased and registered by Mumia two years before the shooting.

I didn't say anything about Mumia's guilt or innocence

You posted a link that you claimed was Academic, from Penn State and would give definitive proof to your assertion. Instead we find it is a sophomore college student's Art project, is not footnoted, so it's impossible to easily check it's accuracy from primary sources, nor has it been fact checked by anyone in any academic sense, and seems to be pulled from a few highly biased internet sites. You obviously made no check to verify the information it gave, because it made the case you believe in.

Why would anyone care what someone, who so mischaracterizes a site and obviously hijacked an OT response so his message could be at the top of a long thread, thinks. This is the second time I have found your posts to be a gross mischaracterization, and you even went to the length of posting a new thread(which was locked) with this students art project essentially as the subject.

On the bullet.
The prosecution maintains it is a .38 caliber, The fired cartridge casings found in Jamal's gun were .38 Special +P high velocity(loaded in a short barrel gun, so really the extra gunpowder is kinda wasted), 4 Federal and 1 Smith and Wesson. The bullet from Officer Faulkner's brain was too mutilated and distorted to make an exclusive identifiaction, but the bullet had a right hand twist with all other rifling characteristics indeterminable, which is not inconsitent with a Charter Arms .38, which was Jamal's registered gun that was found at the scene. They were also not inconsitant with any other Charter Arms .38 and many other types of .38 caliber weapons(probably at least half of all .38 guns made have a right hand twist). All you can say is that it is a .38 caliber bullet, with a hollow base and a right hand twist, it isn't a very specific determination, any of millions upon millions upon millions of guns could have fired it. So there were no ballistics that said that the bullets actually came from Jamal's gun, just that Jamal's gun could not be ruled out from the many millions of guns that could have fired it.

Patrick Schoeb

You're admitting Jamals gun was at the scene, that the bullet used could have come from that gun.... you're leaving out the ballistic test that showed the gun had been fired within the time period of the attack.

I was argueing over your repeated mischaracterizations, so I'm not sure what my "admitting" something is all about, as if I had denied anything to begin with. Your the one that's gung-ho to show that Jamal is guilty of first degree murder, had a fair trial, and should be executed.(though you say your against the death penalty, you say Jamal is getting what he deserves, so I assume you mean your against the death penalty for everyone except Jamal)

I merely stated, to make your case you shouldn't really use a sophomore college students art project as your diffinitive source, and you should probably look at primary sources, then you wouldn't make statements like "Balistics confirmed the bullet came from that gun." Which is not true. Your posts again show that you know very little of the details of Jamal's case(except through the lense of a source more biased than even the prosecutors), so why should we care what little one line snipit you are going to use to proclaim his guilt?

Are you admitting that your post were you said "Balistics confirmed the bullet came from that gun" was a gross mischaraterization? Are you admitting that you felt a sophomore college students art project was an Academic Penn State source, and the definitive source for determining wether Jamal got a fair trial, is guilty of first degree murder, and should be executed?

As far as Jamal's gun on the scene, I was unaware that anyone from Jamal's team ever claimed it was not there. The ballistics cannot show when a gun was fired, merely that a gun was fired, and not cleaned. So again your statement "you're leaving out the ballistic test that showed the gun had been fired within the time period of the attack" is a gross mischaraterization of the evidence. The prosecutors ballistics show the gun was fired and not cleaned, there is no way they can pinpoint the firing to the period of the attack. Also there is no physical evidence linking the firing to Jamal, no Jamal fingerprints on the gun, no tests that Jamal recently fired a gun(this test was supposedly not done on Jamal). And there were at least two other individuals at the scene, besides Officer Faulkner and Jamal.

By the way, if you read my post with a modicum of understanding, you would have seen that I said fired cartridge casings were in the revolver. This usually implies that the gun has been fired and not cleaned, so it was really not neccasary for me to talk about the other evidence of the gun being fired and not cleaned. It's a rare occurance that someone fills their revolver with spent cartridge casings.

As I said earlier, I have not said anything about Jamal's guilt or innocence. I am not a reactionary sort, and I feel that the only decent way of coming to such conclusions is a fair trial, with a jury of your peers. I feel that Jamal's trial was not in the least bit fair, even by current American standards(which I think are poor, as I will explain later), therefore I can't be sure of his guilt or innocence.

I say by poor American standards, because it is self evident that justice requires equality before the law, this is something our forefathers believed, at least partly, as is evidenced by their words, and their deciding that an aristocracy was a bar to equality before the law. Unfortunatly current American justice is based on how much your capable of buying, and therefore means American citizens are not equal before the law. I don't think one can argue that anyone who is dependant on overworked, underpaid and often inexperienced public defenders, who often have no money for expert testimony or investigation, stand equal before the law with someone who can afford their own attorney and investigation. I think if someone tried to pass legislation requiring some kind of equality of defense, where everyone would have such a public defender as listed above(overworked, underpaid, inexperienced, no money for experts or investigation), that it would have any chance of passing as everyone would be horrified they could be easily found guilty of some crime they did not commit. If you are not willing to allow everyone to be tried by the same standards, I am not really sure how fair or just such a system is.

Patrick Schoeb

and he will never take another breath of free air. He's a cop killer and deserves death or life in prison.

I don't know why--of all the people on Death Row--this sorry murderer is the poster boy for the injustice of the death penalty. Mumia is an extremely intelligent man who killed.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot, using this guy ...

Read:

http://www.motherjones.com/reality_check/mumia.html

The Innocence Project people do far more good than the gaggles of nuts carrying Free Mumia signs.

good company.

I think its obvious, no other thread is as likely to bring out the cops and law enforcement monitors who participate on this list.
Any impartial judgement of available information leaves plenty of room for doubt, more than a shadow by any measure.
Very strong arguments for innocence and a retrial based on the uncovered, discarded facts of the case, the known history of COINTELPRO right through the 90's, the pattern of abuses against Black Panther Party members that rests like a glove on this entire case. It is the simple suggestion that a certain percentage of posters right here are not what they would like to portray themselves as. I just thought they were conservatives trying to mingle with centrists for some sort of tax credit. Now I see more clearly, my eyes further widened by another killed cop. They ARE spying on us.

just curious.

not retry Mandela. because he is INNOCENT! Imagine that, an innocent black man? who'da thunk it?

I'm skeptical. I am African-American, and a woman, but I don't see why practically every progressive I know has made him their hero.

The Mumia is innocent stuff is all spin.

I didn't even waste my time with your rehash.

I don't see anything. Point it out.

He's a cop killer. I've read about as much as one can about the trial and as far as I'm concern the guy is guilty as hell.

Does that mean he deserves to die? No - no one deserves the death penalty.

