Here Today... Gone To Hell!

http://mastalk.com/mastalk/murdered.jspx?flash=true


A widow speaks

Maureen Faulkner is the widow of Daniel Faulkner, a Philadelphia police officer who died in the line of duty in 1981.

Michael Smerconish is a radio talk-show host and columnist for Currents.

The following excerpts are from "Murdered by Mumia: A Life Sentence of Pain, Loss and Injustice," by Maureen Faulkner and Michael Smerconish. The book retells the death of Faulkner's husband, Daniel; the trial of Mumia Abu-Jamal, convicted of the murder; and the ups and downs of nearly 26 years since the crime. Written from Maureen Faulkner's viewpoint, the segment below recounts a May 2007 hearing on Abu-Jamal's status - a hearing still unresolved. Afterward, she responds to reporters' questions.


The reporters began to question me. I was asked about my feelings on how long it had taken to get to this point, and I mentioned how I had known many of them when this all started in 1981 and how we had all kind of grown old together waiting for the case to move forward. That comment drew a pained laugh from a few of the older folks in the group.

Then I was asked if, given all the time that had passed, it wouldn't be better for me and my family if the [U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which is considering a 2001 ruling that directed that Abu-Jamal be resentenced] decided to give Abu-Jamal life in prison (life without parole, or LWOP) and have this all end. This idea was not new. In the past I had often thought of or been asked by friends about the same thing.

I had never been asked this question in public, but I knew my answer before the reporter had finished the question.

I explained that I was wise enough to know that in our legal system, LWOP is not what it seems. I explained to the reporters that unless Jamal is executed, my family and I will have to live every day of the rest of our lives knowing that a future governor could set Abu-Jamal free with the stroke of a pen, and that I had no doubt that Abu-Jamal's misguided and uninformed supporters and friends would relentlessly lie about the facts to future generations in order to perpetuate the myth that Abu-Jamal is a victim of a racist justice system, then demand his release. . . .

I noted that over the years I had repeatedly seen governors commute the sentences of murderers - especially those who had grown old in prison - simply because they cut a sympathetic image of a harmless old man, a grandfatherly type, with grown children and grandchildren, or someone who was terminally ill, a person who committed a crime in a bygone day who had been "punished enough." . . .

I told them I wanted to be certain that Abu-Jamal could never be free again - that he would die alone in prison away from his family, as [my husband] Danny had died alone on the street on Dec. 9 [, 1981].

I also explained that first-degree murder - the crime Abu-Jamal had been unanimously convicted of by a jury of his own choosing - is different from any other crime. I told them that, in my heart, I firmly believe that a person who knowingly and violently takes the life of another person, especially a police officer, should forfeit his or her own life. We owe that to our law-enforcement officials: the knowledge that criminals know and see that if they choose to kill a police officer, they will forfeit their own lives in return. Police officers need and deserve that protection.

After the press conference, I walked away feeling uplifted [because] I had not only expressed my desire to see Abu-Jamal executed [but also] had a chance to explain why I felt that way. I also felt good about expressing my feelings, as a survivor, about capital punishment and why my family and I need to see Abu-Jamal executed.

I had thought long and hard about these things, and I was comfortable with my feelings and my rational need for closure, which all survivors have. Having put my feelings into words in public, I was more confident than ever in the righteousness of my struggle.

So where does all of this leave me today, as I draw near the 26th anniversary [of Daniel Faulkner's death]? As of this writing, I am awaiting the decision of the Third Circuit. Whatever that decision, it will not be the end of the road, as one side (or both) could ask the entire court to hear the case, and then the Supreme Court of the United States will certainly be approached. . . .

Some will no doubt say I am fighting in vain, given the national mood regarding the death penalty, and in particular the trends in Pennsylvania. In the last seven years in Pennsylvania, an estimated 50 inmates facing execution have gotten new leases on life behind bars as state and federal judges overturn death sentences at a rate that is buoying opponents of capital punishment and infuriating prosecutors. Since the death penalty was reinstated in Pennsylvania in 1978, only three individuals have had a death sentence carried out, and each of them asked for it!

I am fighting for a jury sentence to be carried out in a state that for all practical purposes has no death penalty.

Still, the only thing I know for sure is that my sequel will continue to run until the process finally grinds to a halt. There is nothing more frightening to me than the thought of Mumia Abu-Jamal alive and maybe even walking the earth a free and dangerous man - and in Danny's name, I will never allow that to occur.

thats a sad story...too bad uneducated cocksuckers like rage and the beastie boys put on benefit shows to get him out of prison....

