I guess Officer Danny Faulkner supporters win since there is no re buttel on this board to the proven facts

Justice for Officer Daniel Faulkner

Well Mr. Schiffmann...how about a rebuttal...but sitck with the FACTS and evidence. The ball is in your court

Schiffmann criticized my opinion regarding a new trial despite the fact that some evidence is not credible. Why I think a new trial should be denied?

There is no reason for a new trial because there is no new evidence. Singletary, Harmon and Howard are no evidence. Veronica Jones' fleeing men, Kordansky's running man and Pamela Jenkins' fairy tales are no evidence. George Fassnacht's, Dr. Ian Hood's, and Dr. John Hayes' testimony is evidence but does not show anything new. The caliber 44 hoax and the Beverly conspiracy are no evidence, as well (I refer to the conspiracy by Grossman and others to support Beverly's confession).

Character testimony presented at the PCRA hearing (Lydia Wallace and others) is evidence but 1982 Abu-Jamal himself decided which character witnesses will take the stand (his lawyer didn't even know their names in advance). Wakshul's report and testimony is strong evidence but again it's not fair to blame the prosecutor. Jackson forgot because his client did not give back the witness statements and the lawyer could not remember everything (which is on the record). By the way, Abu-Jamal didn't want Jackson to participate in the trial and call witnesses. Now he complains because Jackson did not call Wakshul.

I don't want to put the burden of a new trial on the prosecution because the few pieces of evidence not presented at the trial have been absent because of Abu-Jamal's own actions and not due to any wrongdoings by the prosecutor.

The only action I hope for is a new sentence for Abu-Jamal. Despite the fact that I'm against capital punishment under any circumstances, there are some mitigating factors. At least some time before the murder he was a peaceful man. The crime itself indicates that he was in a state of mental turmoil. All this is not sufficient for a lesser charge (e.g. manslaughter) but in my mind it should be sufficient for life without parole. Even Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin got life without parole. During a sentencing hearing Abu-Jamal's attorneys could employ the same strategy. Again, as I have outlined in an article on my website (Abu-Jamal's lawyers), Abu-Jamal diminished his chances to receive life without parole by engaging in the Beverly conspiracy, but that's another story.

Finally, I would like to clarify the question where I live. It's true that I live in Austria but I never mentioned that fact because I can not see any reason why this should be important. Therefore, Tony Allen was not able to know about this. When he called me a German he referred to my German mother tongue, the only information he had about me. I have no problem with this. To call it "another example of Allen's lacking ability to get anything straight" is simply an insult.

I am the author of an analysis of the Daniel Faulkner murder case which has been criticized by Michael Schiffmann.

When Schiffmann brings citations out of my analysis his statements basically are correct. To make a long story short: I do not believe everything said against Abu-Jamal. I examined the evidence and I tried to be as careful and fair as possible. That's the reason why I discussed both sides in detail. However, my conclusions are clear. The evidence proves Mumia Abu-Jamal's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

In an English article on http://www.geocities.com/peheim/20070728.html I described why I do not believe the entire testimony by White and Chobert. However, the jury knew about the contradictions between their trial testimony and their first statements to the police, and the jury had to decide which part of testimony they believe. They clearly heard about White's inaccurate first statements and her long list of arrests for prostitution. They knew about Choberts wrong estimation how far the shooter ran before sitting down on the curb. No one knows what the jurors believed but they new the basic facts and it was their task to decide.

I also described in detail which problems I do have with the confession in the hospital. When taken alone, Durham is believable. At the same time, I do not believe Wakshul and Bell. At the end I arrived at the conclusion that I do not know whether that confession story is believable or not. Therefore, I did not consider that confession when presenting my conclusion.

There are other things which raise questions. Why Dessie Hightower has been subjected to a polygraph test but not the much less credible White? What has been offered to Veronica Jones? I simply believe that Veronica Jones got an offer by police. At the same time, her testimony does not show that she has been threatened by the police. She did not see the fleeing phantom shooter and she cannot exonerate Abu-Jamal.
My entire analysis takes some 130 pages (A4-Format) and covers the available evidence and testimony as thoroughly as possible. One of my conclusions was that both sides put some less than credible witnesses on the stand.

Two chapters deal with the remaining credible evidence and with the conclusions regarding guilt and innocence. I assumed the position of a juror in the court of public opinion. Therefore, everything is MY opinion only. I rejected some of the evidence presented by the prosecution and almost all the evidence presented by the defense during the last 25 years. At the end there is still a big amount of evidence against Mumia Abu-Jamal. The arguments by the defense are not even sufficient for a reasonable doubt. Additionally, I used one chapter to prove that there was no conspiracy by the police. Abu-Jamal himself destroyed his own defense.

Some readers of my website asked why I discuss the merits of defense claims in detail if I don't think that they exonerate Abu-Jamal. The answer is simple: I discussed each and every piece of evidence available to me no matter what it is. Additionally, I'm planning to put some other items on my site in the near future (pictures which are difficult to find). That's the reason why I put an excerpt of the McMahon-video on my website at http://www.geocities.com/peheim/20070912.html . It underlines my opposition against the death penalty and, besides, it's not easy to get that video from other sources. On my website I presented the evidence and afterwards I came to a conclusion. I did not present my conclusion and the evidence in support of this conclusion. And I did not distort evidence in order to support my conclusions. Maybe I was wrong at certain points but I've never lied.

As usual Shiffman is on a rampage of red-herrings and non-sequitors in place of reasoned arguments or heaven forbid, actual facts not ripped out of context and contorted to fit his extremist political agenda.

That he cannot accept the notion that people who are of a differnt opinion than he is are anything other than "fanatics", "haters", or suffering from some other moral defect only demonstrates his own moral ineptitude.

True to Mumia supporter form, he cannot stay on any one issue long enough to be intellectually honest about it. By harping on inconsequential hersey he hopes to drive people away from the most salient point about this case, and that is after all of these years, Mumia has not presented anything near a credible explanation of the events that transpired on December 9, 1981.

Moreover, the assumption that those who do not buy into the Mumia mythology are the bearers of the burden of proof only makes it more clear that Schiffman is trapped in his own hazy state of solopistic, self-delusion.

I don't have to prove Mumia is guilty. That has been done. Mumia and his supporters have had a quarter century to convince the world that he is a victim of a "racist frame-up" and they have failed.

Sir, are you saying everyone lied to frame an out of work radio commentator? A complete frame up? All the witnesses are bogus including the Hospital Security Guard? The entire Police department, District Attorneys Office, Judges and Justices conspired to frame, as you say, an innocent man? Jury selection, how many blacks or whites did Mumia reject?. Mumia executed Officer Faulkner in cold blood and you know it. Forbes and Shoemaker drove the wrong way on Locust street, from 12th to the scene and arrested the executioner Mumia within 30 to 45 SECONDS. I suggest YOU visit the scene and see if driving west on an eastbound street at 4am you will be able to see if anyone was running from the scene...like Beverly B.S

So let us summarize:

According to Peheim, the two most important eyewitnesses simply invented an unknown, but fairly significant amount of their observations.

A cop reporting a confession lied on the stand in the original trial.

Another cop also lied on the stand during Abu-Jamal?s 1995 PCRA hearing, both between them thus virtually proving a police conspiracy to do Abu-Jamal in.

A 1987 training tape for prosecutors from the DA?s office documenting, in the words of in-structor McMahon, ?the wisdom of the ages,? which we can safely assume extends to way before 1982 when the Abu-Jamal case was tried, instructs prosecutors to systematically pre-vent blacks from serving on juries.

But yet at the end of his book (p. 121 ff) Peheim comes out against a new trial, because HE thinks that the jury did the right thing in 1982 ? even though the jury was told many untrue things and was actually brazenly lied to and thus did not, and could not, know many things that WE now know.

He comes out against a new trial even though the jury itself was the product of the variety of ethnic cleansing practiced at the time by the Philadelphia DA?s office in general and Abu-Jamal prosecutor Joseph McGill in particular.

Even more scurrilously, he, a professed (and I believe credible) death penalty foe, has now teamed up with Tony Allen who, even though he is yet incapable to admit it, would most likely rather prefer to see Mumia dead than continue to be alive and kicking in jail.


The crunch of all this is that neither Tony Allen ? what a surprise! ? nor Christian Peheim seem capable to understand the meaning of a fair trial, untainted by prosecutorial and police corruption and conducted, in terms of guilt determination and sentencing, by a fully informed jury of the defendant?s peers.

They call those who demand this ?ideologues.? And yet, this very demand, unfulfilled in the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal, is enshrined in the Constitution of the United States, the Bill of Rights, as well as earlier and later human rights documents.

Let the evidence be heard in a fair and unbiased court (and not the court of Peheim, Schiff-mann, Allen, or Shackelford, and let alone Albert F. Sabo).

Such a court, supervised and supplemented by the watchful eyes of alert, critical and skeptical citizens, would certainly be in a better position to find out the truth than either of us.