But Mumia is NOT the poster boy for anti-death penalty. There are better people to rally behind than this cop killer

he should not be executed. Capital punishment has no place in any enlightened democracy (even if we aren't one).

I guarantee he would never kill another police officer. Or anyone else for that matter.

Anyone who's convinced of Mumia's guilt by the results of his kangaroo court verdict is making a huge mistake. The victims of crimes are ill served by rigged justice.

I am often suspicious of police, but I have read lots of Mumia info and still consider him guilty.

If you've read the material, and still think he's guilty, that's certainly your prerogative. I read up on the case at length myself, and there are some troubling gaps in both prosecution and defense cases. However, the one thing that should become crystal clear to anyone reading background materials with a shred of objectivity is that there were very serious flaws in the trial leading to Mumia's conviction.

I speculate that some of the "many even here" know very little about the case, excepting that Mumia was convicted of killing a police officer. Forming an opinion based on the outcome of a rigged trial is a huge mistake. However, since much of the fabled "middle america" is wont to do so, I would agree with one of the points raised by "many even here" in disagreement: Mumia is not an attractive cause celebre.

Was what I was making. Many of us genuinely find him guilty. He and some of the other wacko causes are what keeps us away from anti-war events because I don't associate with cop killer sympathy.

I am all for the concept of Free Mumia. But I would add the phrase, "from the mortal coil."

The people who advocate freeing Mumia, or retrying Mumia, or simply commuting his sentence, they probably don't have too much of a problem associating with you. But you, you're somehow too pure to attend an event where some of what is said is disagreeable to you?

Anyone who stays away from an anti-war march because of some of the "other wacko causes" that show up is either an elitist or a lazy person looking for an excuse.

"Oh, I would have gone, but I don't want to be seen with those wackos."

Fuck. That. Weak. Shit.

I recommend you prove me wrong. Organize your own non-Mumia-and-other-wackos anti-war demonstration. Have a respectable dress code. Get some nice moderate speakers up there to explain why the war is unprofitable, or whatever you like. No one is stopping you.

I choose what to do with my vote and my time. If I find a group offensive, as I do ANSWER, I don't want any part of them.

not the one whom the corrupt politicians want dead.

It could have been aany one of us in Mumia's shoes. It still could be.

If the Bushistas want you freamed you get framed.

Damn this thread reeks of rightwingism

And he will die for his actions, as he should. Remember the cop he killed, huh? That cop never did anything to him. But Mumia is now the adopted pet cause of the infantile far left and Hollywood elite. No wonder we have a soft-on-crime/bleeding-heart image. :eyes:

nt

"Pointless to argue with you"....might actually change a mind and we can't have that.

Damn the torpedos,full speed ahead!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

with raw stupidity.

the people who are convinced of his guilt believe saying he's guiltly, ad nauseum, is a valid argument. i find it interesting that as a journalist, he was a vocal critic of police corruption. it wouldn't be the first time the system conspired to silence one of its critics.

Or was it his bro?The guys an awsome thinker though, shame if he gets rubbed out really.

Mumia the cop killer their cause.

I recently moved from Philadelphia. About 5 years ago I dated a person named Jawara who was involved in the Free Mumia events. I tend to think Mumia did kill that Officer. However, I was shocked at how hateful some of my friends were toward Jawara and others who believed Mumia did not receive a fair trail. I do know that many really say they just want another trial for Mumia and do not proclaim him innocent. I know of others who have a more radical thought on this and feel that all prisoners of color are political prisoners and want them all freed until the system cleanses of its racism. I do not agree with those friends either. I also found the almost worshipful uncritical stance of some white college students toward Mumia to be disturbing.

Most everyone I know swears they "know" he is guilty. There is an odd blood lust in the language of some of those who scream of his guilt, yet they know little of the facts of the case. I am amazed at the inability of most people to discuss Mumia without their own issues overwhelming the debate.

I am just rambling here. But thanks for the post.

who was arrested when she and I were walking down the street. Yes, just walking down the street. We were not high, or loud, and it was about 9PM. The officers handcuffed her and put her in the squad car and took off. I went to the police station with a friend. I went to the office at the desk and politely asked what my friend "Shirley" had been arrested for. He told me to "Get the fuck out of here before we arrest you and your faggot friend" (I was with my flamboyant friend Mark.) At that point 3 officers walked up to us and told us to leave. As we were walking out they started hitting us on the back, ass and legs with the night-sticks. One of them was shouting "if you don't like this wait till you're arrested." They released "Shirley" the next day with no charges.

I know that people who have not had these kinds of experiences with Police Officers will not believe my recounting of events--but they are the facts. I know of so much Police brutality in Philly that it is shocking. And I am talking about brutality against people who WERE NOT committing a crime. Though we must remember, Police Brutality is an illegal act even if the person had committed a crime. Planting evidence and Officer perjury are other extensions of these kinds of acts.

I didn't know we had so many pro-death penalty DUers.

At least not me. Some of us think the use of this guy as an anti-death penalty icon is absolutely disastrous for the movement. He's a charistmatic, articulate radical who killed a police officer.

Using this guy as a symbol gets make people feel good and progressive and all that bullshit, but it does us no good in reaching the wary, wobbling middle that doesn't quite know what it thinks about the death penalty.

Far better would be to coalesce around retarded people on death row. Or--far, far better--do the grunt work that people do on the Innocence Project. It's not as much fun as not showering in the morning and holding a mumia sign, but does far more good.

They show up at the mention of the word Mumia,
with teeth showing braying for blood and revenge.

I think the reaction they have is evidence that
Mumia is a political prisoner.

I didn't used to think twice about this case but
the reactions I have seen have changed my mind.

Give him a new trial.

Well, our Kiwi DUer (I can't remember his handle) warned us. It happened there, it's happening here. Stealth invasion and takeover.

It seems a morally indefensible position to make the penalty for murder a state-sanctioned murder. I think it's utterly barbaric and far too likely to be given to minority offenders.

That being said, no, I don't agree with freeing Mumia. I think the evidence against him is too compelling.

But lately there does seem to be a lot of newer members who are not very progressive about quite a few issues. They may, however, be more reflective of the thought processes of most citizens of the USA.

I oppose the death penalty, period.

I have never read deeply into this case but
I do know that the Philly police force was a
racist and corrupt force in the eighties.

For this reason I tend to believe that framing
or setup was and is possable in this case.

Even people who support the DP, except for a few
Mumia haters here who seem to want to kill him
with their own hands ,believe a high standard of
proof should be required in DP cases.

how so many people seem to think it worse somehow to kill a cop than an average person. I wonder if Mumia had been convicted of shooting another African-American, would there be any big outcry to execute him?

I think we all know the answer.