It's certainly sad that her husband was killed.  I know there's a good deal of controversy surrounding this case, but I don't claim to be expert enough about it to know if it's justified. 

But it's very disappointing when someone's life becomes about nothing more than a relentless need to seek the death of someone else.  It's also odd that she would feel the need to stress that her husband's life is more valuable than someone else's.  It's a shame that so many believe they can't find peace without an execution, and so they come to rely on getting that execution, rather than moving on. 

but i think the point is, the beastie boys and rage and the rest of the hollywood liberals that support this scumbag are NOT experts on the case either. i don't see how anyone that  reviews the key evidence from the prosecution AND the key "evidence" and rebuttals from the defense could conclude that he is innocent.

so why take a chance on supporting someone that very well may have murdered someone. there are far better causes to support. and there are plenty of people in prison whose convictions raise far more doubt than mumia's.

also, it's very easy for you to conclude that Maureen Faulkner's life has become "nothing more than a relentless need to seek death." first off, you've never gone through what she has. and secondly, you're conclusion is wrong - her life is much more than that. you should read the book.

and in my opinion, Daniel Faulkner's life (a cop) was much more valuable than mumia's (a cop killer).

if you can save someones life it is worth it.

The cop is dead, what you gonna do about it? Killing mumia wont bring him back to life? So what's the point? Revenge?

" I told them that, in my heart, I firmly believe that a person who knowingly and violently takes the life of another person, especially a police officer, should forfeit his or her own life. " > should we execute all the military men in iraq?

theres a distinction between murder and killing.  Soldiers are paid, trained and ordered to kill.  A murderer isn't (unless they're a hitman or something, hehe).

actually, i think the point is made clear when she says...

I noted that over the years I had repeatedly seen governors commute the sentences of murderers - especially those who had grown old in prison - simply because they cut a sympathetic image of a harmless old man, a grandfatherly type, with grown children and grandchildren, or someone who was terminally ill, a person who committed a crime in a bygone day who had been "punished enough." . . .

I told them I wanted to be certain that Abu-Jamal could never be free again - that he would die alone in prison away from his family, as [my husband] Danny had died alone on the street on Dec. 9 [, 1981].

Imprisoning him won't bring the cop back to life either. ?So therefore, what? ?Do you just set him free? ? If life imprisonment is the answer, I don't see how that is any less "revenge". ?It's just a less severe penalty.

Legally or morally?, in your opinion?

Again, I don't know enough of the evidence to say whether he's guilty or not, so I can't speak to activists trying to free him.

Whether she lives a full life outside of this issue or not, she can coldly rationalize why she and her family "need" (her word) for him to die, and so it seems to me that the death of this one man consumes her, which is sad.


If you support the death penalty, I have no doubt that that's true, to you, but that's not what I was referring to.  Specifically, she says in the passage above:

"I told them that, in my heart, I firmly believe that a person who knowingly and violently takes the life of another person, especially a police officer, should forfeit his or her own life. We owe that to our law-enforcement officials: the knowledge that criminals know and see that if they choose to kill a police officer, they will forfeit their own lives in return. Police officers need and deserve that protection."

In other words, the murder of her husband is worse than the murder of anyone else and deserving of a more severe punishment...thus, his life is more valuable.  Now, of course it's more valuable to her, just as I value my family or you yours, but the question is whether it should be more valuable to society, and I think the answer to that should be "no."  When we start attributing different values to different people in an official, de jure capacity, then that's the basis for a fundamental change in how of the values on which our society is based. 
     

Both, it seems.  Legally in most cases (war, self defense, non-premeditated homicides), and morally to many people, though where they draw the line tends to vary quite a bit. 

that's not her point at all. she's not saying her husband's life is more valuable than everyone else's. her point is that some crimes involve special circumstances (e.g. hate crimes). and i agree with that sentiment - strong measures should be put in place to protect the people that put their lives on the line to keep communities safe.


not sure what you meant by this. my opinion regarding what mumia's punishment should be (seems like you are assuming i support the death penalty), has zero effect on the fact that Daniel Faulkner's, and the large majority of citizen's lives are more valuable than a murderer's life. 

You are kind of creating a false argument again.

They were raising financial support for a new defense fund. According to what they are saying, the jury was exclusively white, evidence was left out, the prosecution argued for the death penalty based on the defendants religious beliefs, and the police coerced witnesses.

More importantly the bands were focused on bringing attention to the equalities in the justice system based on race, and the right to a a fair trial. Nobody is condoning the murder of a police officer, all bands made that very clear.

