"Murdered by Mumia" (new book released on 12/6/07)

[sandman]

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.

[Bodhi]

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

[freedom78]

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. 

[sandman]

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).

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

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?

[The Dog]

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).

[sandman]

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?

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].

[GeorgeSteele]

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

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.

[Jim]

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).

Legally or morally?, in your opinion?

[freedom78]

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.

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.

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

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. 
     

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).

Legally or morally?, in your opinion?

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. 

[sandman]

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.

If you support the death penalty, I have no doubt that that's true, to you,

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. 

[SLCPUNK]

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.

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.

[sandman]

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.

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???

[SLCPUNK]

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.

[sandman]

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."

[freedom78]

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.

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

If you support the death penalty, I have no doubt that that's true, to you,

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. 

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.

[sandman]

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.

[SLCPUNK]

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.

[freedom78]

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.

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.   

[SLCPUNK]

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.