More and more all the time. Those who condemn Mumia or geronimo Pratt, or applauded the assassination of Black Panthers and other radical leaders bringing far too much attention to things some wanted unmentioned, refuse to understand that justice is perverted here in the USA as in any backwater third world nation. They are doing Bush a favor, are unwitting (at least I think some are unwitting, some may very well be witting :think: )supporters of the far right. They never put forward any support for their positions, claiming intimate knowledge of the case yet linking to none of this supposed knowledge.

This is precisely why such subjects must continue to be a part of all the protest rallies nationwide...........

because I thought it might get off topic. But it IS the topic. Thank you and the answer to your question is they would have yawned (metaphorically speaking) if Mumia had killed another African-
American.

then it is to kill an 'average person'. Cops risk their own lives everyday....every shift; to protect us.

as the song goes, and their job is the most dangerous in the US.

every cop I've ever known wanted to be allowed to carry a gun and speak with authority. That job draws facists like shit draws flies.

I thought I knew a good cop one time. Let me tell you the story of how I found out I was wrong. I was working at a convenience store in Indiana two summers ago, and a 15 year old kid came in to buy some breadsticks. On his way out, a cop(this cop whom I'd mistaken for a decent human being) stopped the kid and started blabbering on about the curfew. A few months prior to this incident, the Indiana State Supreme Court had ruled teen curfews unconstitutional.

I thought it might have been an honest mistake on the cop's part, because after all, not all that many people read the papers that thoroughly around those parts. So, I said "Hey, you know the state supreme court ruled the curfews unconstitutional, right?", and he threatened to arrest ME for obstruction. Cute.

Fucking pigs. The only thing that keeps me from laughing when I hear about a cop getting it in the chest is the remote possibility that he was the good one, and now they're all bad.

every cop I've ever known wanted to be allowed to carry a gun and speak with authority. That job draws facists like shit draws flies.

That flies directly in the face of my professional experience.

I thought I knew a good cop one time. Let me tell you the story of how I found out I was wrong. I was working at a convenience store in Indiana two summers ago, and a 15 year old kid came in to buy some breadsticks. On his way out, a cop(this cop whom I'd mistaken for a decent human being) stopped the kid and started blabbering on about the curfew. A few months prior to this incident, the Indiana State Supreme Court had ruled teen curfews unconstitutional.

Yeah, that's some real brutal, inhuman treatment, allrighty. A genuine Bull Connor.

I thought it might have been an honest mistake on the cop's part, because after all, not all that many people read the papers that thoroughly around those parts. So, I said "Hey, you know the state supreme court ruled the curfews unconstitutional, right?", and he threatened to arrest ME for obstruction. Cute.

Regardless of what you think his motivation may have been, or if you considered his questioning this young man as unjustified, chiming in with unrequested legal advice when a LEO is speaking to someone isn't a particularly bright idea.

Fucking pigs. The only thing that keeps me from laughing when I hear about a cop getting it in the chest is the remote possibility that he was the good one, and now they're all bad.

I'm not in the least suprised that you harbor such stereotyped, cartoonish impressions of LEOs.

party...married a firefighter instead(god was with me) and have know many cops all my life....they are mostly corrupt and only look after their own

Personally all Iv'e seen them do is make me pay for violating some bullshit traffic law that wouldn't have hurt anyone anyways but thats just me. Id imagine There are some good ones out there,They just are far and few between.. Id suspect most join for the power and some to simply help people.

Nothing other than that some cops you've known you consider to be corrupt.

Having been one myself, and becoming one again shortly, I'll only say that my experience differs wildly to yours.

That, and if you consider them corrupt and self-serving, why do you have so many in your life?

the corruption easily rivaled LAPD-Ramparts. It's hard to be more corrupt than that.

Not to diss all cops, but a lot of corruption has been well documented through the years, and considering the "blue wall" that has to be just the tip of the iceburg. Lets be honest about it.

But two rather delusional posts that attribute corruption to all cops in a rather wholesale manner.

Who'd even know about the killing?

Cop killing piece of shit should rot in jail.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

out for mumia's blood will probably be equally misinformed (and inarticulate) on many other issues.

For example, posters who identify themselves as Black, lifelong Democrats, and who adopt symbols of non-violence (like MLK's portrait) for their avatars... but who support the death penalty?!?

Me = Skeptical.

but at least they're loud!

Like some people...

I guess the .38 caliber bullets that were taken out of Danny Faulkner's head had nothing to do with it. The fact that they came from a gun registered to Mumia and found in his hand at the scene of the shooting makes no difference to his supporters. Neither does it matter to them that Mumia's conviction had been appealed and upheld a number of times. To top it all off, Mumia himself has refused to tell authorities what really happened that night in Philadelphia, although he was found at the scene next to officer Faulkner's body with the murder weapon in his hand.

http://www.boblonsberry.com/writers/PNicosia/index.cfm?story=6120

Great source.

From one of his other pieces on this site:

http://www.boblonsberry.com/writers/PNicosia/index.cfm?story=5022

Dear Mr. President:

...

I have been a loyal supporter of yours throughout this whole war on terrorism...

...

I believe that you were the right man at the right time for this nation,
and I want to believe that you are the guy to lead us into the future.


What's next using Rush to support your case.

Consider me unconvinced by your source.

It convinced me, and I was a skeptic.

http://www.motherjones.com/reality_check/mumia.html


and I am very anti-Death penalty.

I've felt that I must be in the wrong since I call myself a liberal, anti-death penalty supporter and yet I believe that Mumia is not only guilty as hell but a horrible poster child for whatever blind cause these mumia-ites follow.

We can continue to protest against the death penalty without ever having to jump on the Mumia bandwagon. I have a strong feeling that no Pennsylvania governor would ever consider putting this guy to death so for now he's just a fringe case against the death penalty.

We can do better - Mumia is no hero

I hope the bastard rots in hell.

:crazy:

I'm sure Rush says "fry him" also.

The tone of some of these posts is quite disturbing. As far as I'm concerned there is no subject I would waste my time discussing with such bloodthirsty people. Progressive? yea right...if I said what I really thought I'd be banned so..
:puke: :puke: :puke:

Or does he have civilized supporters also?

...our whole system needs reform, no doubt, but there are probably 5 or 6 issues that are more important...

...I was at a war protest in SF and all I heard for a 1/2 hour was mommy this and mommy that...

...I am not sure if his particualr case is the best one to even use to raise awareness about injustice...

While I believe Mumia deserves a new trial, I think the paramount issue is to keep him (and all others on D.R.) alive.

Some are guilty, some are innocent, but the death penalty is always wrong!

And you have no idea about any of my experience with and knowledge of the justice system...

