Daniel J. Flynn

The ‘20s had Sacco and Vanzetti. The ‘50s had the Rosenbergs. The ‘70s had Angela Davis. Now campus activists in the 1990s have their very own cause du jour. Seventeen years ago, Mumia Abu-Jamal was sentenced to death for the 1981 killing of a Philadelphia police officer. Increasingly since that time, maintaining his innocence has been an article of faith among those on the far Left.

While making a routine traffic stop in the early morning hours of December 9, 1981, Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner was murdered. After Officer Faulkner pulled over and attempted to arrest William Cook, his brother, Mumia Abu-Jamal, then rushed into the area. Soon thereafter the policeman was shot and killed. After a trial that ended in the summer of 1982, Mumia Abu-Jamal, an activist journalist who had been involved with the Black Panthers and the Philadelphian radical group MOVE, was tried, convicted and sentenced to death.

At least five witnesses said they saw Abu-Jamal kill the policeman. A gun registered to Abu-Jamal was found by the suspect’s side. Abu-Jamal was wearing a holster. The gun at his side contained five spent shells. Five bullets were extracted from the slain officer that matched the shells found in Abu-Jamal’s gun. The journalist was hit with a return round from Officer Faulkner’s service revolver. Even William Cook, Abu-Jamal’s own brother, has never denied the guilt of his sibling.

Despite such seemingly convincing evidence, activism on behalf of Abu-Jamal is today more vibrant than ever. Take a walk on just about any large campus in the United States and you’re bound to encounter literature proclaiming the innocence of the man convicted of killing a Philadelphia police officer. A group of more than 700 scholars called Academics for Mumia Abu-Jamal (AMAJ)—including such luminaries as Nobel Prize winning author Toni Morrison, French deconstructionist Jacques Derrida, historian Howard Zinn, former attorney general Ramsey Clark, and writer Alice Walker—is currently working for his release. A petition drive is underway at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington to make the imprisoned Abu-Jamal this year’s commencement speaker. The recent wave of activity will culminate in a planned national student walkout on April 23 on behalf of the incarcerated journalist, to be followed by a "Millions for Mumia" march on Philadelphia’s city hall on April 24. Pam Africa, a leader of the Philadelphia-based organization MOVE, told Campus Report that "hundreds of thousands, if not millions" are expected to gather in the City of Brotherly Love for the event.

In an interview, a representative of the International Concerned Friends and Family of Mumia Abu Jamal, an organizer of the event, told Campus Report, "I think Daniel Faulkner deserved to die." The Philadelphia-based activist, who goes by the name "Marcos," called the slain officer’s widow "a flake" who’s "either a liar or has delusions" and said he didn’t know or care if Abu-Jamal killed a police officer.

"It doesn’t make any difference who shot Faulkner," he opined "He was beating Mumia’s little brother with a metal flashlight. He was armed and dangerous and the only way to deal with him was to shoot him."

Abu-Jamal’s strong support within academia first began to heavily permeate the outside world several years ago. The city of Santa Cruz, California issued a proclamation calling for a new trial, while San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown followed suit by naming August 16, 1997 as a citywide "Justice for Mumia Abu-Jamal Day." A year earlier a group in Copenhagen barricaded themselves in the Danish Parliament and hoisted a "Free Mumia" banner outside a window for the international press.

Sympathetic pop-culture references to Abu-Jamal are more commonplace as well. Earlier this year, popular music acts the Beastie Boys and Rage Against the Machine played a controversial arena benefit concert for the death row inmate at the Meadowlands in East Rutherford, New Jersey. The January 13 episode of the NBC television series Law and Order contained a scene suggesting that Abu-Jamal was set-up. A female district attorney explains to the character "Briscoe" that she can’t talk because she has to go to a fundraising dinner for Mumia Abu-Jamal. "You mean the Philadelphia cop-killer?" detective Briscoe responds. "I mean the Philadelphia journalist," she defiantly retorts. "He was framed for the murder, you know." A web site sympathetic to Abu-Jamal enthusiastically reports that "the woman’s viewpoint is shown by the whole drift of the episode to be right."

Could it be that an innocent man was sentenced to death almost 17 years ago? Many of Abu-Jamal’s supporters seem to think so and demand that he be set free. Shaped by the disastrous police bombing of the MOVE headquarters in May of 1985, many Philadelphia-based Mumia supporters believe that area police are capable of doing anything to frame one who was so steadfast in his attacks upon the local system of criminal justice. Opposition to the death penalty, racism and the criminal justice system fuel the activism of others involved in the issue. What does the evidence say?

What Did the Eyewitnesses See?