But in America, I know you hate to hear this, we should all be afforded a fair trial. They believe this man was not, because of his race, and that he should not be sent to death because of it. If it helps raise awareness, or even change, of our inequalities in the justice system at the same time, then they have made their point.

you're saying two totally different things. i got no problem with trying to ensure everyone gets fair trials.

but this group of Hollywood liberals is on a "Free Mumia" campaign. they want Mumia released. they talk about him in a positive manner, as if he's a good person.

if someone reviews the case in detail and concludes that it was an unfair trial...then say that. fight for a fair trial. but why fight to free a man that everyone has to conclude at the very least MAY have murdered another human being.

"We are at war until youre free,"RATM

and what the hell does "exclusively white" mean???

What do you mean by your question? Why would you ask something so inane? It's pretty straight forward isn't it? From what I read quickly it appears the jury was predominately white among many other things (mentioned above.)

According to the website: http://www.freemumia.com/who.html, there are glaring contradictions in the stories, and they are requesting a  new trial.

I'm in a hurry, but it appears that another man admitted to killing the officer, and it was validated by a lie detector test in 1999.

If the first trial was unjust, as it appears it may have been, then he should be given an opportunity to present the new evidence that exonerates him. It's as simple as that.

I was not aware that there were this many inconsistencies with the state's case. I can understand why people would believe he is an innocent man or may deserve the right of a new trial. If the evil liberals like Nelson Mandela think this man is innocent, they probably did not come to that conclusion on the fly. If Rage believes he should be released, while drawing attention to flaws in our justice system, then they are welcome to that opinion too.


"Let me say straight up that tonight's benefit is not to support cop killers or any other kind of killers," said Zack De La Rocha of Rage Against the Machine.

"We also believe Mumia should be given a fair trial," Greg Graffin, lead singer of Bad Religion.

you said "exclusively." i don't want to get into an argument over what that means, but to me that says 100% white. it was not. two of the 12 jurors were black. there were three but one was later replaced. and mumia himself helped pick the jury.

i qoted a song by Rage. i don't know how i can make it any clearer.

seriously, all i can say is don't believe everything you read. just because mumia's family puts things on a website does not make them true. those sites are loaded with lies.

even michael moore had enough sense to actually take a look at the evidence, and make this statement in his book:

"Mumia [the campaigning Pennsylvania journalist who was sentenced for the shooting of a police officer and has been on death row since 1982] probably killed that guy. There, I said it. That does not mean he should be denied a fair trial or that he should be put to death. But because we don't want to see him or anyone executed, the efforts to defend him may have overlooked the fact that he did indeed kill that cop. This takes nothing away from the eloquence of his writings or commentary, or the important place he now holds on the international political stage. But he probably did kill that guy."

That may not be her point, but it's implicit in what she said.


I was using "you" in a more generic sense, as in "everyone who supports the death penalty."  But the point remains the same.  How do we define such a value?  Should the murderer of, say, a homeless person face a lesser penalty than the average, because the person they killed was of less "value"?  If someone murders a scientist about the get a cancer cure, is that "worthy" of the same penalty as a cop which, to her, is the highest and most valuable form of life?  It's silly.  When we start ranking people thusly, it really degrades everyone.

because our laws are weak on crime and weak on murderers overall, the answer to your question is "yes".

if a drug dealer kills another drug dealer, society doesn't care very much.

if i punch someone in the face, i may face criminal charges. if i punch a cop in the face, i'm in BIG TIME trouble. it's not that the cop has more value in society, it's that we must take significant measures to protect those who serve society by battling violent criminals on a daily basis.

if it was up to me, murderers would be punished so severely that this discussion wouldn't even matter. but because you can shoot and kill someone and be walking the streets 5 years later, this is an issue. society cannot afford to have criminals murder cops and get off with light sentences. a statement must be made.

If there is enough evidence to prove their accusations, then he should get another day in court.

If the defense can prove his innocence then he should be set free. 

If not then he should remain in jail. It's as simple as that.

I have not looked at the "evidence." All I have read (quickly) is what you wrote, a brief search on yahoo, and what was on that website. What they are claiming is pretty serious, and I think they should be given the opportunity to at least be heard. If it is legitimate then they should have no problem producing testimony to support their claims. 

I'm curious if you read the website at all? It's not just some geocities website his "family" put up.