I do consider the issue of CJ reform, but at these war protests, at least half the people there dont even know who he is- the applause is cut in half when the Mumia stuff starts up again...

Mumia may be innocent, he may not- there are clearer cases than his to champion...

as to his guilt or innocence. But I don't understand the freep-like virulence this topic generates. But then, neither do I understand how the death penalty can still boast "liberal" apologists.

What's the objection to giving him a new trial? It's not a ticket out. It could confirm his guilt.

all the anti-mumia vitrol has nothing at all to do with race...nothing at all i assure you :eyes:

has nothing to do with his race as well. :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

if he was a white guy...i'd say: fry him :eyes: we all know all those white guys are criminals anyway. and how is it that you show up whenever there's mention of a controversial black man? let me guess...it's because you're "colorblind"...right?

and shame on you for suggesting otherwise!! :-)

...but this seems to be one of those issues shaped by human experience with the police and (in)justice system. Like Driving While Black, some people just don't get it. They believe the police are fair and honest and the system treats everyone alike, while others know a different reality.

Can (and do) find it just about everywhere.
I am a journalist. I am against the death penalty in any and all cases.
My brother was a police officer until he got run over by a drunk driver in Bradenton, FL (when tested, she blew a .21). Her comment, when pulled out of the car immediately following the incident, was "I hope I killed the stinking pig." Well, she damned near did. He had his clavicle broken, his leg and hip shattered in I-don't-even-remember how many places and he was in a coma for three days.
All that said, I have read both sides of the case. I know the Philly cops have a long history of racism and I also know Mumia hated cops with a fervor. I wouldn't be surprised if he'd have been delighted in what happened to my brother, so why should I shed a tear for him?
Do I believe this was a set-up? Can't say. Do I believe Mumia killed Officer Faulkner? Can't say, though I (and a jury) think he probably did. It isn't up to me to decide, nor is it up to me to much care one way or the other. We all have our causes and I sincerely wish you the best in providing whatever evidence you can in proving his innocence (his guilt, as a matter of jurisprudence, has already been proven and it is now up to Mumia's supporters to show evidence of a fix).
I do wish that accusations of racism would stop being tossed about so lightly. It's an ugly hate-filled word best used on ugly hate-filled people. Whatever else one can say about the participants in the ongoing food fight here, I suspect most are working very hard to fight the racism that is inside most, if not all, of us here.
I'll fight for Mumia's universal right to life. But, as it stands, I really don't care whether he ever sees another day of freedom. Now feel free to infer that I'm a racist, too.
John
I'll repeat -- I hope you find the evidence that will overturn the conviction and prove Mumia is innocent. Until then, I'll concern myself with the dozens and hundreds and thousands of people who deserve it.

for a long time in this country. it took over FORTY YEARS to get convictions in the birmingham bombing and medgar evers murder cases. rodney king was beaten senseless...on tape, and the jury STILL acquitted the officers. i can't recall what happened in the louima case...perhaps someone can help me out here. ronnie settles and eula mae love...just two of the infamous murders of black people committed by the signal hill and los angeles police departments, respectively. i am sorry about your brother, btw...i am glad he survived. personally, i am sick and tired of the lack of ANALYSIS about race...and it's not as if the mumia case exists in a vacuum outside he HORRENDOUS history of police brutality, and injustice in the justice system. it's not that people ARE racist, it's many love to PRETEND race isn't a factor. and of course when it comes to the criminal justice system, there is a ton of evidence to suggest that it IS. why would anyone suddenly suspend all that evidence just for this case, or any case?

Yes. You are absolutely right. The Birmingham church bombing was a travesty and a shame to all of America. I also agree that the Rodney King episode was an embarrassment and a shuck and (to give you another example you didn't list) so was the beating death of Malice Green in Detroit by two white cops.
But you know? All those cases were eventually overturned and justice, however obscenely long denied, WAS eventually served. How about OJ Simpson? Some out here think that was a crock, too -- but I don't lay it off on racism so much as I lay it off on America allowing a defendant the best justice money can buy.
I don't think the Mumia case exists in a vacuum. But that doesn't mean the guy didn't do it. I'm not the one who decided his guilt, and it would be damned presumptuous of me to believe (from 800 miles or so away) that I know more about the facts of the matter than the jury, sitting in court and weighing the evidence in Philadelphia, did.
I have said (or at least inferred) in the post above, that I am racist. I wish to fuck I wasn't and I work hard every day to beat that stupid, ignorant, intolerant part of me into submission. I understand white privilege well enough and cannot deny it in myself while accusing others of it. It's a tough row to hoe and I'll never beat it completely, no matter how hard or how long I try.
I pray to God it weren't so. But it is so. Others, of whatever race, may deny that demon. I will not.
Thank you for the kind words about my brother. It scared the hell out of us. He recovered as well as can be expected and is now a paramedical instructor, teaching folks to save lives -- not take them. So maybe it worked out for the best.
John
I am sincere about Mumia's supporters presenting the evidence to clear him. If this IS yet another Birmingham/Los Angeles/Detroit, I want true justice to prevail as well. Best wishes to your cause, but I'm sorry I'm not yet inclined to join you in this particular case.

as a white man with money...not that i see that as progress. i have no "cause" with mumia...other than i see his case as a part of a pattern. i do think he deserves a new trial, based on the evidence in the case. and as you may guess...i am not impressed that it took forty years to convict people who were guilty...one of the cases was finally settled during the OJ hoopla...eventually really is not a consolation. and my oh my...the hysteria over OJ...you'd think no one ever got acquitted in this country. particularly when you consider all the cases that didn't get solved and will never be solved. well...i appreciate your honesty about your struggles with racism...i wish others were as honest. it takes courage to admit it...it seems denial is more in vogue these days. i am glad for your brother...it sounds like he is doing something very rewarding...glad he survived to do it. peace...and thanks for responding.

If Mumia can get a new trial and win his freedom, than I will be just as happy as you are. Believe me, it wouldn't be the first time I've been 100 percent wrong about something nor the first time I'd have to admit it. Peace to you, too.
John
Just another schlub trying to get through life as best he can and not doing that bang-up a job of it. But I am trying to do the best I can and to give the other schlubs a fair shake. I don't know what The Real Truth is -- I don't even know where I left my car keys most of the time. Don't count on me for the wisdom of Solomon.

Read what else I admit publicly in the above post.
John
Though you're right about one thing -- it's a stretch on my part to assume what Mumia would or wouldn't have thought about my brother. So, if you'll allow me, I'll retract that part of it.