Central to the vast amount of literature promoting a frame up in the case is the notion that there were several eyewitnesses attesting that someone else killed Officer Faulkner in the early morning hours of December 9, 1981. Abu-Jamal’s current attorney, Leonard Weinglass, states that "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 have him going in precisely the same direction."

Court transcripts, as well as subsequent statements by the four individuals in question, paint a far different picture than the one presented by Weinglass. No credible witness has ever claimed to see anyone but Mumia Abu-Jamal kill the policeman. Remarkably, one of the witnesses that Weinglass says exonerates his client, Robert Chobert, has fingered Abu-Jamal as the killer several times and has never recanted.

The other three witnesses claimed by Weinglass to support his case have always denied that they were at the immediate crime scene when the murder took place—one was watching television, another was blocks away, while a third was in a parking lot behind a building. Two of these witnesses, as well as Mr. Chobert, all said that they saw people running around the scene of the crime—not fleeing the scene—in the chaotic minutes after the police arrived.

Typical of the reactions to Mr. Weinglass’ interpretation—an interpretation that concluded that those rushing around the crime scene were necessarily fleeing—is Debra Kordansky’s. Kordansky is one of the people the defense team claims saw someone else kill the policeman and flee. When asked by Weinglass in court about a mystery man escaping the area, Kordansky scoffed at his deliberate mischaracterization of her statements. "No, I think the runner was part of the flow of the whole situation. There was a man killed, there’s panic. Someone was running, maybe two people are running, maybe three people are running, you know. There’s police, there’s news crews, etc."

In a 1996 statement given to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s Eastern District, Veronica Jones retracted statements she made under oath at the original trial thirteen years earlier. Her denials of seeing men run away from the scene, she now maintains, were coerced by the police. While Jones still only purports to have peeked at the crime scene "a few minutes later," she now explains that she "did see two men leave the scene in a hurry as was reported by me to the police in an earlier signed interview." Jones has changed her story several times since 1981, admits to drinking and smoking marijuana heavily that day, and, like key prosecution witness Cynthia White, was working as a prostitute on the night in question.

The one witness who claims to have seen someone other than Abu-Jamal kill Faulkner has been consistently labeled by the defense as "a person whose recollection of what happened on the night in question we believe to be not entirely accurate." Mr. William Singletary bizarrely claims that Abu-Jamal was clothed in a "safari suit like the Arabs wear" on the night of the murder. He states that he observed a police helicopter "circling overhead" (the Philadelphia police department did not own one) that escaped the notice of everyone else in the area. And he states that the passenger in William Cook’s car shot Officer Faulkner.

While there aren’t any credible eyewitnesses who saw anyone but Abu-Jamal kill Faulkner—even Mumia and his brother have never claimed to have seen another shooter—there are at least five people who testified that the man later convicted of the crime did in fact kill the policeman. Eyewitnesses Michael Scanlon, Robert Harkins, Cynthia White, Robert Chobert and Albert Magelton all pin the murder on the man arrested at the scene by the police: Mumia Abu-Jamal.

Did the Bullets Come From Mumia’s Gun?

Supporters of Abu-Jamal contend that ballistics tests prove Abu-Jamal to be innocent. "Ballistically there’s nothing to tie Mumia to even firing the gun," insisted Pam Africa to Campus Report. A scrap of paper with ".44" scribbled on it is proof enough that the .38 caliber spent shells found in Mumia’s gun do not match the bullets extracted from the officer’s corpse, his defenders say. Yet the notation made on the piece of paper was not penned by a ballistics expert or a policeman, but by a medical examiner without any training in this area. The examiner testified that his notes on such matters are "normally discarded," and made his determination by using a standard household ruler.

Ballistics tests on the bullets retrieved from Officer Faulkner’s body showed rifling groves that matched the chamber of the gun found beside the suspect, a gun that was purchased by and registered to Mumia Abu-Jamal. Spent shells found in Abu-Jamal’s gun were all ".38 Caliber Special P+" ammunition, identically matching the rounds that were shot into Officer Faulkner’s body.

Abu-Jamal’s own ballistics analyst, George Fassnacht, testified that the bullets that hit Officer Faulkner were not .44 caliber and to this day he refuses to view the physical evidence. Despite this, the defense team still clings to their theory that the writing of ".44" on a torn sheet of paper—by a doctor untrained in ballistics—demonstrates that the spent shells and the bullets that hit Faulkner don’t match.

Nor does the defense team explain how a gun registered to Mumia Abu-Jamal was found laying by his side at the crime scene, how it contained five spent shells of the same make as the bullets that killed Officer Faulkner, or why he was wearing a holster.