It is hard to understand why those who are so adamant about Abu-Jamal?s guilt are in equal, if not greater measure, against a new trial.

The outcome should hand them a smashing victory for their claim that their opponent?s claims were all made-up and fraudulent all along, right?

But here is their problem: It would do so only if it proved Abu-Jamal guilty and them to be right, about which they themselves actually seem not so sure.

I am the author of the book Race Against Death. Mumia Abu-Jamal: a Black Revolutionary in White America, which appeared in German in October 2006 and will hopefully be published soon in the U.S. as well.

I will refrain from saying much about Tony Allen, since he is just another obsessive Mumia hater whose ravings definitely suffer from logorrhea but interest no one except the very few commentators on his website, which basically functions as an echo chamber for himself, ex-cop Jon Pisano and an occasional ignoramus or anonymous.

The case is different with the Austrian ? not German, another example of Allen?s lacking abil-ity to get anything straight ? author Christian Peheim, to whom I will therefore respond more extensively at the beginning of October when I?m back from traveling.

Peheim is one of the very few ? and to the best of my knowledge, actually the only one ? of the ?Fry Mumia?/Let Mumia Rot in Jail? crowd who has at least tried to give a serious and objective analysis of the case.

Different from fanatics such as John Hayden (Mumia Abu-Jamal: The Patron Saint of Ameri-can Cop Killers) for whom it is dogma to believe even the most absurd concoctions of the prosecution in the Mumia case, Peheim readily admits that the prosecution?s case against Abu-Jamal is not flawless.

As we will see below, his conclusions from this are, however, quite astonishing.

To begin with, in his German-language book-length analysis Mumia Abu-Jamal und der Mord an Daniel Faulkner (Mumia Abu-Jamal and the Murder of Daniel Faulkner), available as a PDF file on his website http://www.geocities.com/peheim, he concedes (p. 22-26) that the proŽsecution?s most important witness, Cynthia White was less than credible and must have made several things up.

He also concedes that the second most important prosecution witness, Robert Chobert, probably saw little and invented much, and that his crime scene identification of Abu-Jamal as the shooter was not credible (p. 19-22).

He describes the testimony by defense witnesses Dessie Hightower and Veronica Jones (p. 29-31 and 31-33 respectively), according to which they were pressured and/or bribed by the police, as credible, and he agrees that it is at least possible that a third man apart from Abu-Jamal and his brother Billy Cook was at the scene.

Most significantly, Peheim states that in his view, both Gary Bell and Gary Wakshul, two of the police officers who claimed to have heard a confession by Abu-Jamal as he lay wounded in the hospital, lied (p. 45): ?My claim is, both of them lied.?

As for the general conditions under which the trial took place, Peheim just now has posted on his website a very instructive excerpt from the notorious McMahon training video on jury selection, produced in 1987 under the auspices of District Attorney Ronald Castille, in which prosecutor Jack McMahon advised rookie prosecutors to go for a jury that is ?as unfair as possible? and systematically excludes blacks and people of low income.

And the conclusion from this in terms of the questions he himself asks (?Free Mumia? Fry Mumia? A New Trial for Mumia?? is the subtitle of his book)? A new trial is not warranted and should actually be denied.

Destruction in black America is self-inflicted
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | September 5, 2007
?DEBATING capital punishment at an Ivy League university a few years ago, I was confronted with the claim that since death sentences are more often meted out in cases where the victim is white, the death penalty must be racially biased. It's a spurious argument, I replied. Whites commit fewer than half of all murders in the United States, yet more whites than blacks are sentenced to death and more whites than blacks are executed each year. If there is racial bias in the system, it clearly isn't in favor of whites.
But if you choose to focus on the race of victims, I added, remember that nearly all black homicide is intraracial - more than nine out of 10 black murder victims in the United States are killed by black murderers. So applying the death penalty in more cases where the victim is black would mean sending more black men to death row.
After the debate, a young black woman accosted me indignantly. Ninety-plus percent of black blood is shed by black hands? What about all the victims of white supremacists? Hadn't I heard of lynching? Hadn't I heard of James Byrd, who died so horribly in Jasper, Texas? When I assured her that Byrd's murder by whites was utterly untypical of most black homicide, she was dubious.
I thought of that young woman when I read recently about James Ford Seale, the former Mississippi Klansman sentenced last month to three life terms in prison for his role in murdering two black teenagers 43 years ago. The killing of Charles Moore and Henry Dee in 1964 was one of several unsolved civil-rights-era crimes that prosecutors in the South have reopened in recent years. Seale's trial was a vivid reminder of the days when racial contempt was a deadly fact of life in much of the country. His sentence proclaims even more vividly the transformation of America since then. White racism, once such a murderous force, is now associated mostly with feeble has-beens.
Yet many Americans, like the woman at my debate, still seem to view racial questions through an antediluvian haze. To them, white bigotry remains a clear and present danger, and the reason so many black Americans die before their time.
But the data aren't in dispute. Though outrage over "racism" is ever fashionable, African-Americans have long had far less to fear from the violence of racist whites than from the mayhem of the black underclass.
"Do you realize that the leading killer of young black males is young black males?" asked Secretary of Health and Human Services Louis Sullivan 16 years ago. "As a black man and a father of three, this really shakes me to the core of my being."
From Georgia Congressman John Lewis, a veteran of the civil rights movement, came a similar cry of anguish. "Nothing in the long history of blacks in America," he lamented in 1994, "suggests the terrible destruction blacks are visiting upon each other today."
Happily, crime rates have declined from their 1990s peak. But it remains that the worst destruction in black America is self-inflicted.
In a new study, the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics confirms once again that almost half the people murdered in the United States each year are black, and 93 percent of black homicide victims are killed by someone of their own race. (For white homicide victims, the figure is 85 percent.) In other words, of the estimated 8,000 African-Americans murdered in 2005, more than 7,400 were cut down by other African-Americans. Though blacks account for just one-eighth of the US population, the BJS reports, they are six times more likely than whites to be victimized by homicide -- and seven times more likely to commit homicide.
Such huge disproportions don't just happen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously warned 40 years ago that the collapse of black family life would mean rising chaos and crime in the black community. Today, as many as 70 percent of black children are born out of wedlock and 60 percent are raised in fatherless households. And as reams of research confirm, children raised without married parents and intact, stable families are more likely to engage in antisocial behavior.
High rates of black violent crime are a national tragedy, but it is the law-abiding black majority that suffers from them most. "There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life," Jesse Jackson said in 1993, "than to walk down the street and hear footsteps . . . then turn around and see somebody white and feel relieved."

Hello Rusty, to address the guns first, It's my take Forbes is holding one gun. Yes you do see another trigger but that may be Forbes holstered weapon. The movement of the hat ...all depends WHEN the photos were taken/time frame and IF,in FACT, it was Officer Faulkners hat. Do you know for sure?. As to Wakshul, he wasn't called (you goofed counselor) but responded to your "negro male made no comment" during the later Judicial hearings. As to your speculation as to the altercation he had with 2 narcs over an incident that happened in court, your speculation is far fetched. NOW, please tell us HOW and WHO shot Faulkner in the BACK and WHO shot Faulkner in the face. Was it Beverly or Billys so called mystery passenger

Hi Jon,

I have absolutely no problem talking about why I think Mumia is innocent. I have explained some of why I believe it before.

However, first I want you to address my last post "The Gun, Moving Hat and Gary Wakshul," which you seem to have conveniently ignored. In this post I was addressing both your challenge to me to show that Mumia was framed, and (2) your criticism of the new crime scene photos, which I contend show even more police manipulation of evidence of frame-up.

So, Jon, before we talk more about the case for innocence, lets not skip the first step I was addressing: THE FRAME-UP.

Please look back at my last post and respond to that, because you have not done that yet.

Rusty

The last comment I posted was in error. It should have been directed to "RUSTY". Come on...give it your best shot

jon pisano
johnnypeppers@hotmail.com

Well everyone, welcome back from holiday. To Rick, could you please post as to why you believe Mumia did not execute Officer Faulkner?

For those hundreds who still hold true to the Mumia is ?innocent? orthodoxy, there is little one can do to persuade them that their death row deity is anything less than a man of good acts, tenacity in the face of repression, and the cliched ?voice of the voiceless?.

With regards to Jamal's friend Linn Washington,it is not so much that Washington doesn?t have valid points in his articles. Insofar as he points out that there has been misinformation on the part of Jamal?s detractors he is correct, but the reality is that this is generally important and irrelevant at the same time. It is well enough to point out the flaws of Jamal?s detractors in 2007, but this fact does not negate what Jamal did in 1981.

Nor does it acknowledge the point made by Jamal?s current attorney in a recent interview when he opined that ?both sides? make mistakes in their advocacy. I would go further to say that if one were to conduct a formal study one would find that the pro-Jamal forces are far less informed with regards to the case than those on the other side and are more prone to making incorrect statements.