I guess I'm just saying that you are a whole lot surer that it is an injustice than I am. I'm saying I don't know that he is, in fact, innocent and, further, that a jury (rightly or wrongly) convicted him. If the decision is wrong, then Mumia's supporters should present the evidence to overturn it.
Aside from that, you're putting an awful lot of thoughts, words and deeds onto me. I could tell you that I do work to fight injustice right here in Saginaw but, hey, I doubt you'd be much inclined to believe me -- so why bother?
John
My grandfather, 3rdGenDem, used to tell us "I don't so much care if you do something wrong so long as once in a while, you do something because it's right." Please don't think me the enemy just because I don't agree with you on the Mumia case. If I was as bad as you seem to think I am, I'd be a Republican.

Why is that, do you think? Why would he hate cops? Why would anyone hate (that's a strong word) impartial functionaries whose role is maintaining public orderliness?



(I'm glad your brother came out okay. It sounds like the woman who ran him down had some serious problems either triggered by or not helped by alcohol)

But I'd suppose it's for the same reasons that many people (esp minorities) would dislike cops. I'm not oblivious to the simple statistical fact that young black men ARE arrested, convicted and incarcerated at a higher rate than are their white peers.
I suspect this shows, as noiretblu and I both said earlier, that America has the best justice system a defendant can buy.
Since my brother is discussed here, let me share something he told me: As he saw it, the poor (black and Hispanic) districts of Bradenton had the highest crime rates. This means there are more perps on the street. His motivation and his job was to keep the law-abiding citizens safe and secure in their homes (an admirable concept), and this meant he was to have to be a mean guy to some of the folks he came into contact with.
As we see right here on this thread, some folks want to discuss and understand and cooperate, and some people want to be confrontational. It wasn't only the cops being rude to Mumia -- Mumia was rude to the police as well. Now, sure, this would be his constitutional right but, as Chuck (my bro) said -- you try to do a righteous, polite, foursquare job when people are calling you a pig, spitting on you, running when you are trying to find out who did what to whom, giving you dirty looks when you're just trying to eat lunch, throwing rocks at your car, lying to you, etc etc etc.
Chuck did his best to be a good cop. I've known the guy my whole life. He is a decent, charming, funny guy (I doubt there's a person here who wouldn't like him). But when he put on that uniform, the perception of him -- as the cop -- changed 180 degrees. He was married three times in 15 years while he was a cop. He got married not long after he recovered from his injuries and is still married to Kim. The job stress of a policeman is horrible. They drink and divorce and blow their brains out at a rate far higher than any other group.
One more note: Chuck had to pull his pistol out exactly once in his 15 years as a cop and it happened while he was a patrolman in a suburban (white) township in Bay County (MI). He was walking up the sidewalk of a tavern, picking up lunch, when a guy who'd just finished robbing the place came running out the door with, as Chuck said, "a pistol in one hand and a bag of burgers in the other one." The guy dropped both and was arrested, tried and convicted.
This is long and rambling. As I said, I didn't try to go into Mumia's motives but I hope I gave an insight to Chuck. It is well to remember that if it is arguable whether Mumia did or didn't shoot a cop, the cops didn't shoot Mumia.
I'm all for those who believe the guy is innocent. If I was in his shoes, and if I was innocent, I'd surely want people in my corner -- working to establish my innocence and getting me my freedom. But someone needs to stand up for the good cops, the ones who are doing a damned tough job with little appreciation. For every cop who is a bully, who is an oppressor, who is hiding behind the badge, there's one and more who are like Chuck -- a decent and imperfect person doing a thankless task.
So it's an imperfect system. I wish race and class and perception and corruption and the rest of the imperfections didn't play a part in it. But they do, and we have to understand that and work to overcome it. Remember, it's because of these things that I am against the death penalty. It is essential that we keep Mumia alive precisely because Isome could very well be right and I could very well be wrong. I can accept that.
John
Thank you for the concern about Chuck, too. He's doing fine.

:yourock:

At least, not in my eyes.

i am not.

Some of these responses would fit right in at the FreakRepublic. :shrug:

whatever. I gave you your fuckin answers below.

And I'll respond to you all i want - If you don't like it, you can put me on ignore.

but please don't paint with such a broad brush so as to include me. I sent you a PM - Please read it, it should clear up a few things, thanks.

Loyal

The police do lie, and there is police brutality all over, but Mumia received a fair trial. Now he can receive his fair punishment, if he would simply stop appealing and tying up the courts with his petitions.

Maybe he keeps appealing because he believes he is not guilty.

Perhaps he should have a retrial.

and that's the crux of the matter.

I tend to think he may be innocent of the crime, but even if he's
guilty as sin, he's entitled to a fair trial, and that's what he
didn't get. He may be a smartass, he may be a very unpleasant
person, I don't know, but that doesn't excuse the professionals -
the police, prosecutor, and judge from showing their personal bias,
which they clearly did. Not to mention the defence counsel, who
clearly didn't give a damn one way or the other, and that's
inexcusable by any standards of fairness. Neither should the claim
for a retrial have been heard by the same judge who pronounced him
guilty in the first place - that's clearly a travesty. Not to
mention the numerous claimed infringements of the law regarding the
selection of the jury, etc.

Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.

was not in fact fair, hence the point of this thread and the controversy...

At least, not in my eyes.

or get a haircut to appeal to more mainstream americans.

I think seeing the culture war here is quite a sight.

:wow:

That might help. :shrug:

New trial (and review of evidence)

I must say I've been suprised by all the DU hate towards Mumia and the free Mumia folks. Having read Loenard Weinglass' book and seen him speak several times, I have come to believe that not only is it possible that Mumia is not guilty, it is highly probable. The cops were corrupt and the trial a sham. Why are folks so unwilling to have an open mind on this subject is beyond me. Racism I suppose.

on death rows all over the country. There are more than 400 awaiting execution in Texas alone. There are people on Death Row in Texas who haven't even killed anybody. By the law of parties, they were convicted and sentenced to die if they merely took part in a robbery where someone was killed.

So if any of you well-meaning DUers have a problem with Mumia staying alive, there is no shortage of others needing your help.

Goodnight.

death penalty case to champion. I've read extensively the evidence, the trial and other issues about this case. I think Mumia is Guilty of murdering Officer Faulkner. I wish the left wouldn't use him as their poster child.

And I'm sorry to see many of the left mistreat his widow. That is sicknening to me that her voice is silenced at many of these support Mumia functions.

If he's so damned innocent why didn't his brother who was there ever testify? Why didn't Mumia give his version of what happened that night?

The readings I did were about 2 years ago - has his brother ever testified in a court since then or given an interview telling what happened that night?

Also explain to me why Mumia insisted on so screwing up his trial by trying to be his own lawyer?

No doubt he's an articulate man, but as they say about any man who trys to represent himself in a court of law - he has a fool for a client, and to me Mumia in the court has played the fool.

He's also IMHO played a lot of the left for fools!