Was the Trial Fair?

Among the claims of those making the trek to Philadelphia this month for the "Millions for Mumia" event are that the jury was racially biased, suitable legal representation was denied to the defendant, and that the trial was politicized by the prosecution.

The jury that was seated for trial included nine whites and three blacks. Despite protestations by the defense that the jury was stacked with whites, its racial make-up almost identically mirrored the demographics of Philadelphia at that time. Among the claims at a 1997 appeal was a defense allegation that the dismissal of a black juror during the original trial was designed to add more whites to the jury. The court pointed out the real reason for the juror’s dismissal: "This particular juror openly expressed a dislike for [Abu-Jamal]. Appellant now relies on that discussion to argue that the court actually ‘engineered’ the removal of this juror. His claim is devoid of merit."

Another of Abu-Jamal’s complaints in his recent appeal was that he was denied an adequate defense at the original trial. As the court pointed out in the rejection of the appeal, the defendant initially "insisted on proceeding with an individual known as John Africa who was not a licensed attorney and had apparently never received any formal legal schooling." Ignoring the maxim that "a man who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client," Abu-Jamal then demanded to represent himself after Judge Sabo rejected Mr. Africa. While the accused killer was briefly allowed to act as his own attorney, he was barred from doing so after constantly disrupting the court with ideologically-laced harangues. Judge Sabo then appointed a licensed attorney to take over the defense. The court-appointed lawyer had previously defended 20 murder cases, winning a majority of them. Despite Abu-Jamal’s current claims that Judge Sabo sabotaged his case, any reasonable person would deduce that the judge’s actions were in the defendant’s best interests.

As is clear to anyone who cares to read the trial transcript, it was Mumia Abu-Jamal, not the prosecution, who politicized the trial by unnecessarily bringing up his beliefs and opinions. Typical of Abu-Jamal’s courtroom rantings, as is pointed out by the website supporting justice for Daniel Faulkner (www.danielfaulkner.com), was his statement prior to sentencing: "This decision today proves neither my guilt nor my innocence. It proves merely that the system is finished. Babylon is falling! Long live MOVE! Long live John Africa!"

Was There a Conspiracy to Silence Abu-Jamal?

Refuse & Resist, perhaps the group most organized to gain freedom for Mumia Abu-Jamal, claims that there’s an ongoing "high level conspiracy" to imprison the former Black Panther member because of his effectiveness in exposing the injustice of America’s capitalist society. The conspirators, Refuse & Resist believe, include the courts and "Philadelphia’s swinest," who in this case engaged in "the normal police practice of fabricating evidence and framing defendants." Refuse & Resist advises readers of its web page "to stop and remember that the police are not just another criminal syndicate. They ‘serve and protect’ wealth and power in this society."

Abu-Jamal worked as a cabdriver and a freelance journalist at the time of the murder. He was not an award-winning reporter, nor did his writings and commentaries reach a sizable audience, as has been suggested. He was barely noticed by the police and even less recognizable to the media-consuming public.

In prison Abu–Jamal writes a regular column, has had radio commentaries broadcast on Pacifica Radio, and released several widely purchased books. If the police really did frame Abu-Jamal in hopes of silencing him, they couldn’t have partaken in a more ill-advised act. Even Mumia’s supporters brag that his voice is now louder than ever.

More Cut and Dry Than the O.J. Simpson Trial

On December 9, 1981, Mumia Abu-Jamal murdered Officer Daniel Faulkner in cold blood. Abu-Jamal was found with a holster strapped around his chest. A smoking gun that was registered in his name lay by his side. Five spent shells were found in Abu-Jamal’s gun. Five bullets were fired at Officer Faulkner. Ballistics tests demonstrated that the rounds that killed Faulkner matched the ones fired from Abu-Jamal’s gun. Abu-Jamal lay on the ground with a return round from Officer Faulkner’s service revolver imbedded in his chest. Five eyewitnesses have testified that they saw Abu-Jamal kill Officer Faulkner. Witnesses at the hospital Abu-Jamal was taken to following the shooting state that on two occasions the ailing suspect yelled out, "I shot the motherfucker and I hope the motherfucker dies!" Despite dozens of reasons given by campus activists to the contrary, Abu-Jamal is clearly guilty of murder. As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said in denying his recent appeal, "no number of failed claims may collectively attain merit where they could not do so individually." Many of his supporters—drawn to the case because of the former journalist’s political views—even privately doubt his innocence

It is difficult to think of any recent high-profile murder case that is more cut and dry. Even the celebrated O.J. Simpson trial—whose only crime-scene eyewitness was a dog—does not come close to the case against Abu-Jamal with regard to the clarity of guilt. And yet, scores of actors, rock stars, politicians, campus activists, and academics label the case a miscarriage of justice. Later this month they will all come together and descend upon City Hall in Philadelphia, not to mourn Officer Faulkner’s death, but to celebrate his killer.


http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/1999/april_1999_2.html

let's go.