Onto the issue of faith, there is the notion of ?gaps? and I mean that in somewhat of a scientific sense. In his book ?The God Delusion? author Richard Dawkins brings an interesting parallel between science and criminal prosecutions, when he writes that:

?It is utterly illogical to demand complete documentation of every step of any narrative...you might as well demand, before convicting somebody of murder, a complete cinematic record of the murderer?s very step leading up to the crime, with no missing frames?

A fine point, but one that is missed upon the current crop of Jamal supporters who see every ?gap? in the case as evidence of some kind official malfeasance. The examples of this kind of thinking are countless and the evidence of it exist through nearly everything written on behalf of Jamal. This ?gap? thinking is cheap and it is easy to score points with those of a particular political persuasion, but it is no substitute for logic or factuality. Any and all ?gaps? from the perspective of a Jamal supporter within the case, can be traced back to the police, the state, the system, and it?s attempts to silence Mumia.

The ?Free Mumia? crowd seems to want it both ways. They want a malevolent force that is bent upon killing a ?revolutionary journalist? and who will kill those who get in the way of this plan and they also want to deride these same conspirators as incompetent ?keystone cops? fouling everything up with their stupidity. Well, I am all for nuance, but this level of pseudo-intellectualism just reaches too far. They readily claim ?frame-up?, but what is clear is that if there was such a frame up there would not be the type of ?gaps? that occur in the case.

I have seen, and you can as well, the defenders of Jamal pick apart the most minuscule detail in the testimony of prosecution witnesses and use these minor discrepancies as fodder for their cause. One of the more telling example of this would be the .38 caliber versus the .44 caliber hoax which some Mumia supporters still cling tenaciously to today. Even in the Pacifica special in question the ?big lie? of the caliber of the gun is parroted by Danny Glover. But in any court case, in particular a case with multiple witnesses, some physical evidence, and a mountain of circumstantial evidence it is easy to miss the whole picture. In her book ?Denying the Holocaust? Professor Deborah Lipstadt makes the point that:

?witnesses in a court of law differ on the details surrounding an event, but agree on the essential element. It is axiomatic among attorneys, prosecutors, and judges that human memory is notoriously bad on issues of dimensions and precise numbers, but very reliable on the central event.?

The above describes the situation with Mumia. The sum total of the evidence points clearly to Mumia being the shooter..

In the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal the keepers of the faith are finding it harder to hold the line.

With each revision in the Jamal narrative, there must come a corresponding alteration of the past and current party lines in order to keep the whole thing from falling over on top of itself in a pile of stinking contradictions. And yet they keep piling on the muck ever so deeper.

And so the faith in Jamal has long since started it?s slow decline and we are witnessing the inevitable diminishing returns of a false faith, as offered by a false idols, that is tended to by money hungry and corrupt individuals whose motives are self-preservation and aggrandizement and not the?liberation? of a ?political prisoner? as they would have one believe.

Let's take a look at these witnesses. Michael Scanlan stopped at the red light before 13th street. Schiffmann claims, Scanlan stopped at the left side of the street and, as a result, was not able to see the murder of Daniel Faulkner. The trial testimony only reveals that Scanlan turned left after the murder but not where he stopped his car. Scanlan had a restricted field of vision. His testimony was in accordance with that restriction.

Scanlan was able to see the upper part of William Cook and Daniel Faulkner in front of the police car as long as they were standing upright. He could see someone coming from the parking lot and he could see the south part of the sidewalk. Scanlan testified to the beginning of the shooting and to the fatal shot but he could not give any details of what happened between the time Abu-Jamal approached the scene and Faulkner fell to the ground. His testimony seems to be truthful and there is no reason for doubts. Additionally, his actions confirm that he actually saw the murder on the sidewalk. Without seeing what happened on the sidewalk he would not have been able to conclude that a policeman has been shot at the end of the shooting.

However, some 30 seconds after the murder he found police officers Wakshul and Trombetta and told them exactly that. Robert Chobert had approximately the same field of vision as Scanlan. He saw the fatal shot and than the shooter disappeared. According to inspector Giordano he first said the shooter ran away. In his first written statement he claimed the shooter ran 30-35 steps before sitting down at the curb. If he really would have seen Abu-Jamal sitting on the curb he never would have mentioned a distance of 30 to 35 steps because the difference is too obvious.

Therefore, I think someone told him Abu-Jamal has been found sitting at the curb and afterwards he used his imagination. Actually, his initial statement could describe two different situations. Maybe he assumed this distance without knowing any details. Maybe he really saw someone at this distance - a fleeing man - and connected both items of information. When he said he never lost sight of the shooter he was not truthful but I don't have any doubts that he at least saw the fatal shot (see below). He gave conflicting testimony regarding the size of the shooter and his clothing, as well. This conflicting testimony casts doubts about his ability to identify the shooter. Robert Chobert saw a person with dreadlocks shooting Daniel Faulkner at the ground and he saw that no other person was there. As I will show later, even that limited testimony is important.

Many supporters of Abu-Jamal like Schiffmann claim Chobert was not even at the crime scene. Chobert said he stopped his car at the corner about a car length behind the police car. At the corner he really would have been about a car length behind Faulkner's car. Cynthia White saw the cab when it arrived. William Harmon described the cars he saw at the crime scene after he was able to study the photos for several minutes. We do not know at what time that photos have been taken. On the other hand, George Michael Newman's statement says Robert Chobert told him at the phone that he stopped his cab at 13th street north of Locust. Why Chobert should have admitted perjury and why Weinglass should have ignored that important piece of evidence? Scanlan did not mention him, but his attention was already concentrated on the scuffle between Faulkner and William Cook when Chobert arrived.

The more you read about Schiffman's book and Bennett's "journalism" the more you realize they are on a sabbatical from reality.

A German named Christian Peheim actually thoroughly debunked Schiffman's claims and even showed where Schiffman had doctored photos in order to demonstrate his sill claims.

Pehiem writes that

In his book Race Against Death Michael Schiffmann talks a lot about the racist, corrupt, und brutal police. Only a part of that book is related to the Faulkner murder case. Within these chapters he tries to convince the readers that Mumia Abu-Jamal is innocent.

According to his investigation Abu-Jamal couldn't have fired the first shots towards Daniel Faulkner and it is physically and ballistically impossible that the final shots have been fired in accordance with testimony presented by eyewitnesses. Since eyewitnesses told the same story about the deadly shots they must have lied. Of course, all of this was part of a conspiracy.


However, if it wasn't Abu-Jamal another perpetrator has to be found.

Who was the murderer?

Schiffmann claims the killer was Kenneth Freeman, deceased 1985, and he came out of the Volkswagen.

When Schiffmann concludes Freeman was the killer he made at least one very important point. Many years ago Leonard Weinglass propagated the theory of the fleeing man. Schiffmann goes one step further. While there are a lot of ways for a fleeing man to disappear into the dark it is much more difficult for a phantom shooter to appear at the crime scene.

After reading "Race Against Death", it becomes clear that there is only one place from where the alternative killer could have come, namely the passenger seat of the Volkswagen. There are only two options, Abu-Jamal or Freeman. No third option is available and if Freeman cannot be the killer it definitely has to be Abu-Jamal. Therefore, its well worth to take a closer look at Schiffmann's arguments.

Eyewitness Testimony

Schiffmann has some strange ideas about the credibility of witnesses. As an example, he thinks a part of Singletary's testimony is believable while I think its one big lie. Don't forget, Singletary heard Faulkner talking when the officer was already dead, saw a police helicopter that wasn't there, and asked a highway patrol officer "Jones, what's happening?" (he knew officer Jones). Years later the same Singletary claimed he has seen the entire crime.

Its natural that eyewitnesses are inaccurate, draw their own conclusions about their observations and sometimes have false memory, but Singletary exceeds all that by far. To call him somehow credible is simply wishful thinking.

According to Schiffmann, only prosecution witnesses tell fairy tales. There were five eyewitnesses who testified for the prosecution in 1982 and 1995. These were Michael Scanlan, Robert Chobert, Albert Magilton, Cynthia White, and Robert Harkins. (Harkins has been called by the defense but his testimony was in favor of the prosecution). Three of them gave their first statement within half an hour after the shooting (White at 4:15, Scanlan at 4:24, Chobert at 4:25, Faulkner has been killed at 3:52). Its simply impossible to explain these statements as part of a conspiracy. However, Schiffmann does so.

First, the new crime scene photos (viewable at Abu-Jamal-News.com):

THE GUNS. It's true that the photos are kinda small to view but you can see the "circle" section of the photo is enlarged and clearly shows two different triggers (and which Schiffmann reports are evident in numerous other photos taken that morning by Polakoff).

THE MOVING HAT. The 2 photos are taken at a practically identical angle. Both of the key spots (the top of the VW and the street grate) are both clearly in view, so there is no "trick photography" at work here.

