Free Mumia Abu-Jamal! Mumia is an innocent man!

by Fidelma Tue Oct 03, 2006 23:25

Film sounds good.

Is it true that an edition of Workers' Hammer or Workers' Vanguard last year had an article on Michael Jackson saying "Defend the man/boy love relationship"?

by let's just say - I'm Sceptical Wed Oct 04, 2006 07:28

How did the Police Officer who was killed come to be shot with Mumias Registered Handgun (a M1911A1 .45 Colt semiautomatic)?

Mumia has never denied it was his weapon, so how did it shoot the policeman in the face three times?

Presumably it doesnt shoot itself?

by Avid reader Fri Oct 06, 2006 13:48

Lets just say you get into the socks of Mumia and bothers to read about the trial and see if you feel you had a fair trial. By the way did you mention the fact that there is no prove of Mumia sctually shooting the police. By the way if he is so evidently guiltly why not to agree to a retrial (a proper one, no like the last one) condem him and ...

by Historian Fri Oct 06, 2006 13:53

The fact that the Spartacist League has thrown its weight behind him will surely see the bould Mumia walking the streets of Philadelphia in dobule quick time.

by gerri Fri Oct 06, 2006 22:15

did you know that the group MOVE that Mumia was a member of and who are alleged to have shot dead a police officer advocate that women's main role is as baby-bearers. No contraception was allowed and women were excpected to give birth sans any form of medical intervention and lick the baby clean.

"Women were taught that their main role was that of conceiving and giving birth to children. John Africa taught them to "DO AS, be like the principle of life," the principle of life being procreation (Anderson, 9). Women were not allowed to use any forms of contraception such as birth control, and abortions were forbidden. They were also not allowed any medical attention such as visits to the gynecologist or the obstetrician. They were expected to give birth completely naturally, without any medical care. Upon giving birth, women were expected to lick their babies clean and sever the umbilical cord by biting it with their teeth. After biting the umbilical cord, they had to eat it (Anderson, 9)."

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/Move.html

by Skeptical Kat Fri Oct 06, 2006 23:36

"Lets just say you get into the socks of Mumia and bothers to read about the trial and see if you feel you had a fair trial. "

- Is English something foriegn to you lad? Because I dont think anyone here speaks "Gibberish"

By the way did you mention the fact that there is no prove of Mumia sctually shooting the police.

-by the way your wrong, His Gun(a .38special by the way, not a .45) His Shoulder Holster

By the way if he is so evidently guiltly why not to agree to a retrial (a proper one, no like the last one) condem him and ...-

-According to Mumia Abu-Jamal's lawyers and supporters, several "eyewitnesses" saw somebody else shoot Officer Faulkner and then run off into the night.

In an article written by Jamal lawyer Leonard Weinglass, The Trial of Mumia Abu Jamal, Weinglass states:

"In all, four witnesses situated in four separate locations on the street, none of whom knew each other or Mumia, reported seeing the shooter flee, and all had him going in precisely the same direction."

The four individuals that Weinglass regularly labels as "eyewitnesses" are: Deborah Kordansky, Robert Chobert, Veronica Jones and Desie Hightower. Each will be discussed later in this section.

In his book, "Race For Justice" Mr. Weinglass writes:

"Due to Commonwealth misconduct and the court's rulings, the true facts of the case that Mr. Jamal was shot by Officer Faulkner as Mr. Jamal approached the scene, and that a third black man then shot Officer Faulkner and fled the scene were suppressed and not established".

Weinglass' theory that another man shot Faulkner and then ran from the scene is supported and promoted by lawyer Stuart Taylor in his article, "Guilty and Framed". Taylor writes:

"The defense theory seems more plausible. Weinglass' theory is, "At that moment, Officer Faulkner faced a life threatening situation. He had one suspect who allegedly struck him, bent over the hood of a car with another individual running towards him. He was alone. It was 4A.M. It was dark. The neighborhood was unsettling."

Taylor goes on to state that Weinglass "believes" that Faulkner fired first, hitting Jamal in the chest. And then, another man, who had been driving with William Cook, exited Cook's car and shot Faulkner in the back, then in the face, and ran away into the darkness before police arrived.