"On December 9, 1981, Mumia Abu-Jamal murdered Officer Daniel Faulkner in cold blood. Abu-Jamal was found with a holster strapped around his chest. A smoking gun that was registered in his name lay by his side. Five spent shells were found in Abu-Jamal’s gun. Five bullets were fired at Officer Faulkner. Ballistics tests demonstrated that the rounds that killed Faulkner matched the ones fired from Abu-Jamal’s gun. Abu-Jamal lay on the ground with a return round from Officer Faulkner’s service revolver imbedded in his chest. Five eyewitnesses have testified that they saw Abu-Jamal kill Officer Faulkner. Witnesses at the hospital Abu-Jamal was taken to following the shooting state that on two occasions the ailing suspect yelled out, "I shot the motherfucker and I hope the motherfucker dies!" Despite dozens of reasons given by campus activists to the contrary, Abu-Jamal is clearly guilty of murder. As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said in denying his recent appeal, "no number of failed claims may collectively attain merit where they could not do so individually." Many of his supporters—drawn to the case because of the former journalist’s political views—even privately doubt his innocence "

...he did it.

Now, I'm curious how the libbies/annies can seriously say he's innocent?

Without the use of recreational chemicals, that is.

I actually believe that there are WMD's in Iraq, so what do I know? Not a whole hell of a lot!

All the proof you need.

here's a different take,once again:

Yet Another Witness Comes Forward and Refutes The frame-Up Of Mumia
Abu-Jamal!
(April 27, 2003) http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news

By STEVE ARGUE
Under oath, and with a man’s life on the line, hospital security guard Priscilla Durham testified that she heard Mumia Abu-Jamal yell out as he lay bleeding in the hospital, "I shot the motherf---er and I hope he dies."

In the original police report by Officer Gary Wakshul, who was with Mumia the entire time through his arrest and medical treatment, Wakshul stated, "during this time the Negro male made no comment." Yet Gary Wakshul stated later that he heard Mumia confess that night. Gary Wakshul didn't "remember" this confession until almost three months after Mumia's arrest when prosecutor McGill met with police asking for a confession. Officer Wakshul absurdly stated that he didn't think the confession was important at the time he wrote his original report. Despite the importance of this evidence a jury has never been allowed to hear Wakshul’s original report.

Security guard Priscilla Durham’s testimony has now been refuted by yet another eyewitness. The half- brother of Priscilla Durham, Kenneth Pate, submitted a declaration through Mumia’s lawyers in the U.S. Court of Appeals and in the Third Circuit Court on April 24, 2003 stating that, “I read a newspaper article about the Mumia Abu-Jamal case. It said Priscilla Durham had testified at Mumia's trial that when she was working as a security guard at the hospital she heard Mumia say that he had killed the police officer. When I read this I realized it was a different story from what she had told me.”

Instead Kenneth Pate asked her, ‘"Did you hear him say that?” [I shot the motherf---er and I hope he dies.] " Priscilla answered, "All I heard him say was: 'Get off me, get off me, they're trying to kill me."

In the affidavit Kenneth Pate also states, “She said that when the police brought him in that night she was working at the hospital. Mumia was all bloody and the police were interfering with his treatment, saying ‘let him die.’ Priscilla said that the police told her that she was part of the "brotherhood" of police since she was a security guard and that she had to stick with them and say that she heard Mumia say that he killed the police officer…”

Despite the importance of this new affidavit, directly contradicting testimony that put Mumia on death row, a court clerk is refusing to file the new evidence and its accompanying remand motion for the evidence to be heard in a lower court. As Mumia’s attorneys have stated in a press release, “the clerk's refusal to file the motion was ‘an unlawful act of bureaucratic usurpation’ which violated Mumia's rights under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”

In response on May 7, 2003 attorneys for Mumia Abu-Jamal were forced to file a motion in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court asking the court to order its clerk to file the remand motion. This clerk's obstruction of justice is just the most recent refusal by the courts to hear evidence of Mumia's innocence, but in the past these decisions had been made by judges.

The statement of Kenneth Pate is only the latest testimony that comes together to prove that Mumia Abu-Jamal is a political prisoner and the victim of a government conspiracy to frame him and put him on death row in 1981.

