if my brother was on trial for murder and i was a witness that HE DIDN'T DO IT I would 100% testify on his behalf regardless of any so called threats. that is the absolute weakest argument supporters make. there is absolutely no excuse if your brother was accused of murder and you are a witness you wouldn't testify that he didn't do it he in fact didnt' do it. it's absurd to think otherwise.
again it's not about things being fishy - it's about who killed officer danial faulkner - and evidence without any shadow of a doubt only points to one man, the man convicted of the murder. again fbi fies, white jurors, etc. doesn't change that facts of who pulled the trigger.
edit: and the Move situation is a whole other story. Move had as much blame in that situation as the city of philadelphia. and that is from someone who grew up within about 5 miles of that location and was here and watched it on live tv as it happened.
if my brother was on trial for murder and i was a witness that HE DIDN'T DO IT I would 100% testify on his behalf regardless of any so called threats. that is the absolute weakest argument supporters make. there is absolutely no excuse if your brother was accused of murder and you are a witness you wouldn't testify that he didn't do it he in fact didnt' do it. it's absurd to think otherwise.
How do you know what the police threatened him with? You don't. None of us do.
again it's not about things being fishy - it's about who killed officer danial faulkner - and evidence without any shadow of a doubt only points to one man, the man convicted of the murder. again fbi fies, white jurors, etc. doesn't change that facts of who pulled the trigger.
Read the post above. How can you honestly say there's nothing fishy about this case?
Documentary on the case here if anyone fancies watching it:
'In November, Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber halted a pending execution and declared that no other executions would occur while he was in office.
"I am convinced we can find a better solution that keeps society safe, supports the victims of crime and their families and reflects Oregon values," he said. "I refuse to be a part of this compromised and inequitable system any longer."
'In November, Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber halted a pending execution and declared that no other executions would occur while he was in office.
"I am convinced we can find a better solution that keeps society safe, supports the victims of crime and their families and reflects Oregon values," he said. "I refuse to be a part of this compromised and inequitable system any longer."
and this is coming from a republican governor :shock:
i wonder where is all the criticism about him being "soft on crime"..... :think:
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I'll go ahead and say that no one here has read through the trial transcripts. Trust me. A misdemeanor assault case generates hundreds and hundreds of pages of boring, boring, boring material. A high profile capital punishment murder case? No way...we're talking tens of thousands of pages and any one who says they've read them is lying.
Now...
I don't think reading trial transcripts is a prerequisite to having an opinion on whether an injustice was done or not, if, for no other reason, than most people don't fully understand the import of the type of issues that come up in trial. For instance, someone in this thread poo-pooed the idea that prosecutors struck 10 of 12 black jurors...that might not seem significant to the average person but that fact alone should raise eyebrows IF you know you're SCOTUS case law.
So...my only points are that I doubt anyone here has read the trial transcripts in full, but if they haven't so what? That's not a bar to having an opinion. Being ignorant however, is.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
I'll go ahead and say that no one here has read through the trial transcripts. Trust me. A misdemeanor assault case generates hundreds and hundreds of pages of boring, boring, boring material. A high profile capital punishment murder case? No way...we're talking tens of thousands of pages and any one who says they've read them is lying.
Now...
I don't think reading trial transcripts is a prerequisite to having an opinion on whether an injustice was done or not, if, for no other reason, than most people don't fully understand the import of the type of issues that come up in trial. For instance, someone in this thread poo-pooed the idea that prosecutors struck 10 of 12 black jurors...that might not seem significant to the average person but that fact alone should raise eyebrows IF you know you're SCOTUS case law.
So...my only points are that I doubt anyone here has read the trial transcripts in full, but if they haven't so what? That's not a bar to having an opinion. Being ignorant however, is.
I'll go ahead and say that no one here has read through the trial transcripts. Trust me. A misdemeanor assault case generates hundreds and hundreds of pages of boring, boring, boring material. A high profile capital punishment murder case? No way...we're talking tens of thousands of pages and any one who says they've read them is lying.