Stuart Taylor also writes:

"No fewer than five eyewitnesses have made statements at one time or another that support the defense theory that someone ran away from the scene. These accounts also raise at least a suspicion that police were so bent on nailing Jamal that they have shunned, or even suppressed, evidence supporting this defense theory. Taking the eyewitness testimony as a whole, it seems more likely than not, that somebody had been in Cook's car with him and had run away before police arrived. It's also at least conceivable that this mystery man killed Faulkner."

In Weinglass' public presentations, as well as in his writings, he states that Cook's passenger, the "phantom shooter," ran down Locust Street and entered a small alleyway before police arrived. As Taylor states, the basis for Weinglass' theory is his allegation that the four individuals -- each of whom Weinglass claims was an "eyewitness" and "on the street in different locations" -- testified to seeing another man do the shooting and running away.

NOTE:

The "Commonwealth misconduct" referred to by Weinglass and Taylor are their allegations that, in order to get testimony detrimental to Mumia Abu-Jamal, Assistant District Attorney Joe McGill organized and agreed upon "deals" for legal leniency with two of his eyewitnesses (Cynthia White and Robert Chobert) in 1982. Weinglass alleges that these "deals" were not disclosed to the court or to Jamal's attorney. Both Leonard Weinglass and Jamal's original attorney, Anthony Jackson, argue that the District Attorneys Office and members of the Philadelphia Police Department conspired to keep these "deals" from Mr. Jackson in 1982. Additionally, Weinglass and Jamal's supporters contend that there is clear evidence of police intimidation of witnesses who would have offered testimony favorable to Jamal. (For more information on the alleged coercion of witnesses, go to Myth #6).

BRIEF REBUTTAL

Of the four supposedly exculpatory eyewitnesses, three are not eyewitnesses at all -- they admit that they did not see the shooting, and did not see the shooting scene until well after the shooting was over. The other is an eyewitness for the prosecution, who has consistently said that Jamal was the killer.

DISCUSSION

Outside the courtroom, Jamal's attorneys and supporters have offered numerous alternative scenarios of what "really happened" on December 9, 1981. It's important to note that, to date, this theory (which we have labeled the "Running Man Myth") is the one and only explanation ever presented by Jamal's lawyers inside the courtroom that purports to show his innocence.

Despite the fact that Jamal's lawyers have never produced any credible evidence to support the "Running Man Myth" in the courtroom, HBO chose to promote this sham in their 1996 docudrama, "Mumia Abu Jamal, A Case for Reasonable Doubt." When the testimony of the four individuals the defense has labeled as "eyewitnesses" is reviewed, it becomes apparent that the "Running Man Myth" is quite simply, a hoax.

In reality, the record reflects that only one of the individuals that Leonard Weinglass has labeled an "eyewitnesses" has ever stated or testified that they actually witnessed the shooting. That individual, Robert Chobert, was a prosecution witness. In his original statement, which was given to police only 1/2 hour after the shooting, Chobert stated:

"I looked up and saw the black male start running towards 12th St. He didn't get far, maybe thirty or thirty-five steps and then he fell."

Robert Chobert Statement, 12-9-81

Further discrediting Weinglass' fraud is the fact that Robert Chobert has consistently identified Mumia Abu Jamal as the killer, and did so both at the scene and in court, under oath.

The other three individuals alleged by Weinglass to have been "eyewitnesses" who were "on the street in different locations" when the fatal shot was fired, have each testified that they did not see the shooting, and indeed, that they were in locations that made it impossible -- by their own admission -- for them to see what happened. They have also stated that they have no idea whether the person(s) they later saw running were simply bystanders who were simply going (much like themselves) to see what happened.

The three individuals are:

1. Debra Kordansky

Ms. Kordansky stated that she was in her bedroom watching TV when the shooting occurred. In her original statement to police she said that she "didn't go to her window until drawn there by the flashing lights of the police cars that had already arrived on the scene". She also stated while looking out her window, she saw "someone run." While being questioned by Leonard Weinglass at the 1995 PCRA hearing, Kordansky specifically stated that this person "was not the shooter" and that "they ran after police had already arrived". (N.T. 8/3/95, 248-249)

2. Desie Hightower

Mr. Hightower stated that he was down the street, behind a building in a parking lot, getting into a car when the shooting occurred. When asked by police at the scene if he could identify Jamal as the shooter Hightower told them, "I couldn't say, because I didn't see the officer actually shot." (N.T. 6/28/82, 28.131)