The frame-up trial of Mumia 21 years ago included the testimony of three eyewitnesses (Veronica Jones, William Singletary, and Robert Chobert) who later said they were threatened, coerced, or made promises by the police to get them to give false testimony against Mumia.

Facing protest and international pressure in support of framed political prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal Federal Judge Yohn threw out Mumia’s death sentence on December 18th 2001. Judge Yohn's ruling, while possibly sparing Mumia the death penalty, did not overturn Mumia's conviction or grant him a new trial based on new proof of his innocence.

This decision is under appeal by the State of Pennsylvania, which is trying to reinstate Mumia’s death penalty sentence. In addition, political pressure is being applied by Pennsylvania Governor (D) Ed Randell for the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal. Ed Randell, a racist Democrat Party leader, promised the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal when he ran for governor.

Mumia’s attorneys have also appealed Yohn’s ruling and continue to fight to have the evidence heard and Mumia freed.

In earlier sentencing Mumia had been given the death penalty largely based on arguments that he had been a member of the Black Panther Party. This sentencing, based on political beliefs, was in violation of Mumia's 1st Amendment rights. Former membership in the Black Panther Party was used against Mumia effectively. This is largely because of the way the Black Panther Party was falsely portrayed in the corporate media while the FBI, working with local police departments, carried out a systematic campaign of murder and frame-ups against the members of the Black Panther Party in 1969 and 1970 killing 39 members.

While Mumia Abu-Jamal survived that period of bloody political repression in American history, he was later framed up for a 1981 crime he did not commit.

As a freelance journalist Mumia exposed the murderous police brutality and political repression carried out by the police against the MOVE organization in Philadelphia. That murderous repression was then directed at Mumia Abu-Jamal in 1981 when the Philadelphia Police shot Mumia, beat him, and interfered with his medical treatment. Failing to murder Mumia in the street and in the hospital the Philadelphia Police and DA then framed him on the false charge of murder on Police Officer Faulkner.

In May of 2001 Mumia's attorneys dropped a legal bombshell by submitting into court a sworn affidavit that contains the confession of Arnold Beverly to the murder that Mumia is accused of committing.

The new evidence that both state and federal courts have refused to hear include the confession of Arnold Beverly who states in his sworn affidavit, "I shot Faulkner at close range." Beverly also states very clearly, "Faulkner was shot in the back and in the face before Jamal came on the scene. Jamal had nothing to do with the shooting."

Arnold Beverly's confession is corroborated by eyewitness statements and forensic evidence. Beverly says he was wearing a green army jacket the night he shot Faulkner. William Singletary was there the night of the shooting. He says he saw a man shoot Faulkner and it was not Mumia. He also states that the actual killer was wearing a green army jacket.

Four eyewitnesses, including two cops, put a man wearing a green army jacket on the scene. Five eyewitnesses described a man fleeing the scene the way Beverly describes he did. Mumia of course was not running anywhere, he was lying on the ground with a bullet in his chest.

According to Arnold Beverly, Mumia arrived on the scene after Beverly had already shot Faulkner. Beverly says that Mumia was then shot by an arriving officer. The prosecution claims that Mumia was shot by Faulkner in self defense as Faulkner laid on the ground dying. Yet Beverly's story does fit with forensic evidence and the report of a cop at the scene that night. The cop stated that Mumia was shot by an arriving officer. The downward trajectory of the bullet into Mumia's chest also makes it physically impossible for Faulkner to have shot Mumia from the ground. In fact five hours after the shooting a police medical examiners report states that Mumia "was shot subsequently by arriving police reinforcements."

On every level Arnold Beverly's sworn confession to a capital offense is in fact backed up by evidence, while the prosecutions version of events is not. This, however, has not been cause enough for the prosecution to reconsider pushing for the execution and jailing of an innocent man. Instead they have successfully argued in court that the new evidence was not brought forward in a timely manner.

Ramona Africa spoke on this point at demonstration of 3,000 for Mumia on August 17th 2001 stating, "Judge Dembe has said she wants, in three weeks, some briefs to determine whether or not it's too late to prove his innocence, whether or not this information comes too late. We're saying it's never too late! What is she talking about, too late?… We aint interested in legalities. We're interested in what's right. Slavery was legal, but that wasn't right! Apartheid was legal but that wasn't right! The murder of Shaka Sankofa down in Texas, despite his innocence, was legal but that wasn't right! We don't care about legality. We care about justice and what is right."