I never disputed that these 2 photos are taken at different times. That is exactly the point. The hat was moved from the top of the VW to the street grate in the later picture. Also noteworthy is that the hat is also not on the street grate in the earlier photo of Forbes. The police clearly manipulated the evidence.

You pointed out the police barricade in the latter "hat photo" (which I also noted in my original post) and now cite that to say that is when Chobert moved his taxi, but like I said earlier, Polakoff told Schiffmann that he never saw a taxi at the scene.

GARY WAKSHUL. Well, at least you will state for the record that you agree with Sabo's decision to not bring in Wakshul to testify about the "negro male" report. At least I know where you stand. How about Sabo's cruel "you and your attorney goofed" remark...do you also support that?

However, you are certainly incorrect about Wakshul's availability.

Yes, it is true that Sabo cited Wakshul being on vacation, and this is the reason that Sabo cited in ruling against Mumia. Yes it is true that bringing Wakshul in for testimony was a last minute request, but this was one of many examples of inneffective counsel from attorney Anthony Jackson. According to Jackson, he had not even noticed that important "negro male" report until that very moment. Why should Mumia suffer because of his lawyer's failure here?

This aside, the reason that Sabo gave (that Wakshul was unavailable) was simply false. As was written in my previous post on the confession: "The original trial's injustice was further exposed when Wakshul testified in 1995 to being home for his 1982 vacation, in accordance with explicit instructions to stay in town for the trial so that he could testify if called."

Do you really believe Wakshul's testimony that because "he lost it emotionally at that point" he actually took 2 months to report "the confession"? Come on! This 2 month delay already discredited the confession story, but Wakshul's "negro male" report was the nail in the coffin. No wonder MCGill and Sabo did not want Wakshul to testify about it.

One last point on this, addressing a point brought up earlier, that no one has deviated on their account of the confession. I will once again quote my previous post on the confession:

---
Wakshul's "Negro male" report was key evidence at the PCRA hearings, and it was well-known that he would have to testify to defend his "confession" story. Unknown to Mumia's lawyers, on July 13 (days before his PCRA testimony) Wakshul was savagely beaten by undercover police officers in front of a Judge in the Common Pleas Courtroom where he worked as a court crier. Almost two years later, the two attackers (members of Philly's Vice Squad) were suspended without pay as punishment. With the motive still unexplained, the beating was likely used to intimidate Wakshul into maintaining his "confession" story at the PCRA hearings.
----

True, one must speculate about the motive behind the attack, but it is certainly strange, isn't it, Jon?

Rusty, I'm not trying to ridicule you but I'm trying to point out things that many people, you included, cannot see the forest for the trees. I'll try to take this step by step and I'm not as articulate as Mr.Allen in explaining but I'll try. First as to Forbes. I have viewed the photo and I see Forbes holding only one weapon , that of Faulkners Police revolver and he is holding it by the grips. Nothing wrong there. As to the photos of the VW, look again, BOTH were shot from different angles and different times. Take notice of vehicles/persons missing. You will also notice Police barricades were moved to let the cab out of his parking space. Now as to Wakshul. He was interviewed and gave a statement. The Judges remark "You goofed" referred to Jackson and Mumia who did not issue a court notice to Wakshul for the trial. Wekshul had a prearranged family vacation prior to trial date and according to rules, cannot be called in from vacation unless a state of emergency. If he had received a court notice prior, he would have to forgo his vacation. Now as to his "the negro male made no comment" was written AFTER the outburst at the ER doors. The Officer testified that he lost it emotionally at that point then gathered himself and continued to the ER where the killer Mumia, handcuffed to a gurney, waiting for a doctor. This is where the notation was written. As to the Attorney of mention. that's his take of what he believes happened just as you believe Mumia did not kill the Officer and the attorney states he believes differently.

What I really find hard is you and the Mumia is innocent followers discount all of the physical and eyewitness's evidence and believe all is fabricated

Now, I'll do my best to answer any questions you have

I'd like to return to the issue of the crime scene photos, but first I will address a couple points.

Jon Pisano ridiculed me for saying that there is extensive proof of Mumia's frame-up. In an effort to be cooperative, I offered up conservative lawyer/journalist Stuart Taylor as a means to meet Jon half-way and discuss the issue of the frame up, which Taylor extensviely documents in practical details that show how it was done via police/prosecutorial/judicial misconduct, like when McGill argued to block Wakshul from coming in to explain his "negro male made no comment" statement in regards to the alleged "hospital confession," and then of course Sabo agreeing with McGill, cruelly telling Mumia that he and "his attorney goofed."

For the record I do not agree with Taylor's argument that Mumia probably shot Faulkner, but I brought him up as an "olive branch" to engage Tony and Jon in a constructive dialogue about the frame-up. So, back to the original question: Why is Stuart Taylor not credible?

That said, the Free Mumia movement is based upon a strategic decision to call for a new trial, which brings together people from all different perspectives, with the only commonality being that Mumia needs a new trial. Many people in the movement,like myself believe Mumia is innocent and that he should be immediately released, just like happened with Geronimo Pratt. However, I think a new trial is a more practical strategy for getting his release from this very unjust and criminal system, and this is of course the strategy that Mumia himself has taken, as he explains in his interview on this Pacifica program.

Re. Mauer Carter, I don't really have anything more to say. As mentioned earlier, Judge Klein's statement regarding this makes it much stronger in my mind, but of course it is true the 20 year delay challenges her credibility at some level, and I'll leave it to the readers to decide themselves.

So now, back to the photos (viewable at Abu-Jamal-News.com):

--Jon, are you really trying to say that Forbes is holding the guns in the proper fashion for preserving evidence? Come on! If you look closely in the photo you can see that as he is holding BOTH Faulkner's and Mumia's guns in one hand, barehanded. Also, German author Schiffmann reports that in the other photos taken by Pedro Polakoff, the gun's are seen to shift around, and most importantly, his had is touching the metal parts where fingerprints would be, since he is clearly holding it similar to how one would to shoot it.

---Regarding the moving hat. These 2 photos are definitely not from two different angles as you claim. The only difference is that the later photo (with the hat on the grate) has the police barricade up. In the first one, the hat is on top of Billy Cook's VW (and there is clearly nothing on the grate). In the second photo, there is nothing on the VW roof, but the hat is now on the street grate, where it would be in the official police crime scene photo. Note also, that in the very first photo with Forbes holding the gun, the hat is also missing from the street grate. It cannot be seen on top of the VW because Forbes' head is blocking it.

--Now, Robert Chobert's missing cab. Police didn't have Chobert move his car immediately. Actually, they first told him NOT to move his car because they wanted him to identify Mumia, who was lying in Trombetta's and Wakshul's police van somewhere near Camac Street and Locust.

According to the police files, Chobert arrived at the Roundhose at 4:15 and the interview with him started at 4:25. If you look up a map of Philadelphia's Center City - it's no more than a five minute's drive from 13th and Locust to the Roundhouse. Pedro Polakoff arrived shortly after 4am and insists that there was no taxi cab behind Faulkner's car.

Also important here is that it would be virtually impossible to remove the car after all the police vehicles arrived, which would have blocked the car in. Also, since he was allegedly right behind the police car, wouldn't that be incredibly sloppy police work to remove the car before police photographers had arrived?

For more on the photos, including statements from attorney Robert R. Bryan, Linn Washington, Jr., and Dave Lindorff, check out this AUDIO press-release:

http://insubordination.blogspot.com/2007/05/audio-press-release-new-mumia-crime.html

For more on Schiffmann's new book (only published in Germany), see this review of the book, which includes serious new ballistics analysis, which adds even more evidence to the argument that Mumia is innocent:

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Nov06/Bennett24.htm

as well as this more extensive interview with Schiffmann:

http://hbjournalist1.googlepages.com/schiff

With due respect to those reading this, it is not up to them to decide whether Ms. Carter?s statement?s are credible. It is up to the 3rd Circuit.

Moreover, the fact that none of the ?ear-witnesses? have reversed themselves with regards to hearing Jamal confess over a quarter century ago lends credence to the likelihood that it did in fact occur. The fact that there were non-police witnesses to the confession lending it more credibility.

But for arguments?s sake let us say it didn?t happen.

The absence of a confession does not mitigate the fact that Jamal was found near Officer Faulkner, shot by Faulkner?s gun, his own gun empty, with bullets the same caliber as his found in Officer Faulkner?s dead body, with a number of un-related eyewitnesses pointing to him as the shooter.

And since the issue of the amount of time passed before witnesses came forward, it should be noted that the people who saw Mumia shoot Officer Faulkner reportedly told investigators about it at the scene. They did this, unlike Terri Carter who was an officer of the court and waited two decades these lay people knew to come forward and report what they saw. That Carter, who would have been smart enough to know the importance of prejudicial comments made by Judges took so many years to come forth makes her story incredibly suspicious.