Now...
I don't think reading trial transcripts is a prerequisite to having an opinion on whether an injustice was done or not, if, for no other reason, than most people don't fully understand the import of the type of issues that come up in trial. For instance, someone in this thread poo-pooed the idea that prosecutors struck 10 of 12 black jurors...that might not seem significant to the average person but that fact alone should raise eyebrows IF you know you're SCOTUS case law.
So...my only points are that I doubt anyone here has read the trial transcripts in full, but if they haven't so what? That's not a bar to having an opinion. Being ignorant however, is.
So, you've read the trial transcripts.
I guess that's a wrap then.
Case closed.
Signed, sealed, and delivered.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. I have NOT read the trial transcripts, but I'd safely wager that they are extremely voluminous and boring and further, that many people here also have not. It's just become such a stupid line of argument that people get into ("have you read the trial transcripts?" "yes, have YOU?" etc etc etc), as if that makes one side any more credible or not. There was this same debate regarding the West Memphis 3. Generally speaking, I don't trust the average person to parse out the critical statements within a trial transcript. An example was someone's implication that there was no legal significance to the striking of 10 of 12 prospective black jurors from the jury panel.
So I wasn't really disagreeing with you or anyone. I was merely pointing out that (a) I doubt anyone's read the trial transcripts and (b) it makes little difference if you have or haven't. There are sound legal minds for both sides of the argument that can pull out the relevant, critical points better than the average person.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
I'm not sure what you're getting at. I have NOT read the trial transcripts, but I'd safely wager that they are extremely voluminous and boring and further, that many people here also have not. It's just become such a stupid line of argument that people get into ("have you read the trial transcripts?" "yes, have YOU?" etc etc etc), as if that makes one side any more credible or not. There was this same debate regarding the West Memphis 3. Generally speaking, I don't trust the average person to parse out the critical statements within a trial transcript. An example was someone's implication that there was no legal significance to the striking of 10 of 12 prospective black jurors from the jury panel.
So I wasn't really disagreeing with you or anyone. I was merely pointing out that (a) I doubt anyone's read the trial transcripts and (b) it makes little difference if you have or haven't. There are sound legal minds for both sides of the argument that can pull out the relevant, critical points better than the average person.
if my brother was on trial for murder and i was a witness that HE DIDN'T DO IT I would 100% testify on his behalf regardless of any so called threats. that is the absolute weakest argument supporters make. there is absolutely no excuse if your brother was accused of murder and you are a witness you wouldn't testify that he didn't do it he in fact didnt' do it. it's absurd to think otherwise.
again it's not about things being fishy - it's about who killed officer danial faulkner - and evidence without any shadow of a doubt only points to one man, the man convicted of the murder. again fbi fies, white jurors, etc. doesn't change that facts of who pulled the trigger.
edit: and the Move situation is a whole other story. Move had as much blame in that situation as the city of philadelphia. and that is from someone who grew up within about 5 miles of that location and was here and watched it on live tv as it happened.
yeah im pretty sure id testify for my brother as well.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
For Mumia . . . Best Comes Last Witness: "Mumia Innocent" - Says Shooter Was Another Man With Dreadlocks
Valerie M. Russ
August 12, 1995
'...At the time of the 1981 murder, Singletary owned and managed a Sunoco gas station at Broad and Thompson streets in North Philadelphia, he testified. He said he was at 13th and Locust streets, site of the shooting, to visit a nightclub.
He was headed back to his parked car when he saw Faulkner stop a Volkswagen being driven by William Cook, Abu-Jamal's brother. Singletary said he heard the officer arguing with Cook and using "a lot of obscenities." In response to Faulkner's approach, Singletary said, a passenger got out of the car and said to Cook, "We don't have to take that, Billy."
Singletary said he heard one popping sound before he saw the passenger shoot the officer in the eye.