In State court Mumia's attorney, Eliot Grossman put forward important legal arguments on why the 60-day limit should not apply to Beverly's confession, which was first made in 1999. He pointed out that Mumia's former, and fired, legal team of Leonard Weinglass and Dan Williams misinformed Mumia that they were investigating Arnold Beverly's confession when in fact they never had any intention of presenting it for evidence. Williams makes this point clear in his new book "Executing Justice" where he states that he doesn't believe the Beverly confession and that he doesn't believe the police would ever frame up an innocent man. These attorneys allowed the 60-day time line to expire without Mumia's permission or knowledge.

Mumia fired Weinglass and Williams after Williams betrayed attorney client confidentiality in May 2001 by publishing the money making book, "Executing Justice," purported to be an insiders account of Mumia's case. The publication of the book at a critical time in Mumia's appeal process shows that Williams was not looking out for Mumia's legal interests. Weinglass also knew the book was coming out, but did not inform Mumia. This, like their treatment of the Arnold Beverly confession, was a betrayal of the interests of their client and shows that they were not adequately representing him.

In federal court Judge Yohn has ruled that Beverly's confession is inadmissible citing the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996. The act, among other things, sets a time limit of one year for death row inmates to present new evidence. Yohn echoed the prosecution by falsely stating the "petitioner chose not to present his claim to the state court or even to this court until May 2001."

Yohn's chilling decision also cited the infamous 1993 Herrera decision that proof of innocence is no bar for execution.

These rulings and statements of both Judge Dembe and Judge Yohn, along with those of Judge Sabo before them, are in effect saying that an American capitalist court of law is no place for evidence proving innocence.

On September 4th of last year Terri Maurer-Carter, an official court stenographer in the courts where Mumia was framed, came forward with more information on the state of mind of Judge Sabo during the trial. She states in an affidavit submitted last year, "Judge Sabo and another person were engaged in conversation. Judge Sabo was discussing the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. During the course of that conversation, I heard Judge Sabo say, "Yeah, and I'm going to help them fry the n______." There were three people present when Judge Sabo made that remark, including myself."

Judge Sabo presided over Mumia's original frame-up trial, but he didn't just do that. He came out of retirement to rule against Mumia at subsequent appeal hearings on whether or not Mumia got a fair trial. At these hearings Sabo ruled that Sabo had not violated Mumia's legal rights by denying him legal representation of his choice and denying him the right to attend his own trial.

Judge Sabo also ruled for the prosecution against the admissibility of the testimony of a key eyewitness in the original trial, Veronica Jones, who stated that she was coerced through threats from the police into giving false testimony against Mumia in the original trial. Jones was a prostitute who says that the police threatened her with prison on warrants and of taking her children away if she didn't say what the police wanted. She was later arrested off of the witness stand on a petty warrant while she told the truth testifying at a hearing for a new trial for Mumia. This testimony was important evidence of the fact that a frame-up had taken place. Yet Sabo did not allow a new trial based on this information or any of the other evidence brought forward.

In addition Judge Albert Sabo barred Mumia Abu-Jamal from his own trial claiming that Mumia was barred for being disruptive. Yet court records have now revealed that Sabo barred Mumia from his trial at the request of Mumia's incompetent and now disbarred defense attorney at the time, Anthony Jackson. This court appointed attorney made his request on the grounds that Mumia was about to fire him and would if Mumia wasn't barred from the trial. Sabo's granting of Jackson's request was a clear violation of Mumia's right to legal representation of his choice and of his right to be present at his own trial.

Another key ingredient missing in the prosecution's case against Mumia is a motive. Beverly's confession, however, does contain a clear motive. Beverly states, "I was hired, along with another guy, and paid to shoot and kill Faulkner. I had heard that Faulkner was a problem for the mob and corrupt policemen because he interfered with the graft and payoffs made to allow illegal activity including prostitution, gambling, drugs without prosecution in the center city area."

The entire chain of police command that "investigated" Mumia have in fact since been removed from the Philadelphia police force for corruption. At the time Faulkner was killed in December 1981, the FBI was involved in at least three investigations of the police in the center city area for corruption including extortion and bribery connected to the mob, prostitution, after-hours clubs, and gambling in the center city area. Targeted in the FBI investigation were Inspector Alphonzo Giordono, the senior cop at the scene of Faulkner's shooting, James Carlinini, head of homicide, and John DeBenedetto, head of the division where Faulkner worked.

Witnesses and informants in the FBI investigation were murdered. This included a witness who testified against DeBenedetto in 1983.

Police concern that Faulkner may have been an FBI informant could easily have led to his murder. Donald Hersing who was a source for the FBI at the time testifies in an affidavit for the defense that the Philadelphia cops were very concerned about possible FBI informants at the time. In a similar situation the LAPD Rampart cop who blew the whistle on police corruption and murder in LA was released from prison in 2001. He immediately went into hiding out of fear for his life from fellow officers.