Not to mention Jamal?s own two decades of silence that was only broken in an affidavit that was so sloppy that it contradicted that of his own brother. An affidavit that sounds suspiciously like Mumia?s hero, Huey Newton?s recollection of the events surrounding the death of Police Officer John Frey.

This fact, coupled with the fact that she knew of Jamal?s case and is an opponent of capital punishment make it likely that she is pursuing a self-serving agenda.

But what if she was correct?

The court transcripts are there for all to see. You can contrast the behavior of the judge versus that of Mumia and you can easily get a sense of who it was that was out of control and an impediment to the proceedings. One of Jamal?s own journalistic colleagues even wondered if Jamal was attempting to get himself killed through his antics.




At this point it is important to remember that Jamal?s supporters once swore he was ?actually innocent? of killing Officer Faulkner. That his gun didn?t match that of the murder weapon, that another man confessed and was guilty and on and on. That he should be released without delay.

But what has happened over the years as the facade of deceit has been chipped away, the ?Free Mumia? types have revised their position and now cling desperately to the idea that Jamal didn?t receive a fair trial, therefore rendering the mountain of evidence against their hero moot.

All of this time and energy for a man that even his supporters are starting to have to admit, albeit without an ounce of integrity, did shoot a man in the back and than shot that same man in the head as he lay helpless on the ground. Some hero.

Rusty, I read a lot of "Ifs" as to a "frame up". Do you REALLY believe Justices, Judges, District Attorneys, hundreds Police would be involved in a "frame up". Please, I believe you are above that

Hi Jon, I should point out that I brought the alleged "hospital confession" story up as just ONE example of a police frame up. It is true that a police frame-up does not necessarily prove innocence. However, the discussion was focusing on the frame up, and the discredited "confession story" is one example of what I wanted to address.

If police fabricated evidence with the "confession story," then it seriously discredits other evidence and lends serious credence to the many other examples of governmental misconduct that Stuart Taylor cites, which he clearly states were part of a larger pattern of frame-up in Mumia's case.

So you do believe this confession story, right?

Now, most importantly, let's move back to the issue of the police/prosecutorial/judicial frame-up of Mumia.

What part of Stuart Taylor's essay do you dispute? In my eyes, he clearly proves a police frame-up, so I offer this to you and other Pacfica readers. It is much easier than reading all of the court-transcripts (which I have read, by the way) if you want a good summary of the injustice.

Earlier you were mocking me for saying there is a frame-up and that my argument was absurd. So, now, please tell me why Stuart Taylor is absurd in his analysis, because I am offering his essay as one reason that I believe Mumia was framed.

This frame-up question is what I want to address, so I do not want to distract from that.

However, I'd like to respond to your fair question about court stenographer Terri Mauer-Carter's delay in making her affidavit, as opposed to the 2 new confession accounts.

It is true that Mauer-Carter waited about 20 years to come forth with her statement. Ultimately, it is up to readers to decide whether or not to believe it.

One thing lends her story more credibility, in my opinion: Judge Klein.

In 2002, Journalist Dave Lindorff (featured in the Pacifica Special) interviewed Mauer-Carter's former boss, Richard Klein, who was with Mauer-Carter when she states she overheard Sabo. A Philadelphia Common Pleas Court judge at the time who now sits on PA's Superior Court, Klein told Lindorff: "I won't say it did happen, and I won't say it didn't. That was a long time ago." Lindorff considers Klein's refusal to firmly reject Mauer-Carter's claim to be an affirmation of her statement.

Contrasting Mauer Carter's delay to Colarulo and Gerrow's 25 year delay.... First off, I agreed with Linn Washington's comments on it and the reasons he gave, which is why I posted it.

But to answer your question further, I'd say that in the case of the confession, there were others saying it in court and such, so them coming forward would really help buttress the other statements, so that would give motive to come forward. In the case of Mauer Carter, nobody else was talking about this and coming forward with the story, so there was not as much motive for her to come forward.

However, it is true that she would have more credibility if she came forward at the time. That said, it is up to individual readers to weigh the arguments, because I think Judge Klein gives extra credibility.

Rusty, I should state some of my responses are due to your posting of taylors site ..which is more full of holes than swiss cheese. Keep trying. Maybe you can ask Pam Africa for some pointers

Rusty, may I ask how do you feel about the steno's statement regarding Judge Sabo..ahhh after almost 20 years? Is it valid?And you disavow any other confession or statement from the night of the execution until a month later? Oh...another thing..the Police did NOT wear 2 toned gold trimmed pants as stated by Mumia when he was quoted as being "beaten" by the Police. Must have been an usher at the local movie house As to the "smell test"...are you kidding...you would be laughed out of court. As to the hand test if Mumia fired a weapon, it was a wash due to the fact he fought the officers IE: sweat/dirt etc BUT there was gun shot residue on Faulkners BACK which indicates he was shot from 12 inches or less by Mumia (38 cal) and then executed. Keep trying Rusty

How convienient of you to think they are all liars. I suppose that everyone who does not buy into your conspiracy theories are either liars or bigoted cops.

The solopism here is astonishing.

Linn Washington is as biased as anyone could possibly be. At my site I have pointed out his incredible statements concerning this case and being that he is Jamal's friend, I am sure he will say whatever he has to in order to help him.

What is absurd is the notion that someone saying they heard Jamal confess would further their career.

First of all, he had already been convicted. Outside of the extreme left his guilt is not really an issue. On the other hand, had they not heard him confess than that would be news.

Let us not forget that it was the Philadelphia Inquirer and not Mumia who was awarded for exposing corruption and brutality in the Philadelphia Police Department.

And the Mumia movement gets plenty of coverage. Over the years his case has been on the front page of newspapers throughout the country, major networks have done specials on his case, and their have been countless other media programs dedicated to his story.

That this coverage does not mirror that of the "Revolutionary Work" is really your problem, not the amount of coverage.

Another point that is common throughout discussions of this case is the kind of infinite regression of arguement on the part of Jamal supporters. Once one arguement or theory gets debunked the Mumia-phile just bounds on to the next one. It is no wonder that anyone of consequence takes this "movement" seriously anymore.

Yes, I do think that they all lied about the confession.

Regarding the 2 new accounts of a confession that came out for the first time in Dec. 2006 (From William Colarulo and Kathleen Gerrow), I think they only make the story more far-fetched, and clearly exposes the arrogant and sloppy nature of those who want to "Fry Mumia," that they continue to advocate such an obviously absurd scenario.

Philly journalist Linn Washington, Jr. (who is featured in this Pacifica Special) recently commented on these 2 new accounts, in an interview on the Abu-Jamal-News.com website, where he criticizes the mainstream media for not challenging the credibility of these 2 new accounts:

LINN WASHINGTON, JR. : These two accounts sound suspicious like dog dirt?dropping on a sidewalk.

Let's think logically here. William Colarulo was the head of the police department?s press office for over two years, and he never once said anything about this? That?s ridiculous!

But when you read his news media statements about this confession, what he said about what Abu-Jamal was wearing is totally different from what Wakshul said he was wearing, when Wakshul voluntarily went to police on Dec. 16, 1981 and volunteered more information where he was able to remember the type of clothing, the color, and the texture. The last question the police asked Wakshul on 12/16/81 was: "Is there anything else that you would like to add?"

He said no. There was nothing about a confession. It is absurd.

Furthermore, what Colarulo said was not based on what he saw or heard himself, but was based on what someone told him. Has the police officer that Colarulo cites as having heard the confession ever come forward and said anything about it?

Absolutely not.

Now, reporter Kathleen Gerrow. This is what's really strange. We have a reporter that claims to have heard a confession in the largest murder case that was going on in Philadelphia at the time, and she said nothing about it? Journalistic careers are made on bits of information like hearing a major piece of information in a major murder case. If she had this information, it could have made her career. Why did she not say anything about it for 25 years?

These sorts of things defy logic and common sense. But this is what passes as journalism in Philadelphia?and evidence of Abu-Jamal's guilt. Why didn?t the so-called reporter interviewing Gerrow ask a follow-up question, like "Why didn?t you say something earlier? It could have made your career?" These questions should be asked.

It's not for the press to take a position one way or the other, but it is the responsibility of the press to scrutinize all sides with the same rigor. One side (the Danny Faulkner side) can say anything they want, even if it makes no sense at all, yet it gets credibility and traction in the media.

On the other side, Abu-Jamal's side can say anything they want, irrespective of the substance and factual accuracy, and they get no coverage at all.

Where is the journalistic fairness, balance, and accuracy? These are the three things that are supposed to be fundamental to journalism. Are they happening in this case?

No, they are not.
------
The full interview is available here:

http://insubordination.blogspot.com/2007/05/interview-linn-washington-jr-on-mumia.html

Priscilla Durham, Officer Alphonse Giordano, Officer Gary Bell, Officer Thomas Bray, Officer Gary Wakshul, Officer Tom Brady, and NBC news producer Kathleen Gerrow all made statements to the effect that Jamal confessed to killing Officer Faulkner.