I agree that there are MANY problems with our criminal justice system, not the least of which is that overcrowding leads to drastically shortened sentences.  But I can't honestly say that it's worse to kill a cop than to kill anyone else.  The statement that must be made is that all murder is wrong.   

There are a lot of affidavits on that website.

One of them is a man who admitted to killing the police officer and signed it. The truth of his story was confirmed by a lie detector test.

One was an FBI informant who exposed police corruption in the area during that time period, including the police at this particular scene.

Another was the prosecutions key witness who admitted she lied in court under police pressure.

A court reporter who heard the judge make a racist remark during the trial.

This is pretty compelling stuff here. These individuals have all come forward and to claim something else happened altogether, in signed statements.

i have looked at the site in detail. there are blatant lies. anyone who believes he is innocent has been duped. and it's scary that so many have been duped around the globe. that the mumia machine is that powerful and so many are quick to jump on the campaign by believing those lies.

one thing that website fails to explain is that Mumia and his lawyers agreed that the "true killer" is a BS story and did not want to base his appeals on a lie.

or that mumia himself used one of his exemptions to remove a black juror, bringing the total down to 3.

or that members of MOVE openly campaigned to murder police officers.

or that his brother witnessed the entire murder and has never once stated what happened. nor has mumia have said he did not shoot the police officer. he has only claimed "i am innocent of the charges."

there have been a few researchers that looked at all the evidence. most have concluded that Mumia did it, and that maybe he should not have gotten a death sentence. i will try to find some links...alot of that was done in the 90's.

so far he is getting more than a fair appeals process. and they have reviewed more than we ever will.

Like I said, if that many people are giving sworn and signed affidavits then it should be looked into.

The website is created by people working for his legal defense and approved by Mumia. Why would they put something up that was a lie, and what the defendant does not want to be used? Makes no sense. You aren't giving any links or sources for your claims either. While I'm simply referencing the website.

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2001/06/15/mumia/print.html

here is a portion of an in-depth article written a few years ago....


"Any one of these arguments, if accepted by the judge, would be sufficient to win Jamal a new trial. But one argument considered by the former Jamal defense team was not used.

That was a claim by a witness named Arnold Beverly, taken in a sworn deposition in June 1999, that he, and not Jamal, actually fired the fatal shot to the forehead that killed Faulkner. In his controversial book "Executing Justice," fired Jamal attorney Dan Williams says that after investigating Beverly's claims, he, Weinglass and Jamal himself concluded that the witness was not credible, and rejected using him in the habeas appeal. That decision led two other Jamal attorneys, Rachel Wolkenstein and Jon Piper, lawyers for the Spartacist League-affiliated Partisan Defense Committee, to quit the case in 1999.

Now, using his new attorneys Kamish and Grossman, Jamal has resurrected the Beverly statement and offered it as evidence of his innocence in a filing with Judge Yohn. Along with that affidavit from Beverly, the two attorneys, at their May 4 press conference, also filed with the court two dramatic sworn statements they had taken from Jamal and his brother Billy Cook, describing for the very first time, in their own words, their version of what happened on the morning of the Faulkner shooting.

The Beverly statement is stunning. Some of it is also pretty hard to believe. The 51-year-old African-American witness claims he was a hit man hired by the Philadelphia Mafia, at the behest of corrupt Philadelphia cops, to execute officer Faulkner, an honest cop feared by his criminal colleagues. Beverly says he and another unidentified person fired the fatal shots into Faulkner, who had stopped Billy Cook's vehicle, and that Jamal, who he says only ran across the street following the shooting, was himself shot by a second uniformed officer after Faulkner was already dead on the pavement. He claims he was helped to escape by another officer, who met him down in the subway tunnel where he ran after the shooting.

In Jamal's own sworn statement -- the first account, sworn or otherwise, that he has ever given of the incident that landed him on Death Row -- he offers support for this new version of the incident, saying that he only ran across the street after hearing shooting, seeing people running and seeing his brother staggering around on the street.

Cook, also making his first public statement on the incident, says he was in his car rummaging around for a registration document at the time he first heard shooting, and then says he saw his brother shot in the street. All three witnesses offer evidence that is significantly at odds with prior testimony by key defense and prosecution witnesses, who, while sometimes mutually contradictory, did tend to agree that they saw either Jamal or someone coming across the street and then heard or saw shooting.

The district attorney's office, which is arguing against the judge's even granting an evidentiary hearing concerning Jamal's habeas petition, has ridiculed the Beverly statement as being "so clearly ridiculous that it should be obvious to any fair-minded person that it is a complete fabrication."