Attorney Eliot Grossman stated at a press conference, "Mumia Abu-Jamal was in the wrong place at the wrong time when a hit was in progress on a police officer causing problems interfering with police corruption." But for the Philadelphia police he was at the right place at the right time. Mumia had exposed the murderous police violence used against the MOVE organization. Corrupt police officers used the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone.

What we do makes a difference, however. The government's attempt to murder Mumia Abu-Jamal in 1995 was halted by mass protests, including 10,000 people in Philadelphia, and international support. Those actions stopped Mumia’s execution within days of it being scheduled to take place. Continued support for Mumia Abu-Jamal in the streets will be necessary to keep Mumia alive and to free him.

Mumia has sat on death row for the past 21 years, removed from his family. Yet he now stands out as an uncompromising voice for the oppressed and exploited. Many have called him the voice of the voiceless.

The many prominent supporters of Mumia Abu-Jamal include the European Parliament, Nelson Mandela, the Japanese Diet, the Congressional Black Caucus, The Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sam Jordan, Leonard Peltier, and many unions in the United States and around the world.

In addition, Mumia Abu-Jamal has been made an honorary citizen of Paris by the French City Council. That honor was last bestowed on Pablo Picasso in 1971.

Mumia stands up for unions, against war, against racism, for equality for gays and lesbians, for the poor, and against the many injustices of the so-called criminal justice system. Mumia speaks up on many of the issues ignored, lied about, or glossed over by the corporate media and the corporate politicians. We need Mumia, yes we need him alive, but we also need him free. Yet all of the evidence shows that Mumia won't get justice in America's courts unless we turn up the heat.

For protests, teach-ins, and strikes (like the west coast 1998 longshoreman’s strike for Mumia) to: Free Mumia Abu-Jamal! Do not reinstate the death sentence for Mumia! All new evidence should be heard! Abolish the Racist Death Penalty! For a socialist revolution in the United States to free all political prisoners and charge the police for their crimes!

The homepage for Liberation News can be found at
http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news

People may subscribe to the list by sending email to
liberation_news-subscribe@lists.riseup.net


lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news

I'll take the posting of a long winded conspiracy theory model of cooke's "frameup" which TOTALLY sidesteps the OVERWHELMING and DAMNING evidence of ballistics tests as a timid acceptance of his ultimate guilt.

Argue all you want about framups and he said/she said witness testimony. After 17 years a million people habe said a million things. One fact has been written in stone however beyond any doubt.

Cooke's gun fired the 5 bullets that were found in and murdered Officer Faulkner.

Obfuscate all you want, but you'll never change that.

"The many prominent supporters of Mumia Abu-Jamal include the European Parliament, Nelson Mandela, the Japanese Diet, the Congressional Black Caucus, The Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sam Jordan, Leonard Peltier, and many unions in the United States and around the world.

In addition, Mumia Abu-Jamal has been made an honorary citizen of Paris by the French City Council.
"

Great! He's supported by Peltier (another cop killer) and the French.

Sounds like a real winner.

I do however enjoy the fact that the only attempt at refutation is a repost of the conspiracy theory model of "mumia" defense.

This tired diatribe always manages to dodge the bottom line facts that ballistic tests proved absolutely that the five bullets that murdered Office Faulkner were unequivicably fired from the gun found next to and registered to Cooke.

End of story.

In the early morning hours of Dec. 9, 1981, Officer Faulkner
pulled over Abu-Jamal's brother at 13th and Locust Street. A
scuffle ensued and Abu-Jamal -- a journalist who moonlighted
as a cab driver and who was sitting in his taxi nearby --
ran to the scene where he was shot by the officer. According
to the medical examiner's initial report, Faulkner was shot
five times with a .44 caliber gun.

Although Abu-Jamal had a gun that he was licensed to carry
-- he had been robbed shortly before the incident and like
many cab drivers in Philadelphia he carried a gun for
protection -- his registered gun was a .38, not a .44. The
medical examiner later testified that the bullet that killed
Faulkner could have been fired from a .38.

http://www.cb3rob.net/~merijn89/mumia/msg00064.html

LIE:Mumia's gun was a .38, while the bullet that killed Faulkner was a .44 cal.