3. Veronica Jones

Ms. Jones has always stated that she was over 2 blocks away, around a corner and behind a building, when Officer Faulkner was shot. In 1996 she testified that she "waited for a few minutes" before looking around the corner to see what happened and that she then saw two men approach Officer Faulkner's body. She further stated, "I was not there, I did not see him [the shooter]." (N.T. 10/1/96, 24)

Equally revealing is the fact that the actual testimony and signed statements of each alleged "eyewitness" is reviewed, they show that -- directly contrary to lawyer Weinglass's public statements -- they each saw different people running at different times, in different directions.

Debra Kordansky stated that she waited to look upon the scene until she was drawn to her window by the flashing lights of police cars. She then saw a person running on the south side of Locust Street in a direction she couldn't remember. This was after "police and news crews" had already arrived on the scene. (N.T. 8/3/95, 248-249)

Desie Hightower said he saw a single person, possibly a woman, running east on the south side of Locust Street before police arrived. (N.T. 6/28/82, 28.131)

Veronica Jones said she saw two black men "sort of jogging" across Locust Street (12/11/81 Statement)

Robert Chobert, of course, specifically stated that he saw Jamal shoot Faulkner. He said that Jamal ran, "but he didn't get far, maybe thirty or thirty-five steps and then he fell." (12/9/81 Statement)

Additionally, tests for primer lead residue on Officer Faulkner's jacket verify that the person who shot him in the back did so from less than 2 feet away. Similar tests on Jamal's jacket verify that he was shot by the officer from less than 2 feet away. Powder marks on Officer Faulkner's face show that the fatal shot was fired from less than eighteen inches. The testimony of no less than 5 actual eyewitnesses -- including Robert Harkins, a witness called by Jamal in 1995 -- establishes that the only persons who were actually seen to be less than 2 feet away from Officer Faulkner were Mumia Abu-Jamal and his brother, William Cook.

Not one, single, solitary eyewitness has ever stated that they saw a third person exit Cook's car. Is it really "plausible" -- to use Stuart Taylor's word -- that each of the 5 eyewitnesses to the crime, who were situated no more than 60 feet from the shooting, all failed to see this supposed third person? Did he have the power to turn himself invisible?

Despite all of the testimony and physical evidence discrediting his theory, in his 1995 closing argument Leonard Weinglass again outlined the "Running Man Myth". Having just heard the testimony of the four individuals listed above, Weinglass still tried to pass his "Running Man Myth" off as fact. To this day, he still insists that each was an "eyewitnesses" to the killing. This is Weinglass' distortion of the testimony of the individuals shown above:

"... As soon as the police arrived that night, first thing he [Chobert] says to the police, the guy ran away. The guy ran away. Mr. Jamal is lying on the sidewalk, practically near his cab. But the guy ran away. He [Chobert] repeats it within an hour in a written statement in the Police Department saying the guy ran away 35 steps down the street on the south side going east on Locust. The same that Debbie Kordansky says, the same that Veronica Jones says, the same that Desie Hightower says. Four people. And then added to by Singletary as the fifth."

N.T. 9/11/95, 59

The last witness Weinglass mentioned, William Singletary, was featured in the HBO broadcast. But even Weinglass described him in court as "not entirely accurate" (N.T. 8/11/95, 9-10); he now mentions Singletary, if at all, only in passing. Singletary's 1995 testimony described events that simply could not have happened. For example, he described the already dead officer speaking, calling for his children (he had no children), and even firing his weapon. Singletary described a shooting in which the victim was not shot in the back, even though he was. He described Jamal being beaten virtually to death and having his skull fractured, even though Jamal's own treating physician testified that there were no signs of any beating. Singletary was the only witness to see an orbiting helicopter shining its light on the scene (the helicopter did not exist), the only witness who claimed to see police captains and lieutenants who appeared and disappeared, and the only witness to see Jamal dressed as an Arab(!) Mr. Singletary claimed he told all of this to a mysterious "Detective Green," who tortured him by repeatedly forcing him to write down his account, which "Green" would then tear up or throw away and make him start over. "Green" also supposedly threatened to have Singletary "beaten up" and his business "destroyed" (N.T. 8/11/95, 9-279).