Are they all liars?

Even if they were, that doesn't mean that Jamal is innocent.

Now, even after I left the Jamal movement I found the confession story to be rather dubious, but after a great deal of research I am relatively certain that the confession occurred even if some of the police Officers lied about it. The NBC producer had no reason to lie about the confession and neither did Durham.

Moreover, the case against Jamal did not hinge upon his confession, rather it was just another example of just how guilty he was. The ballistics evidence alone, coupled with Jamal's behavior at trial would have likely been enough to convince the jury that Jamal was a cold-blooded cop-killer.

With regards to Philip Bloch, the only thing that was ever truly proven about him was that he stayed a Jamal supporter even after he allegedly heard Jamal confess. This would not make him unique amongst Jamal supporters. I know from my own experience that there are plenty of "Free Mumia" types who could care less whether or not Jamal shot Faulkner and some that would be glad if he did.

MOVE leader John Africa for example, sent his foot-soldiers to the hospital the night of the shooting in order to begin the efforts to free Mumia, this before the investigation had barely begun.

Stuart Taylor's article is interesting, but hardly convincing.

Tony Allen
http://antimove.blogspot.com

Because of space issues, I clearly can't say everything I'd like, but regarding your challenge about Mumia's frame-up, I'd like to ask you one more simple question, do you believe the far-fetched "hospital confession" story?


EXCERPTED FROM ABU-JAMAL-NEWS.COM:

Perhaps the clearest example of fabricated evidence used against Mumia, his alleged "confession," was suspiciously introduced two months after his arrest. When interviewed in February 1982 by the police Internal Affairs Bureau investigating Mumia's police brutality complaint, Officers Wakshul, Bell, and hospital security guard Priscilla Durham then reported Mumia's supposed "hospital confession" for the first time.

Mumia allegedly declared (in the presence of 15-20 other cops that have never confirmed it): "I shot the motherfucker and I hope the motherfucker dies!"

Testifying in 1982, Bell (Faulkner's partner and "best friend") claimed the over two month mental lapse (Bell first reported the "confession" on February 25, 1982) resulted from being so upset about Faulkner?s death.

At trial, Durham amended her statement to police by suddenly testifying that she had reported the confession to her supervisor the next day. While neither her supervisor or the alleged hand-written statement were presented in court, the DA sent an officer to the hospital--returning with a suspicious typed version of the alleged report.

Sabo accepted the paper (not signed or dated) despite both Durham's disavowal of it (because it was typed and not hand-written) and the defense?s protest that there was no establishment of authorship or authenticity.

Unfortunately, the jury never heard the most explosive evidence discrediting the confession. While the DA called Bell and Durham to testify, Wakshul was suspiciously absent. On the final day of testimony in 1982, Mumia's lawyer discovered Wakshul's statement from Dec.9?the morning of the shooting. After riding with Mumia to the hospital and guarding him until his treatment, Wakshul reported: "The Negro male made no comment."

When the defense immediately sought to call Wakshul as a witness?the DA reported that he was on vacation. On grounds that it was too late in the trial, Sabo denied the defense request to locate him for testimony. Subsequently, the jury never heard from Wakshul or about his written report. When an outraged Mumia protested, Sabo cruelly declared: "You and your attorney goofed."

Wakshul's "Negro male" report was key evidence at the PCRA hearings, and it was well-known that he would have to testify to defend his "confession" story. Unknown to Mumia's lawyers, on July 13 (days before his PCRA testimony) Wakshul was savagely beaten by undercover police officers in front of a Judge in the Common Pleas Courtroom where he worked as a court crier. Almost two years later, the two attackers (members of Philly's Vice Squad) were suspended without pay as punishment. With the motive still unexplained, the beating was likely used to intimidate Wakshul into maintaining his "confession" story at the PCRA hearings.

On the stand, Wakshul defended both his Dec.9 report and the two month delay as just being a bad mistake. Further discrediting the "confession" story, he repeated his incredible statement given to the IAB investigator in 1982: "I didn?t realize it had any importance until that day."

The original trial's injustice was further exposed when Wakshul testified to being home for his 1982 vacation?in accordance with explicit instructions to stay in town for the trial so that he could testify if called.

The "confession" story has been thoroughly discredited. As Amnesty International concluded: "The likelihood of two police officers and a security guard forgetting or neglecting to report the confession of a suspect in the killing of another police officer for more than two months strains credulity."

Regarding the general frameup, it has been extensively documented, and is certainly no far-fetched theory. Providing an honest and
practical breakdown of how the frame-up happened is conservative lawyer/journalist Stuart Taylor, who covered the 1995 PCRA hearings for the mainstream "American Lawyer" publication. This is the link to his article.

Jon, my question to you is: What do you dispute from this article?

http://www.courttv.com/archive/casefiles/mumia/guilty.html

Taylor argues that Mumia was clearly framed up and had nothing even resembling a fair trial before "hanging judge" Sabo. Calling for a new trial, Taylor argues that Mumia will most likely be released if he is granted a new trial. This is because of the extensive misconduct from police, prosecutor, and judge.

Most of the "Fry Mumia" lynch mob can at least privately acknowledge the frame-up and that is probably why they are so opposed to a new trial: because a new trial will be very favorable to Mumia.

Note also, in Taylor's follow-up article focusing on the testimony of Veronica Jones, (That police blackmailed her to deny seeing someone run away from the scene) he takes a stronger stance on Mumia's possible innocence (note that I do not agree with Taylor that Mumia probably did it, but this "probably did it" component of his theory adds more credibility to him, when he declares that Mumia was framed):

http://www.courttv.com/archive/casefiles/mumia/analysis.html

Interestingly, Taylor argues that if Mumia was the shooter, and if it was not legitimate self-defense, evidence "strongly suggests that if he did, it was closer to manslaughter than to cold-blooded murder"

By this scenario, Mumia's 25 years on death-row are more than sufficient punishment for manslaughter, and he should be released.

"MASSIVE FRAME-UP...mmmmm...that would involve several hundred people including Judges, local, State and Federal, the District Attorneys Office, Police from the Commissioner to the CSI, to the Homicide Detectives to the Police on the scene, to many TV stations and newspapers. Come-on...you can do better..can't you

Shades of C.S.I. Sir, you are watching to much tele. I happen to know Forbes and Shoemaker and their honesty is above reproach more than we can say for the unrepentant affirmed executioner Mumia. As to Forbes holding the weapons you will notice in the photo he is holding Faulkners weapon, a 4 inch S&W Police Special with oversized wood grips. Now unless the weapon has SMOOTH plastic grips you will NOT retrieve a print. Faulkners grips as well as the Killer Mumia's had etchings as most pistols do. Prints are best retrieved from the cylinder, barrel,or any smooth part including the ammo. Lesson two...The cab, along with the driver and all of the other EYEWITTNESS were escorted or driven to the Homicide Division ASAP on orders from the scene Supervisors. You may have forgotten Faulkner radioed for backup prior to being murdered by Mumia. You MAY also have FORGOTTON Forbes and Shoemaker arrived within 30 to 45 SECONDS after the murder and the only person standing was Billy Cook who stated...with his hands up.."I ain't got nuthin to do with this"..not my brother didn't do it..or the guy ran away or whatever bullshit story that fits their agenda. As to the hat, two different photos shot from different angels at TWO DIFFERENT TIMES (look around). Do you know for a FACT the hat on the VW was Faulkners...me don't think so. Now something about your post REALLY makes me laugh.I believe you posted Police removed Mumia's EMPTY gun from his holster and plant same on the ground...correct? Well, if your killer poster child was so smart, why would he be carring a pistol with spent ammo If I missed something I will repost

To Jon ?Proud to be a Stakeout Officer? Pisano: I have just one question for you.

What the hell is your colleague James Forbes doing in the newly discovered crime scene photos (view photos at Abu-Jamal-News.com) when he is holding the two guns on their handles?

We know for sure that Forbes perjured himself at Mumia?s trial when he said he protected the fingerprint & ballistics evidence on the two guns. But why did he do this? Forbes is either (1) an incompetent buffoon who has absolutely no idea how to handle important ballistics evidence from a homicide scene or (2) ---and I think this is most likely----he deliberately sabotaged the ballistics evidence, because he knew Mumia?s gun was not used to kill Faulkner.

Pacifica listeners should definitely check out the rest of the new crime scene photos, which can be viewed at the ?Journalists for Mumia? website: Abu-Jamal-News.com. The group is co-founded by German author Michael Schiffmann, who is the one that discovered these new crime scene photos, and who is featured in the Pacifica special. The site also featured the audio directly from the courtroom on May 17, as well as numerous articles by both Lindorff and Washington, who are featured in this Pacifica Special
Three more photos are displayed at the website.