I suppose you were going to say he was beaten by the police????

I think not!

MYTH #8

Leonard Weinglass states in his article, "The Trial of Mumia Abu Jamal", "Mumia arrived at the scene only moments after the officer had pummeled his brother with his flashlight." According to this myth, Jamal was coming to the aid of his brother who, while handcuffed, was being brutally beaten by Officer Faulkner.


BRIEF REBUTTAL

Several eyewitnesses testified that it was William Cook who initiated an unprovoked attack on Officer Faulkner by striking him in the face. These eyewitnesses stated that, having been punched in the face, Faulkner acted to subdue Cook by striking him "no more than three times" on the shoulders with a black object, which could have been a nightstick, blackjack or a flashlight.

Cook himself has never alleged that he was "pummeled" by Faulkner. As a matter of fact, Cook pleaded guilty to assaulting Officer Faulkner.




FACTS SUPPORTING OUR REBUTTAL

In 1982 William Cook entered a guilty plea to the charge of physically assaulting Officer Daniel Faulkner on December 9, 1981.

Several witnesses to the murder of Officer Faulkner have all testified that they saw William Cook initiate his attack on Officer Faulkner prior to the officer ever touching him.

Michael Scanlan, who witnessed the entire course of events, stated:

"They were talking, the black man spread-eagle in front of the car, and while he was spread-eagle he swung around and struck the officer in the face with his fist. At that point, the officer reacted, trying to subdue the gentleman , and during that time another man came running from a parking lot across the street towards the officer and the gentleman in front of the car."

N.T. 6/25/82, 8.6

The man Scanlan saw "running from the parking lot," who shot Officer Faulkner in the back, was identified at the scene by several other eyewitnesses. He was Mumia Abu-Jamal.

In fact, there was no brutal beating. Nor did Officer Faulkner "pummel" William Cook, as Mr. Weinglass suggests:

Jackson: "Then he hit the man several times?"

Scanlan: "A couple of times on the shoulders."

Jackson: "Two or three times?"

Scanlan: "Three at the most."

Jackson: "And you are saying for certain that you know it was in the shoulder area?"

Scanlan: "Between the shoulders, the neck and the arm."

Jackson: "How about the ear?"

Scanlan: "I can't say for sure."

Jackson: "These blows that the officer struck, were they right in succession or was there time in between each of them?"

Scanlan: "They were in succession."

(6-25-82, T.R. 8.25)

At the crime scene, William Cook was treated for a cut on his ear so minor that there was no need to take him to the hospital.

There is no doubt that Faulkner struck Cook, but he did so only after Cook struck the first blow. There is absolutely no evidence of Faulkner "brutally beating" or "pummeling" Cook, and Cook has never claimed that he was being "brutally beaten" or "pummeled" by Faulkner. Pictures taken on the morning of the killing of Cook's injured ear were introduced into evidence at trial:

McGill: "Have you reviewed those exhibits?"

Detective Thomas: "Yes, sir."

McGill: "Can you identify them?"

Detective Thomas: "Yes, Sir. These are the photographs taken of Mr. William Cook on December 9, 1981."

McGill: "Do they show any injuries of Mr. Cook?"

Detective Thomas: "Yes. They show a cut behind the left ear."

McGill: "You observed Mr. Cook, didn't you. At close range?"

Detective Thomas: "Yes, sir, I did."

McGill: "Did you observe, other than that cut, any other injuries?"

Detective Thomas: "No, sir, I didn't."

McGill: "Did Mr. Cook make any complaints about any other injuries?"

Detective Thomas: "No, sir, he didn't."

McGill: "As a matter of fact, did he ever make a complaint regarding that injury ?"

Detective Thomas: "No, sir. I asked him did he want to be treated for it and he said no."

N.T. 6/26/82, 118-19

Once again Jamal's attorneys misrepresent the record. But this time their misrepresentation has nothing to do with Jamal's supposed claim of innocence (his lawyers, remember, claim that some mysterious running figure did it); rather, its sole purpose is to vilify the police officer that Jamal murdered. Thus, it perfectly reflects Jamal's own often-expressed hatred of the police.

To that extent, this myth ironically tends to defeat the purpose of Jamal's lawyers. Their very act of falsely attempting to smear Officer Faulkner says far more about Jamal's motive for the murder -- his hatred of the police -- than it does about his victim.

Apparently many people here feel that if you look or act "weird", that tips the scale as to whether or not you should be killed...

That was a good point someone made in a post recently about a common theme underlying right-wingers: impaired capacity for empathy (I find that barbaric people sometimes identify themselves as left-wing too).

By default I consider people innocent. Or I try to anyway.

The problem with racist kangaroo courts like the one that convicted Mumia is twofold:
1) there's a greater risk of convicting an innocent person
2) whenever an innocent is convicted, the actual perp is off the hook

Thus, it's very much in the best interests of the victims, as well as the accused, that all trials be as fair and clean as to leave no doubt whatsoever that the person doing the time has certainly done the crime.

I don't know that Mumia is guilty or innocent. There are really only two people who could say for sure, but one of them is dead and the other has, shall we say, a conflict of interest. All I know for certain after reviewing the documentation from both sides is that the trial was a fucking mess of the first order, and Judge Sabo should be disbarred if he hasn't left the bench already.

It should be directed at those who lied, coerced witnesses, and committed various other acts of judicial misconduct at his trial & appeals. They are the reason for the decades-old, worldwide movement to free Mumia.

Haven't you learned by now that some people simply refuse to allow the facts to stand in the way of their misinformed, albeit deeply held, beliefs? Good old US history has shown us other lucid and irrefutable examples of how a large segment of the American population was willing to embrace outright lies simply because, well, they believed the outright lies.

Come on, think about it. Who in their right mind would believe that the 'only good injun is a dead injun'? But as we know from the tragic legacy of Native American life in the US, a whole bunch of folks willingly bought into this deadly and genocidal (for Native Americans at least) belief.

And then there are us: African Americans. American history shows us that there were a whole bunch of honest God-fearing christian-type folks who, blissfully stewing in their warped perception of reality and self-importance, believed that African Americans represented the bogeyman personified. Hell, there are still many folks up here in Massachusetts who are pathetically clingling to the long-discredited notion that an indigent Black man named Willie Horton was the shooter in the Carol Stuart murder back in the late 1980's.

And of course today we have Saddam and his 'weapons of mass destruction'.

By the way, I think you handled with typical class and aplomb the joker or jokette who, after being cyberly outted for having no information to support his/her conviction that Mumia is guilty, shamefully inserted 'street language' in his/her post either as a feeble attempt to save face, engage you in your natural language (wink, wink), or intimidate you into dropping your request for answers to unanswered questions, which by the way, still have yet to be answered.