In 1995 the prosecution called two witnesses, Officer Vernon Jones and Detective Edward Quinn. Officer Jones knew and was friendly with Singletary, and encountered him at the shooting scene on December 9, 1981. Singletary walked up to Officer Jones and asked him what happened. Jones said that a police officer had been shot. Singletary replied, "I heard some shots but I thought they were firecrackers. Then that's when I started seeing all those police cars" (N.T. 8/14/95, 20-21; see 8/11/95, 224). Officer Jones asked Singletary if he had seen the shooting. Singletary said "no" (N.T. 8/14/95, 21). Detective Edward Quinn testified that he interviewed William Singletary at the homicide unit in the police administration building. ("Green" was supposedly black; Detective Quinn is white). He typed Mr. Singletary's statement -- Singletary did not write anything down and was not asked to do so. No other detective questioned Singletary (N.T. 8/14/95, 48-52). The typewritten statement signed by Mr. Singletary indicated that he was interviewed by Detective Quinn. In his signed statement to Detective Quinn Singletary again said that he did not see the shooting. He added however, that after the shooting he could see three figures: the victim officer and two other men, one of whom was sitting on the curb. The latter individual had "dray locks" and green pants (N.T. 8/14/95, 52-57). This information, especially the description of one man sitting on the curb, was (as already explained) corroborative of other witnesses who testified to Jamal's guilt.

FACTS SUPPORTING OUR REBUTTAL

NOTE:

Please read the information below slowly and carefully. It's critical to understand the distinction between the four individuals Jamal's attorneys label as "eyewitnesses" and the five actual eyewitnesses to the shooting.

When espousing the "Running Man Myth", Jamal's supporters simply ignore the fact that five actual eyewitnesses to the shooting -- each deemed credible by the court -- have offered extensive and consistent testimony stating that they witnessed the following sequence of events regarding the murder of Officer Daniel Faulkner on December 9th, 1981.

Michael Scanlan, Robert Chobert, Cynthia White, Robert Harkins and Albert Magilton stated, in whole or in part, that they saw the man who murdered 0fficer Faulkner run from the parking lot across the street, the same lot Jamal's empty taxi cab was found in. The murderer then shot Officer Faulkner in the back from close range. Faulkner then fell to the ground and the killer stood over him, fired several more times, bent down, put his gun inches from Officer Faulkner's face and fired the fatal shot. The killer then staggered a short distance and collapsed on the curb. Moments later, two of the eyewitnesses saw the shooter apprehended by police and placed in a police van.

THE PLOY

To counter the devastating amount of actual eyewitness testimony delivered against their client by the "credible" eyewitnesses, it was necessary for Jamal's lawyers -- labeled "The Scheme Team" by local Philadelphia media -- to cast doubt on the prosecution's scenario of what actually happened on December 9th.

To accomplish this, the "Scheme Team" has manufactured an alternative scenario about a third man at the crime scene. Though easily refuted, this "Running Man" theory has become the lynch pin of Jamal's case both inside and outside the courtroom.

The defense's formula for deception is quite simple and very clear to anyone with access to the court transcripts (which are posted in their entirety on our web site at danielfaulkner.com) and the statements made to police immediately after the shooting. The foundation for this ploy is a sly half-truth. True, several people, though not witnesses to the shooting, have actually stated they saw somebody running. Aside from Singletary and his physically impossible story, however, none of them has said that the "somebody" was the shooter, or that the somebody "running" was running "away."

To fill in the holes in their bogus but attractive story of a phantom shooter, Jamal's lawyers throw in a little sinister speculation and innuendo; they refer to their "belief" that some of the prosecution's witnesses "might have been susceptible to police coercion or intimidation," and say that the prosecution "appears to have" benefited from false testimony. (For more information on the alleged coercion of witnesses go to Myth #6.)

Knowing they would rarely be challenged outside the courtroom, Jamal's current attorneys preach this lie to anti-Death Penalty advocates and college students on campuses all over the country. The story is then repeated and elaborated upon by countless "journalists" and various fringe groups supporting Jamal. (HBO bought into the Running Man Myth without ever contacting the Philadelphia District Attorney's office or reviewing the trial transcripts to verify its factual validity. Amnesty International USA, a noted opponent of the Death Penalty, produced a detailed "report" on the case that was riddled with factual inaccuracies and outright error. AIUSA also never contacted our organization or the District Attorney's office. A detailed rebuttal to the AIUSA report is posted on our web site.)