A two-photo sequence shows that the police moved P.O. Faulkner?s hat from the roof of Abu-Jamal?s brother?s car, and placed it instead on the sidewalk in front of 1234 Locust where it was later photographed by the police photographer who arrived 10 minutes after Polakoff. As Mumia?s attorney comments on the moving hat, ?their moving the police officer?s hat from the roof of Billy Cook?s vehicle to the sidewalk to make the scene more emotionally dramatic was fraudulent and criminal. It was as if they were setting up a scene, putting in props for a movie to be shot. That is incredible.?

The last photo is of the large, empty space directly behind P.O. Faulkner?s car, where the second-most important prosecution witness, cab driver Robert Chobert, testified to have been parked when he claimed to have observed Abu-Jamal shoot Faulkner.
These new photos reveal just one part of the massive frameup against Mumia.

----------
The frame-up of Mumia is well-proven, as was conceded by conservative lawyer-journalist Stuart Taylor, who covered the 1995 PCRA hearings before the ?Hanging Judge.? This is his article ?Guilty and Framed? and note that in a later article he says that he now believes the evidence is stronger that Mumia may in fact be innocent: http://www.courttv.com/archive/casefiles/mumia/guilty.html

Also, regarding the previous reference to Phillip Bloch and the Vanity Fair article featuring his account of Mumia?s confession, check out:
http://www.pacificnews.org/jinn/stories/5.16/990811-mumia.html

Also, Jon, you said that Mumia supporters will never debate someone from the anti-Mumia side, but journalist Hans Bennett interviewed Peter Wirs here. What do you think of this? The full transcript is at this link.

http://insubordination.blogspot.com/2006/11/radio-interview-is-honoring-mumia_30.html

Like so many supporters of Jamal, Giorgio is woefully mis-informed.

If Rizzo wanted to punish someone for their journalism Mumia was not a likely candidate.

At the time of the shooting Jamal had been reduced to driving a cab because he could no longer provide for himself through his reportage. Because of his obsession with MOVE, Mumia had squandered not only his career, but also his home life.

It was the Philadelphia Inquirer which was giving Rizzo such a hard time for the tactics of the police, not Mumia.

The issue of the jurors is a red herring. There were black jurors. The prosecutor picked some as did Jamal, the prosecutor struck some as did Jamal. Jamal?s own attorney made the claim on the radio that the jury did not have many blacks because of Pennsylvania?s laws mandating that any juror on a capital case must be willing to impose the death penalty, not because of the racist actions of the Judge or prosecutor. Something Jamal?s attorney contended that most blacks would not do.

The racist comment allegedly made by Judge Sabo, was reportedly heard by a court stenographer in a robing room prior to jury selection. The stenographer, a Ms. Terri Maruer-Carter has some serious credibility issues pertaining to her claim. Most strikingly, she did not come forward with her information until August of 2001. As an acclaimed and accredited officer of the court, Ms. Carter had to know full well the implications of what she claimed to have heard and should have been professionally, if not morally obligated to tell someone, anyone, about what she allegedly heard. She provides no evidence that she did that until 2001.

Also, her affidavit is noticeably vague and rather short on details.

Perhaps a reason for this is the fact that Ms. Carter is no stranger to radical politics in the Philadelphia area, was opposed to the death penalty, and therefore had at least some motivation to falsify a statement in order to keep someone from being executed. To date their has been no corroboration of Carter?s assertion.

Jamal was allowed to attend his trial until he attempted to turn it into a MOVE-inspired circus.

When he did not like a ruling he would throw a fit. He attempted to make the courtroom a prisoner to his cultish devotion to John Africa and the judge wouldn?t have it. No appellate court has ever given Jamal?s argument about being tossed from the courtroom any play. The court transcripts are very clear on the issue and if Mr. Giorgio would take the time to read them, he might learn that. They are at danielfaulkner.com

(Tony Allen, blogger, former Jamal supporter who cares about justice)

Quote "respect the right of all living things"? Two examples of humans executed for doing their jobs, Officer James Ramp, murdered by the radical group MOVE. Officer Daniel Faulkner, shot in the BACK then executed by Mumia Abu Jamal.

"FAIR" TRIAL MUMIA PERIOD. THE TIME IS COMING FOR A REVOLUTION FOR ALL INJUSTICES AND INEQUALITIES THAT STILL IS PERMEATING IN ALL OF THE OLE FASCIST U.S. LET'S ALL REVOLT AGAINST DAIRY AND MEAT INDUSTRY WHILE WERE AT IT. ADOPT A VEGAN DIET AND RESPECT THE RIGHT FOR ALL LIVING BEINGS.

Mr Riva,as I posted before, I attended most of this trial and I can attest that Judge Sabo bent over backwards for Mumia but when the Judge made a ruling, Mumia did say, in a loud and arrogant manner, " you have not ruled to my satisfaction" As to the Judge sending more people to death row, you can research MOST of the trials were jury trials and it was the juries responsibility to impose the sentence. As to the so called remark, which incidentally was not reported until almost 20 YEARS later with no corroboration and denied by Sabo,is nothing but hearsay. Now as to jury selection, answer this, how many whites AND blacks did Mumia reject. His (Mumia's ) insistence (John Africa as my counsel even tho he was not an attorney) and badgering of the Judge led to Mumia being removed from the courtroom. He was always informed, by his attorney Mr. Jackson, as to the proceedings.

Sir, this affirmed killer with a silk toung, had a fair trial as reviewed my many judges and justices over the years and it is gullible people that have fallen for the slick "did not have a fair trial campaign'" waged by past and present attorneys and the radical Cop Killer group MOVE. Open your eyes to the truth and read the complete unedited trial transcripts at DanielFaulkner.com

His trial was marred with racism. The selection of the jury, where many Black candidates were disallowed, meant that Mumia had never the chance to present his case in front of a jury of his peers, which is a right enshrined in the US Constitution.

Judge Albert Sabo, who had put to death more defendants than anyone else in the history of US courts, was overheard saying that he would help "fry the n****r".

For most of his trial Mumia was not permitted to attend - the Judge Sabo regularly expelled him from the courtroom when Mumia tried to assert his constitutional right to defend himself.

The Philadelphia police, headed by the notorious Rizzo, wanted to punish Mumia for his corageous exposure of corruption and brutality.

Mumia must have a fair trial.

We are following his case from all over the world.

Giorgio
(Italian journalist, living in the UK)

In the Pacifica special on Mumia, "journalist" and author Dave Lindorff again took it upon himself to take a crass swipe at Maureen Faulkner.

If Lindorff was just some hack from a Marxist weekly with a circulation of three, than it might not be so big a deal. But Lindorff, in addition to writing a pro-Mumia book that was reviewed favorably by the Philadelphia Inquirer, has also written for the paper as well as other "mainstream" media outlets in the city. He has also written for Salon magazine ( http://www.salon.com/), Businessweek, The Nation, Rolling Stone, Mother Jones, Village Voice, Forbes, The London Observer and the Australian National Times.

In the interview, Lindorff made the claim that Maureen Faulkner had gone all around the country saying things that were "simply not true" about the case, and worse still, was pandering to bigots as she was purportedly working to "appeal to the worst instincts of white racists". Lindorff cited no proof of his claim, and being that it was pro-Mumia Pacifica Radio doing the interview, no proof was asked for.

I challenge Lindorff to provide one sentence or utterance when Maureen Faulkner exploited the race of her husband or that his killer as a means of inciting animus towards Jamal. Providing he cannot than I fully expect him to apologize. Not to me, but to Mrs. Faulkner who has had to endure enough abuses at the hands Jamal supporters that she need not be subjected to contrived allegations of racial exploitation.

For if any group of people in this equation has exploited the racial dynamics of the case it is the "free Mumia" crowd, of which Lindorff is a happy participant in, despite his own delusions of somehow being "independent", and above the fray. This is also not the first time that Lindorff has gone on the offensive against Maureen Faulkner. He also did so in his deeply flawed book on the case "Killing Time".

As a reviewer from the far-left website counterpunch.org , which itself has published some disturbingly inaccurate articles on the case noted, "None escape the scythe of Lindorff's truth-finding pen, not even the widow Maureen Faulkner, who lied to the media about a devilish gesture that Abu-Jamal could not have made at her."

In this instance, both Lindorff and the reviewer were wrong in their re-counting of an incident that has become part of the mythology of the Mumia movement. At issue was the fact that former Jamal attorney, Leonard Weinglass had led people into believing that Mrs. Faulkner was making impossible statements when she claimed that Mumia "turned and smiled at her after her husband?s blood stained shirt was displayed". Weinglass denied that Jamal was even in the courtroom when the shirt was put on display, but that was not the case. Court transcripts and media reports prove that Mumia was in the courtroom and so was Maureen Faulkner.

It is true that Lindorff and other apologists for Jamal have made half-hearted and obviously obligatory statements expressing sympathy for Maureen Faulkner, but their false acts of concern never deter them from unleashing their repugnant attacks.