FACT: Faulkner was killed by a .38. Ballistics tests have proved beyond any doubt that Mumia's gun was the murder weapon. Even Mumia's defense-paid ballistics expert has admitted under oath that it was "probably" Mumia's gun which was the murder weapon. There is no ballistics evidence whatsoever to suggest otherwise. A medical examiner with no ballistics training recovered the bullet from Faulkner's body and guessed that it might have been a .44 cal. The defense has grasped at this off-hand comment as "proof" that Mumia was framed! The medical examiner has testified that he has no ballistics training and is not qualified to testify as to the calibre of the bullet.

The overwhelming evidence, with 10,000 people, the European Parliament, Nelson Mandela, the Japanese Diet, the Congressional Black Caucus, The Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sam Jordan, Leonard Peltier, and many unions in the United States and around the world and the French City Council are all wrong while fresca is right.

And of course since there's no question of his guilt that's why they executed him years ago...

Is the evidence still available to examine?
Such as the bullets and pistol? Sometimes evidence in dispute disappears.
This is a point I am curious about.

It doesn't matter what any of these others think. I highly doubt a single one of them has read the court transcripts.

The jury convicted him based on the evidence.
The appeals court failed to overturn the verdict, based on the evidence, transcripts, and any new evidence.

He killed a cop. He's paying the penalty. Case closed.

it doesn't matter.
Let's see the ballistic evidence. Is it there?

The ballistics evidence is all over the net as are the court transcripts. Do a search. You'll find it.

The question is whether you'll believe it once you see it.

MYTH #1

Those who support Mumia Abu-Jamal often allege that the bullet removed from Officer Faulkner's brain was .44 caliber. Jamal's gun -- found on the ground next to him at the crime scene -- was a .38 caliber revolver. Therefore, his supporters argue, Jamal couldn't have fired the shot that killed Officer Faulkner.

When asked to provide proof to support this allegation, Jamal's supporters point to a handwritten note made by Assistant Medical Examiner, Dr. Paul Hoyer. Dr. Hoyer's note said, "shot 44 Cal".

Dr. Hoyer testified at the 1995 PCRA Hearing and explained that his 1981 note merely reflected his speculation at what caliber the bullet might be, made when he first saw the wound and before he started the autopsy. The note was written on a piece of scrap paper, and was not a part of (and was never intended to be a part of) his professional findings.

Some of Jamal's supporters, including his attorneys, have now altered this ".44 caliber" myth, and now argue that that there may be several fragments of the bullet "missing," and that if these fragments were the correct size and weight, they would prove that the bullet was .44 caliber. They have never offered any evidence, of any kind, to support this theory.




BRIEF REBUTTAL

Official ballistics tests done on the fatal bullet verify that Officer Faulkner was killed by a .38 caliber bullet, not a .44 caliber bullet. The fatal .38 slug was a Federal brand Special +P bullet with a hollow base (the hollow base in a +P bullet was distinctive to Federal ammunition at that time). It is the exact type (+P with a hollow base), brand (Federal), and caliber (.38) of bullet found in Jamal's gun. Additionally, tests have proven that the bullet that killed Officer Faulkner was fired from a weapon with the same rifling characteristics as Jamal's .38 Caliber revolver. Further, Jamal's own ballistics expert, George Fassnacht, conceded in his 1995 PCRA testimony that the fatal bullet was not .44 caliber, and that it was most "likely" a .38. Although the D.A.'s officer offered in open court to let Jamal's attorneys test the fatal bullet, they refused this offer, and have never offered any alternative test results to counter the above evidence. Dr. James Hoyer's handwritten notation on a piece of scrap paper certainly does not constitute such evidence. Dr. Hoyer, a medical doctor who has had no formal ballistics training, has never claimed that he was able to determine the caliber of the bullet. He plainly testified in 1995 that what he wrote was a "guess." Furthermore, Dr. Hoyer testified that, after writing this guess, he had measured the bullet with a standard ruler. Although he acknowledged that this was not the accepted scientific method by which to gage the caliber of a bullet, his rough measurement was consistent with the slug being .38 caliber, and not a .44. Finally, Dr. Hoyer testified that, at the time he made his .44 caliber guess -- while looking at the horrendous wound to Officer Faulkner's head -- he was unaware that the killer had been using high-velocity +P ammunition. Had he known this, he would not have assumed that the slug was of an unusually large caliber.

So maybe the gun the police produced as evidence against Jamal was thrown there in order to frame him? No. The gun had been legally purchased by Jamal years prior to the shooting, and was registered in his name.

http://www.danielfaulkner.com/indexmyth1.html

is the physical evidence still present?

I suspect that there's as much chance of it still being filed away as evidence from any murder case 17 years ago. Probably pretty good.

after all these protests.

I actually believe that there are Iraqi WMD's, so what do I know? not a whole hell of a lot!