When the trial transcripts and the original statements given to police are reviewed in context, they clearly reveal that not one of Weinglass' alleged "eyewitnesses" has actually said what he and Jamal's supporters claim they said.

The lies behind the bogus "Running Man Myth" are beginning to be exposed. In a recent book written by Jamal lawyer Dan Williams, it is revealed that Jamal's lawyers knew all along that two of the alleged "eyewitnesses" produced by them at the 1995 PCRA hearing to support the Running Man Myth, (William Singletary and Robert Harmon) never actually saw the shooting. Williams reveals in his book that these two witnesses -- who told mutually contradictory stories -- were admittedly presented by the "Scheme Team" against his advice in order to create a smoke-screen that would allow the media to announce that there were actual eyewitnesses who had seen a "phantom shooter". (Apparently, Williams was ethically satisfied with merely advising against presenting evidence he knew to be false; he had no problem with going ahead and presenting it in court when his colleagues disagreed with his recommendation).

In order to promote the "Running Man Myth" the defense also had to come up with an explanation for why four people -- none of whom had an ax to grind with Jamal -- would supposedly lie about what they had seen. To accomplish this a two-pronged approach was employed. To discredit White and Chobert, a case was fabricated to allege that police had worked with the District Attorney to coerce and intimidate them into giving favorable testimony against Jamal. To attack Michael Scanlan, who did not identify Jamal in court but described actions consistent with what others saw Jamal doing, Jamal's lawyers were content to simply twist his testimony or disregard it altogether. The defense ignores Scanlan's detailed description of the shooter which matches that of Jamal, and instead focuses on several minor errors made by Scanlan regarding details about things like Jamal's height and hair-style - things not often remembered explicitly by witnesses who have just seen another person murdered. Then they too allege that Scanlan was "confused" about what he had seen. Jamal's lawyers pretend that they can dismiss the fourth eyewitness, Albert Magilton, because, though he had seen the entire scene unfold before him, he had admittedly not seen the fatal shot fired.

This sham strategy was severely damaged by the testimony of one of Jamal's own witnesses at the 1995 PCRA hearing, Robert Harkins. Announced as someone who supposedly had failed to pick Jamal out of a photo array, Mr. Harkins complained that Jamal's lawyers had twisted his words, and proceeded to testify to seeing the shooter act in a manner identical to that described by the prosecution's allegedly "confused" and "coerced" eyewitnesses at trial.

by Cop stopper Thu Oct 19, 2006 16:30

danielfaulkner.com is hardly a reliable and balanced view on the case, is it?

by Catlady Wed Apr 11, 2007 13:54

No it certainly is not Cop Stopper, and well done for pointing that out!

As for "did you know that the group MOVE that Mumia was a member of and who are alleged to have shot dead a police officer advocate that women's main role is as baby-bearers. No contraception was allowed and women were excpected to give birth sans any form of medical intervention and lick the baby clean."

The Catholic church, along with many other mainstream religious institutions, would agree with the baby-bearing, no-contraception thing. In the case of John Africa's viewpoint, this was simply an extension of his philosophy of the natural order taking precedence over society's perversion of that order. Nobody who hears Pam Africa speaking could reasonably opine that MOVE is about the repression of women, which seems to be what you are trying to imply, Gerri, by taking one paragraph from a website and posting it out of context. MOVE is about freedom from persecution and respect for life. The MOVE statement from the same site, which you decided to ignore in your post, reads as follows:

"MOVE's work is to stop industry from poisoning the air,
the water, the soil, and to put an end to the enslavement
of life -- people, animals, any form of life. The purpose
of John Africa's revolution is to show people through John
Africa's teaching, the truth, that this system is the cause
of all their problems (alcoholism, drug addiction, unemployment,
wife abuse, child pornography, every problem in the world) and
set the example of revolution for people to follow when they
realize how they've been oppressed, repressed, duped, tricked
by this system, this government and see the need to rid
themselves of this cancerous system as MOVE does."

In addition, your post is irrelevant to the case of Mumia's sentencing and the issue of him having been denied a fair trial.