And, of course by stepping into the public arena Mrs. Faulkner had to know that she would face critics who take issue with her position on the death penalty and opposition to all things Mumia.


But there is a distinct and clear-cut line between articulating a difference of opinion with someone and unfairly branding them as the leader of a racist lynch-mob as Lindorff did during his interview.

It should also be noted that Lindorff has repeatedly represented himself as an "objective journalist" and his book on Jamal's case an independant investigation into the murder of Officer Faulkner.

Even a cursory examination reveals that neither of Lindorff's claims regarding his journalistic integrity will prove that he is certainly partisan. He is decidedly pro-Jamal, and that his assertions to the contrary are but examples of his attempts to work within the contemptible "mainstream" media, as he did recently with the Philadelphia City Paper where he wrote an article about Jamal.

Back to Mrs. Faulkner, during one of Jamal?s many appeal hearings, as Maureen Faulkner was in the hallway, out of the courtroom, a supporter of Mumia, no doubt a courageous "revolutionary" spat upon her.

Obviously, it is not enough for Mumia supporters like Dave Lindorff ,that her husband was murdered. They expect her to be silent about it. And when she dares to speak out against the multitudes who are either ignorant or willfully deceitful with regards to the case, she is either spat upon or defamed by pro-Jamal zealots posing as objective journalists.

That she continues to act as a true "voice of the voiceless" in the face of such abuses is a testament to both her courage as well as her confidence that Mumia was without a doubt the man who killed her husband.

Hello Jenny. You are on the other side of the big pond, correct? Have you read the evidence/transcripts of the trial? And please, if you know, why is Mumia innocent. Do you know 2 Police Officers of the elite StakeOut Unit, of which I am proud to say I was a member, arrested Mumia ...now pay attention...30 to 45 SECONDS after he executed Officer Faulkner...his gun with 5 spent shells lay near him, an empty holster on him... several eyewitnesses..and you discount all of this?...Get real. Now, please tell us WHY Mumia is innocent of murder when this case was reviewed by over 12 judges and Justices. I guess you assume all were in on a giant conspiracy to frame this convicted affirmed murderer. The ball is in your court.

Mumia is an inspiration to us all. Set him free! He is innocent. Here in London we also have 'institutionalised racism' within our police and criminal law system, as exposed by the investigation into Stephen Lawrence's murder, and the lack of investigations into the murder of many others who have died in police custody. We have been watching Mumia's case with great interest, and listening to Pacifica too. Set him free and set all our spirits free!
Invest in caring, not killing,
Jenny

To Nell and any others, please point out, with facts and not opinion, why you believe Mumia did not execute Officer Faulkner.. period. Justice as to the trial.. what is your opinion on "he, Mumia, did not receive a fair trial"

Thank you, Pacifica for bringing Mumia's voice and story to the air with such respect and detail. His case points to the deeply racist system of justice that has been the rule here. Only through well reasoned challenges and with our suppport will justice prevail. This program is a call to action for Mumia when it counts, while he's still alive.

Mission response. "Racism"...Mumia executed Faulkner who was White sooo how do you turn that around? Please post FACTS as to why the "other side" claims Mumia is not the murderer.

A fine program no matter what you believe about guilt and innocence. The mission of this network is to tell the stories that aren't being told, to air unpopular notions, and to make space for differing points of views. Mission accomplished. There is no doubt that the role of racism in the criminal justice system needs to be explored, no doubt that there were extremely troubling factors in the original conviction and no doubt that a minimum, a new trial is called for. On those issues, all reasonable people should agree. After that, let the evidence be considered. He has been an amazing voice of clarity, compassion and humanity, whatever happened a long time ago, and justice is the issue here, not revenge.

Sidney & NY Guerrilla,

It seems like you both have a pretty strong opinion about our country's treatment of minorities especially the law enforcements community's behavior. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, it seems like you are working hard to "craft" the fact about this case to fit your theory. Maybe you should use the facts to craft your thoery instead of the other way around.

Comments posted by me were not proof read and contain spelling errors. I apologize

I have read several believe "Beverly" states he murdered Officer Faulkner. PURE FABRICATION. In Beverlys original posting of his so called "confession" he stated Officer Faulkner was going to check something at "Johnnys BAR" when Johnnys was a PIZZA shop and CLOSED at 4am when Mumia murdered the Police Officer. The story changed when I posted that fabrication. For those who doubt, I attended most of the trial when I was not at trial myself and Mumia's antics and those of the MOVE spectators only showed his/their twisted agenda. If you believe Mumia is innocent you are a fool, led by fooled fools. Now I CHALLANGE anyone including the killers attorneys to post why they believe Mumia DID NOT murder the Officer and substanciate that with FACTS. Give it your best shot...PLEASE...comeon...make my day

Thank you Pacifica for the program 'Racism and Injustice: The Trials of Mumia Abu-Jamal' hosted by Margaret Prescod. I couldn't disagree more with the accusations of Tony Allen and mpan18; these same points are being made by the people prosecuting the case. I appreciated the way the facts of Mumia's trial, hidden by corporate media, were clearly presented in the program. It was useful, as well, to get new information and learn about international support protesting this US miscarriage of justice. I was especially moved to hear Mumia discuss his own situation in the context of today's prison-industrial complex.

It's critical that the racism of jury selection and the entire legal process faced by Mumia be uncovered, both so this remarkable journalist and human being gets the new trial that justice demands, and also because the futures of other people of color facing the courts will be impacted if racism and injustice in his case are allowed to prevail.

we all know that several police groups are all pumped up about this case, fueling the lies against Mumia, but I don't think you two are going to get much support for your pro-police state point of view on the world on this site.

we all know that you pigs play with the evidence, extort any 'witnesses', and manipulate the 'judicial' system to the max for your typically racist and sexist ideology.

like Pete said below, the actual killer has already confessed. this is a no brainer, and Mumia should and will be free!!

I found this hagiographical and one-sided piece on Jamal's case misleading lacking in intellectual honesty.

I say this as someone who for many years was an active supporter of Mumia and who worked closely with other Mumia supporters at the International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia.

And while I am against the death penalty and believe the justice system rife with problems, the facts of Jamal's case point squarely at him being the murderer.

This piece on Pacifica was rife with errors. A number of which occured in the introduction alone. I could spend an hour or so spelling each out, but one that stands out is the claim that Officer Faulkner was shot with a .44 caliber handgun. Something that even Jamal's own former attorneys admitted was not true, as did Jamal's own ballistics expert.

If the case for Jamal's innocence was so strong than why could Pacifica not even allow one person to speak on behalf of his victim? The answer I think is rather obvious.

Get the facts about Mumia at danielfaulkner.com and antimove.blogspot.com

In 1999, Vanity Fair revealed that Phillip Bloch visited him in prison in 1992 and asked him whether he regretted killing Faulkner, to which it was reported that he replied:

? "Yes.?

A .38 caliber handgun he had purchased to defend himself as a cab driver in 1979 was found at the scene next to him, containing 5 spent shell casings.
Tests performed verify that Daniel Faulkner was killed by a .38 caliber bullet. The type, brand, and caliber of the extracted bullet all match those of the shell casings obtained from Abu-Jamal's Charter Arms revolver which was retrieved at the scene. That manufacturer is known for rifling the barrels of their revolvers with eight lands and grooves, variant to the six present in all other firearms.

Experts testified that the bullet taken from Abu-Jamal had been fired from Daniel Faulkner's service weapon. George Fassnacht, a ballistics expert proferred by the defense, did not dispute any of the prosecution's findings.

Excellent program- ! There is more - and you will find it as you get active- reach out and listen to Mumia's weekly radio commentaries at www.prisonradio.org

Because- only your action, your activism, your resistance and empowerment in any form that you can realize- will build the wave of justice that it will take to free Mumia.

Will Mumia's voice continue to reach the airwaves?
Will Mumia live or die? Does freedom of the press exist?

The answers to these questions depend on our independence, the depth of our courage, and our will to organize!

toward justice and freedom, Noelle Hanrahan

Ps send your mailing address to info@prisonradio.org and we will send you a poster 10things you can do to free Mumia and a resource guide.

Bravo to Pacifica for producing and providing this forum to tell the truth about Mumia's case. And the evidence speaks for itself, from judge Sabo (a man sick with a depraved level of racism) being overheard boasting of his intentions, to the actual killer coming forward -he even signed an affidavit confessing to being the hired gunman who killed officer Faulkner! No, it not right that a cop was killed, but it definitely is was not Mumia who shot him - and its a crime to put an innocent man on death row!

Why was he framed, and sent to death row - well, all one has to do is listen to how wise, and clearheaded Mumia is to understand why the state is afraid of this great man. Listen for yourself, there are hundreds of Mumia commentaries, thanks to Prison Radio, and FSRN for producing and distributing them! - Free Mumia - Free Mumia!!