Adding the Beverly testimony to Jamal's habeas appeal, assuming it is permitted, does not in any way erase the other claims made in the appeal drawn up by Weinglass and Williams. But if the judge were to grant an evidentiary hearing, or later, a new trial, the contradictions between what Beverly says happened and what other witnesses said during the original trial and the PCRA hearing could be used to undermine the credibility of other defense witnesses.

On the other hand, that may be a risk Jamal and his new attorneys believe is well worth taking."

Food for thought. The Philly Police were notoriously corrupt in the 70s. Hell, the Justice Dept. took over the Police Dept. sometime in the late 70s because of the police murders and propensity to frame subjects. I'm sure it was a lot worse than that, but that is what I rember off the top of my head.

Too, Sandman, are you aware that the Philly Police launched an attack on MOVE in the late 70s that killed 20 or 30 members of the organization. They use bombs dropped from helicopters. the resulting fires burnt 60 other houses.

That was one of the signed affidavits. Submitted by an FBI agent who was investigating corruption during that time. Including the police on that crime scene.

very aware. i lived through it. in 1985 the BLACK mayor ordered bombs be dropped on the MOVE compound. people like to imply that MOVE is some peaceful organization. they terrorized innocent families in their neighborhood with violence and intimidation. a few members were also convicted of killing a cop in 1978.

food for thought...4 eye witnesses saw the murder. bullets matched Mumia's gun. sworn statement and testimony by a hospital worker that Mumia said "I shot that mutherfucker and i hope he dies," no statement or testimony by Mumia's brother (the only witness not to testify or ever comment in almost 20 years that his brother did not do it).

Does MOVE have anything to do with Mumias website?

Mumia claims that the bullet does not match the gun.

Did you read the site?

Or is this going to be another one of your arguments, where you absolutely refuse to see the movie, read the book, or take ten minutes to read and article/website, in order to discuss it?

again, you make bullshit statements about me. no idea why you turn everything personal.

not surprising you so easily believe one side without doing some simple research, and then accuse others of what you yourself are guilty of. you're so easily duped.

check out this site.

http://www.danielfaulkner.com/ 

from what i can see, it is totally factual with case documentation references to support all claims. Click on "Mumia Myths."

Mumia and his supporters are desperate. the case against him was strong. so over the years they have made up one lie after another.

the great thing about the new book is that it includes the Mumia supporter's arguments. it puts everything on the table and explains the truth (unlike the Free Mumia site). i wish his supporters would actually take time to read the book.

here's an example taken from the Daniel Faulkner website....

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.

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.

from Michael Smerconish....


Murdered by Mumia just made the New York Times extended best seller list, and will be in the 20th position in the list dated December 30, 2007.  Thank you so much for your support of this book.  Last Friday, upon her departure from Philadelphia, at the end of our intensive book signing schedule, Maureen Faulkner was elated about the success of the book, and told me she was going home to celebrate her most enjoyable Christmas in the 26 years since Danny died.  This news will guarantee her holiday happiness.  The book remains for sale everywhere, and all author proceeds will continue to benefit Maureen's not-for-profit which supports the education of the children of murder victims in Philadelphia.

Thank you.

If you think "personal" is me telling the truth then I'm sorry. You do it all the time, refuse to read, or watch a movie, then want to argue against it. Kinda dumb really.

all the time??? give some examples. names some things i haven't read, or movies i haven't watched that i have argued against.

or are you just bitter cause you've been duped again?

Duped by what? Duped again? This coming from one of the biggest Bush supporters here, the guy who was so gung ho to go go into Iraq over pretend WMD?  :rofl: :rofl: You're telling me I've been "duped again", huh? Duped should be your middle name.

Like I said already, I guess his lawyer(s) , Nelson Mandella, and all the other people who provided signed statements are all liars. Is that what you are saying? These people are all being "duped" or are part of the liars club, right?

Give you examples of your behavior? Puulease. You are pathetic man. A pathological liar, who contradicts himself, often times in the same thread. Just about anything I've ever argued with you on: Iraq, Michael Moore, Global warming etc, you refused to read or watch the movie. But you sure would argue against it all day long. Myself? I actually prefer to READ both sides, then come to a conclusion. I read both sides on this, and feel that enough people have come forward with credible evidence (repeating myself yet again, so boring, you guys are all the same) to be heard again in a court of law. It also sounds his case was not held under fair circumstances (corrupt police, jury not of his peers, prejudice judge) which would be cause for another day in court.