The shooter, described as a tall man with dreadlocks, tossed the gun to the side of the Volkswagen and ran east on Locust Street as both Abu-Jamal and Singletary came on the scene, said Singletary, 45.
Then, he said, Abu-Jamal, who also wore dreadlocks, walked up to Faulkner and asked if there was anything he could do.
That was when he said he heard the officer say something like "get Maureen." The officer also "mumbled something that sounded like 'children' " that Singletary said he could not understand.
Singletary said that while Abu-Jamal was leaning over Faulkner, he saw the ''flame" from Faulkner's gun as it discharged and sent a bullet into Abu-
Jamal's chest. He said that he had never seen Abu-Jamal with a gun and that he had not seen Abu-Jamal shoot the officer.
He said he drove to the Police Administration Building to give a witness statement minutes after the 4 a.m. shooting, but police officials either ''tore up" or "balled up and threw in the trash" several statements he wrote of what had occurred.
A "Detective Green," he said, told him he could not leave until he wrote what police wanted. "He told me to write what he wanted me to write (or) they would take me in the elevator and beat me up," he said.
Finally, Singletary said, the fourth statement that he wrote was ''dictated" by the detective at about 9 a.m. He said he had signed the statement, even though it was not true, "because I wanted to get out of there."
Singletary also charged that after he complained about police treatment, cops with guns drawn began to harass him at his shop, breaking windows and hassling his tow-truck drivers...
Singletary told Fisk that he had complained about the police to now- deceased state Rep. Alphonso Deal. Singletary said Deal had told him that he would probably be subpoenaed to testify at Abu-Jamal's trial, but he never was.
In fact, he said, he went on vacation to North Carolina around the time of the trial, in June and July 1982. After court, Singletary told reporters that he had moved to North Carolina for a while because he felt intimidated by police...
Abu-Jamal's lawyers contend police and prosecutors withheld evidence and intimidated witnesses who could have cleared him in the 1982 trial.
Mumia always proclaimed his innocence. But having earlier been advised by lawyers not to speak on the specifics, and advised by new lawyers in 2001, he filed an affidavit on the events. Michael Coard referred to this affidavit in the debate, but had no time to elaborate. We provide here some elaboration.
In the most relevant portions of his statement, Mumia said that he was in the area of the shooting at the time because he was a cab driver looking for a fare:
“I was filling out my log when I heard some shouting. I glanced in my rear view mirror and saw a flashing dome light of a police cruiser. This wasn’t unusual. I continued to fill out my log/trip sheet when I heard what sounded like gun shots. I looked again into my rear view mirror and saw people running up and down Locust. As I scanned I recognized my brother standing in the street staggering and dizzy. I immediately exited the cab and ran to his scream. As I came across the street I saw a uniformed cop turn toward me gun in hand, saw a flash and went down on my knees. I closed my eyes and sat still trying to breathe.”— Declaration of Mumia Abu-Jamal, 03 May 2001. (This affidavit is posted in the archives at LaborActionMumia.org.)
After this, Mumia says he blacked out, and then “woke up to being beaten by a crowd of cops...”
The Meaning of “Ramp, Ramp, Ramp”
This description of the events, emphasizing that Mumia arrived on the scene only after the officer was shot, matches that of the two most important witnesses, who have never been properly heard from by the courts: Arnold Beverly and William Singletary.
Witness William Singletary confirms the beating, and adds a telling detail, which confirms his account. According to Singletary, the cops picked up the wounded Jamal, three on a side, and rammed his head into a pole while shouting, “Ramp, Ramp, Ramp,” (statements of William Singletary, LaborActionMumia.org). Unbeknownst to Singletary at the time, Ramp was the name of a cop who had been killed by “friendly fire” in a raid on a house belonging to MOVE, a local Black-centered community group in 1978. The young journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal had publicly defended and supported the arrested MOVE members (now called the “MOVE 9”), and exposed this murderous police onslaught in his radio reports.