Moving along, I came across a few more links that support your argument that many police (not all, but a sufficient number to be noticed), some of whom were on the Philadelphia police force, do indeed have their less than shining moments. But of course, you and I both know, to some folks who post on this joint, police never lie and pigs do fly.

Given my suspicion of the police in this country, borne from personal experiences and not second-hand information, I say grant the man another trial. What are so many people afraid of?

By the way, there's plenty mo' where the following links came from. My apologies in advance for any duplications.

http://www.ndsn.org/oct95/philly.html
http://archive.aclu.org/news/w091796a.html
http://www.ndsn.org/feb97/philly.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views/072300-105.htm
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/corrupt.htm
http://www.phila.gov/phils/Docs/Inventor/textonly/execorders/97-01.htm
http://www.stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/148/overabarrel.shtml
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/V81/8102/8102Race_deathPenalty.html
http://www.hrw.org/reports98/police/uspo112.htm

people are afraid of an educated black man with dreadlocks and a black panther past. He must be guilty for certain no matter if he had a fair trial or not. :crazy:

...I think he's guilty as sin. Those who advocate on his behalf are delusional people. Either that or they're so blinded by their hate of the system that they would side with a murderer to stick their finger in the system's eye.

How about giving the man a fair trial? If he is so obviously guilty, he would just get convicted again. Obviously the first trial wasn't fair.

promptly ignored. Quelle surprise!

How could it have been premeditated, and therefore first degree, if the cop had randomly pulled him over?

No justice. No peace.

Please, read the trial transcripts.

and Pam Africa at a peace and social justice conference in upstate, ny in 1998 going over the eviedence and the issue of his getting a fair trial...also present at this 3 day event were howard zinn, ramsey clark, and the rev. al sharpton all whom spoke on Mmumia's behalf and also believe that mumia is innocent ...Mumia was a journalist investigating and exposing corruption in the philladelphia police department and local gov't...he was caring for his community and the people of south end loved him he was getting to popular and that scared the shit out of the powers that be/were in sept of 1973.
read "Death Blossoms" and you tell me if these are the words of a killer?

HOPE BLOSSOMS ON DEATH ROW

at rallies are dead on. I am really disturbed by the vehement nastiness and certainty that people think he is guilty and are so damn shrill about it when, if you hear the story, it is obvious he didnt have a fair trial. Like I said before, he isnt a blonde haired blue eyed guy named Biff...

surrounding the MOVE organization. The Philly PD did to them what the freepers are always claiming that the ATF/Janet Reno did to the Branch Davidians, and MOVE wasn't even stockpiling weapons or sexually abusing children. Mumia had a connection with that organization, and was involved with the press coverage of that event. If the police needed someone to blame in a cops' death and Mumia was in the area, I'm sure they wanted him to go down for it.

Mumia is guilty as hell. pLEASE TAKE mUMIA AND LEAVE MY PARTY QUICKLY. I hear Green is hiring.

You would rather have those Democrats who think Mumia's trial was unfair and/or that he's outright innocent leave the Democratic party and join the Green party? Because of this one issue? That is what you are asking for?

Someone could be a major soft money donor to the Democratic party, but because of this one difference of opinion, you want them to leave?

Amazing. Good luck getting enough of the F.O.P. vote to make up for the people you want to expel from the "big tent".

Wouldn't it just be easier for YOU to join the Republican party?

Cop-killers deserve the death penalty.

. . .deserve life in prison. I'm againist the death penalty.

I've actually reviewed the case and as an attorney, I think I bring a more nuanced eye than, say, a 19-year-old college student with a poster on his wall. The trial was not perfect but frankly that was the fault of Mumia who chose to be his own counsel and made a circus of the entire affair.

But no one is promised a perfect trial; they are promised a fair trial. And the trial does appear to be fair. Most of the arguments thrown around by the Free Mumia folks are red herrings or irrelevancies. The jury selection? Seemed to go fine except for Mumia's actions. The prosecutor? Seemed to present a fair case. The jury itself? Appeared diverse. The judge? No obvious bias though a lot of justified frustration.

As for change in testimony after the fact? I don't find this relevant unless you can present compelling evidence of a conspiracy. Witnesses change their stories. It's up to the jury to decide if they are telling the truth. And besides, a witness could certainly be compelled to change a story by the simple fact that a massive industry now exists for anyone connected to Mumia.

The heart of the case is that Mumia was holding a gun that was used to shoot a man between the eyes. There is no evidence explaining this simple fact away. The rest is window dressing and not very compelling dressing at that.

(And for the record, I am a life-long Democrat, against the death penalty, and clerked only for defense attorneys. I've never practiced criminal law, but I understand it. I have no interest in being a prosecutor nor do I have any special affinity for police officers, especially DC Police Officers).

but at those people who are so quick to impose the death penalty on to other human beings but are not as quick to ask for the same punishment for cops who are guilty of the same crimes.........

CopKillers are no different than KillerCops

I don't believe in the death penalty for much, but cop-killing is one of those instances where I do, and I think that corruption or abuse of authority by cops/elected officials should be dealt with just as harshly.

In fact that IS in dispute. But, you didn't know that. It's easier to pronounce a Black man guilty of killing a cop, while ignoring decades of injustice against defendants with black skin.

Most people don't have a clue and it's obvious.

Here's a message for the mods:

Another one of my posts was deleted, while offensive ones, with profanity even, remain. It's truly getting sickening.

keep in mind that saying about people's perspectives..................it all depends which side of the street you're on...............

I feel exactly as you do on this. And I'm sick to death of both the "Mumia should FRY!" and the "All cops are pigs!" rhetoric getting spewed forth in this thread.


If we need a case to challenge the death penalty on, why not use one that we can win all over. Check out the case of the West Memphis Three as an example. That is a case that I believe most opponents of the death penalty should rally behind.


www.wm3.org

do you believe it's premeditated murder? Saying that he shot the cop and killed him is one thing, saying it's first degree murder is another. Police have a history of shooting Black Panthers in cold blood.

If he did shoot him I'd say that this case is at best self-defense and at worst voluntary manslaughter.

We seem to be having another rash of cop killings (the usual kind you knee jerk blue boys) and it never ceases to amaze me the dangers these guys face from unarmed civilians they are forced to shoot dead.
Im unequivocally opposed to the death penalty, BUT if those who would play God insist, lets apply it to lying politicians and cops who kill.

Mumia is the perfect "poster child" because he is an articulate person and because he is black... he wears dreds even!

People forget some of the circumstances and events that surrounded his arrest, including the entire MOVE incident. People living in Philadelphia mostly detested the MOVE folks and secretly, or not so secretly cheered when their house was destroyed. Some people are still upset that any of the MOVE members got away alive.