But go ahead and pretend I didn't make my case clear already, do what you always do, ask me to repeat it all again. I bet you don't even read my posts either, just like you won't read anything else. LOL, you really are something else man.

so you have no examples. you can't name one movie that i refused to watch. what a shocker.  :hihi:

you raised an issue with the bullets earlier, and i was able to quickly prove that it was a LIE. 

it's so pathetic that you are doing exactly what you accuse me of. you have only read websites run by people who want to get him out of jail, without looking at what the prosecution has argued.

and even after i PROVED that there are blatant LIES on those sites, you still take their claims as the truth. for example, there's no "evidence" provided to support these claims. hence, you have been duped. 

Wow, how did this become so contentious?

No offense Taint, but you'd be laughed out of any debate if you used evidence from a website run by the supporters of the accused to make your points.  This guy no doubt killed Faulkner.  Would you argue that Bush made the right decisions on Iraq if a conservative website sited testamonies and opinions by Bush supporters?  Of course not.  The legal system worked here.  Don't let your hatred of sandman cloud your judgement.  No one is arguing that if there is sufficent reason, then the guys deserves a retrial.  But there is no lock solid evidenced that lends credence to a retrial.  Stating that there were 10 whites and 2 blacks in a jury is not a reason.  Look at what the mostly black jury in the OJ case did. 

The shame of it all is that our tax dollars are being wasted on the defense and the imprisonment of this cop killer.  People like this should be put to death and our tax dollars should not be used to keep him alive in my opinion.

Did you read the whole thread? Philly Police were the most corrupt organization in the nation when this crime occured. Ballistics evidence isn't credible when corruption is involved. Ever hear of a "throw down"? I don't kow this case, but I wouldn't trust anything the Philly cops did in the 70s.

Sandman, I don't agree with your posts all the time, but on this one I'm with you.  Mumia should rot in a cell for the rest of his life.  That's just my opinion and just how accurate that is, you'll have to ask Booker.   :hihi: I kid, I kid.

why is it so hard for people to understand that those websites are run by the scum of society???

it's funny how it seems like all police departments are labeled "corrupt" by most defendents.

but let's assume that the philly police department WAS corrupt. how does that effect this case? surely you're not gonna argue that every defendent is innocent simply because there was some corruption in the department. obviously there were still crimes taking place.

but there is ZERO evidence to suggest that that played a part in this case. and that's why the argument has no weight. and to suggest it did is just plain lazy on your part. it's the obvious argument. it's so easy to throw that one out there.

axl4 prez - you live near philly so i'm guessing you've heard or researched the details of the case. the TRUTH regarding the case. and like you, anyone that has taken the time to research the FACTS, ends up KNOWING that he is guilty and that he had a fair trial.

I don't know if the guy is guilty or not, but I think enough questions have been raised that he deserves a new trial. I have a lot of mixed emotions concerning capital punishment, but if anyone should be eligible, it would be a cop killer.

Don't put me in the crowd that "the police are always wrong". I have friends that are cops, and I have been known to drink at the FOP. I know for a fact that Louisville Metro are one of the most professional organizations in the country.

Please quit taking what I'm saying and try to twist it around. I've made myself quite clear. If enough people have signed statements making claims to the contrary, it deserves to be held up to the light. Again, court reporters are not "blind supporters". It's a court reporter who overheard a judge make racial slurs before the trial-quite relevant in my book. An FBI agent is not a "supporter".  It's an FBI agent who investigated police corruption during that time, including but not limited to, the police that made the arrest in this case. Also, very important.

A jury of your peers is owed to a defendant in this court system. In a racially divided country such as ours, it sure as hell outa be.

Any finally, please, don't impress yourselves here. Nobody blindly hates Sandman so much that it's clouding my " judgement". I think about him about as much as the last time I flushed the toilet. Gotta hand it to you on the "blind hatred" thing though. It's the lazy man's argument, also applied to those who spoke up against loser Bush's agenda over the years. Let me ask you something....think anybody really buys your bullshit?

I smell fish ... "Red Herring"

luckily the courts have disagreed with the assertions that "enough questions have been raised that he deserves a new trial."

that's the easy way out.

as for the racist jury bullshit....

MYTH #3

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

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

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

BRIEF REBUTTAL

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

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

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

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

If this comment is directed at me, I guess I'm a bit confused.? I haven't spouted anything but my own opinions.? How can my opinions be "bullshit"?? I often agree with your points (not necessarily the way you make them), but in this case I disgree with you opinion.? Why does that make my opinions "bullshit"?

If the statement was directed to others, then disregard the above.