Whether Mumia is guilty or innocent, I don't know. I do think that he was judged guilty before he ever came to trial, and I do think that if there is new evidence that would change the verdict because it would present a reasonable doubt then no matter when the evidence turned up or when necessary paperwork was filed Mumia has a right to present that evidence.

Even people who scare us a little by their appearance or by their words and ideas have rights.

With pride would I carry that sign at the next ANSWER rally.



Injustice anywhere is injustice EVERYWHERE!

Martin Luther King (Another one who could never get a fair trial)

How many of the people who have weighed in with an opinion on this issue have actually read the full trial transcript? Just curious.

Did you read the transcripts?

Has ANYBODY read the transcripts? They're online. They're a fascinating read. Tell me that SOMEBODY has read them all. Isome? Tinoire? Organism? Seventhson? Noiretblu? LeahMira? Jonnyblitz? DrWeird? ElsewhereDaughter? Matilda?

How can anybody conclude whether or not he had a fair trial without having read the easily accessible trial transcripts?

Please, tell me that somebody took the time to read all of them.

Edited to add the names of a few more people who stated that the trial wasn't fair. You've read the transcripts, right?

e o m

But then, you'll notice that I haven't yet offered an opinion as to whether the trial was fair or not.

It's a pretty good read. Better than most court transcripts that I have reviewed (and there have been many).

Here are the transcripts, for anyone who is interested:

http://www.justice4danielfaulkner.com/frames.html

Those are the complete transcripts of the 1982 trial when Jamal was convicted and sentenced to death. From the first day of the trial to the last.

One telling fact is that I'm posting transcripts and you're posting propoganda. You believe that there's something in a subsequent proceeding that helps your position? Don't post stories of what people say happened in that proceeding. That's heresay. Jamal's lawyer (which is who you are quoting without attribution ... VERY poor form) saying that the trial was completely discredited doesn't make it so.

Post a transcript and let people decide for themselves.

The voir dire is NOT part of a trial. The trial starts when the jury is sworn in and not before. What happens in appeals and other hearings AFTER the trial is ALSO not part of the trial.

I am not IGNORING any facts because I am not, at this time, making an argument on the merits of the case, your assumptions notwithstanding.

As for propoganda, I linked to the site because when you do a Yahoo search for "mumia" and "trial" that is the very first site that pops up that contains transcripts, which is what I was looking for. You want to offer another site that has transcripts? Feel free. You have some proof that these 1982 trial transcripts are either incomplete or innacurate? Post it.

Get back to me when you return from the gym. Meanwhile, I'll think of how I'm overestimating myself by encouraging people to read the actual, neutral court documents from the trial (something you apparently do not want them to do). Perhaps my legal education and years of courtroom experience, including criminal defense, made me blind to the deficiencies that you, with your experience, can obviously see clearly.

Meanwhile, let me do some of your legwork for you:

Transcripts from four pre-trial hearings:

http://violettespage.com/122181.html

http://violettespage.com/22282.html

http://violettespage.com/31882.html

http://violettespage.com/40182.html

The trial transcript from a pro-Mumia site:

http://violettespage.com/61782a.html (this is not complete ... only the first day of trial - proceedings ended on July 3, 1982).


Transcript of hearing on post-trial motions:

http://www.justice4danielfaulkner.com/Days/5-25-83.html

Transcript all of the appeals, from 1995 through 1997 and the 1998 Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling with respect to the motion for post-conviction relief (quite a bit of reading here):

http://www.justice4danielfaulkner.com/framespcra.html

I could not find any transcripts from the voir dire. It is entirely possible that no such transcripts exist since the voir dire procedure, depending on the court, is often quite informal compared to other court procedures. If you can find a transcript, I invite you to post it.

yeah. whatever.

i dont doubt

is a draft copy (as in NOT what was filed in any court) of allegations of Jamal's counsel. One of the phrases law students and attorneys liev by is "argument is not evidence." What you have linked to is not evidence but, rather, a recitation of the evidence that they claim they have. I also note that you have not linked to the government's reply brief which, naturally, would have addressed Petitioner's points. Moreover, I did not see a link to any court ruling as to the arguments presented by the petitioner. You'd be more convincing if you weren't quite so one sided in your presentation. For example, making allegations of racism against the judge without some proof and then throwing slurs of your own against him is not going to convince anybody who is not already a true believer of anything. Moreover, from my reading of the transcripts, it is entirely unjustified as Judge Sabo was more lenient and patient in the face of Jamal's antics than many of the judges that I have appeared before would have been.

Once again, I urge anyone who is interested to take a few hours and read all of the trial transcripts, the pre-trial transcripts, the post-trial and appeal transcripts and available court rulings (they are all linked to above). They're interesting and informative and will allow you to intelligently discuss this case in the face of the vapid slogan throwers in your hood or any other hood.

had a formal syllabus. I hope that I'm not behind in my hood reading in case there's a hood quiz coming up. Is that a San Francisco "hood" or are we discussing another "hood?" Where in the hood does one pick up a copy, or was the hood internet ready when you read them?

Did you also read the transcripts of all of the appeals, the pre-trial transcripts and the decision of the Penn. Supreme Court that I posted? If not, I'm happy to help you and the entire hood.

Oh, and are the voir dire transcripts available anywhere in your hood? Since our hoods are so close together (if memory serves), I thought I'd have somebody brave the hood and get a copy for me, if you know where one can be found.

It's any one of your lacunae. If you want to find out more about Mumia from a hood perspective, you'll have to work on that one on your own Blitz because there's nothing like a personal experience.

The boys there stand a better chance of getting through your thick head than any of us ever could. If there's any credence at all in your offer to "help the entire hood", just head down there with your voir dire transcripts.

Just let me know when you do so I can look forward to reading about it in the papers on the morrow. We poor 'Free Mumia people' could all use a good laugh.

Doesn't that constitute cruel and unusual pun...oh, wait...never mind.

Mumia's case does have some fascinating sociological aspects. I doubt a regular home boy from the hood would garner such support from the far left under identical circumstances. No one would give a damn, unfortunately. Mumia gets the love because he's articulate and educated, which makes him white enough for guilty white liberalism. His partisans ought to take a look at their own motives for supporting him before they call others hypocrites.

Whatever your opinion on the innocense or guilt of Mumia, there is no denying that both sides are dug in. It is not a good case to fight the battle against capital punishment. Simply put, it will be very difficult to turn alot of people's opinions regarding the case.


So fight a battle that you can win:


Free the West Memphis Three!!! Three teenagers in West Memphis Arkansas were wrongfully convicted of a brutal murder. One of them got the death penalty. The other two are rotting in prison. This case can and will be won and justice will be served.


www.wm3.org