The senior officer on the scene of the Faulkner shooting, where Jamal was shot, beaten and arrested, was Alfonzo Giordano. Giordano had been involved in the stakeouts and the 1978 attack on MOVE. This explains why they were shouting Ramp’s name: the cops knew exactly who they had that night. It was second nature to them to begin not just the beating, but the vindictive persecution and frame-up of Jamal the very instant they found him.
The Testimony of William Singletary
William Singletary was a businessman who owned gas stations and a towing operation, in which he had frequent dealings with the police. He therefore had no reason to lie against the police; he had every reason to support them. He was also a club owner and was in the area of the shooting to check up on a competitor’s club. He claims to have seen the entire shooting from beginning to end. He said that Mumia arrived only after the cop was shot, arrived unarmed, and never fired a shot. But Singletary’s statement was not accepted, and the cops tried to get him to change his story to make Mumia the shooter. He refused. His businesses were promptly attacked and destroyed by cops, and he was driven out of town, with the warning that he should not be around for the trial.
Singletary’s description of the events dovetails with Arnold Beverly’s description, in several important respects. They both said that Mumia had nothing to do with the shooting of police officer Faulkner, and they both agree that Mumia arrived only after the cop was shot, whereupon he was himself shot by a cop who arrived on the scene.
The case of Mumia Abu-Jamal shows that the much-heralded “rule of law” in this so-called democracy is a fraud from beginning to end. For nearly half a century, Mumia has been hounded by the state’s forces of “law and order.” First targeted when he was 15 under the FBI’s counter-intelligence program (COINTELPRO) for his political work as an activist exposing police racism and brutality, Mumia was framed on the spot in December of 1981.
he is 100% guilty. anyone who doesn't think so is just flat out ignoring the evidence.
Tell that to Amnesty international.
http://www.revcom.us/a/v21/1040-049/1044/amnesty.htm Based on extensive reviews of the trial transcripts, the report documents Mumia's original trial as one riddled with unfairness and injustice, including inadequate legal representation, a judge biased in favor of the prosecution, exclusion of African-Americans from the jury, eyewitnesses who changed their story in favor of the prosecution after pressure from police, a "confession" that two police officers and a security guard did not "remember" until two months later, contradictory ballistics evidence, the withholding of evidence favorable to the defense, and the use of Mumia's political beliefs to influence the jury to sentence him to death.
The report characterizes the atmosphere in Philadelphia leading up to Mumia's trial as, "a city of racial tensions, police brutality and police corruption."
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A Life in the Balance
The Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal
Conclusion
Capital punishment may only be carried out pursuant to a final judgement rendered by a competent court after a legal process which gives all possible safeguards to ensure a fair trial, at least equal to those contained in article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights...” Quoted in the New York Times on 8 August 1995. Amnesty International is appalled that a police officer would openly espouse the possibility of an extrajudicial execution.
For the diminishing list of countries which still resort to the death penalty, international human rights standards require the very highest level of fairness in capital cases, given the irreversible nature of the penalty.
The trial of Mumia Abu-Jamal took place in an atmosphere of animosity and tension, much of it directed against the defendant. As the judge at the first pretrial hearing stated: “I know there are certain cases that have explosive tendencies in this community, and this is one of them.” That animosity has endured throughout the 17 years since the trial, particularly within the law enforcement community. In 1995, upon learning of Mumia Abu-Jamal’s stay of execution, Philadelphia police officer James Green said: “It makes you wonder. Maybe we should have executed him at 13th and Locust [the crime scene] where he executed Danny Faulkner.”
The law enforcement community’s unseemly agitation for the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal is just one of Amnesty International’s concerns over this case.
Many of the deficiencies that Amnesty International has identified in the Mumia Abu-Jamal case mirror broader concerns over the application of the death penalty nationwide.
Concern about possible judicial bias is not limited to Pennsylvania and the resources provided to indigent defendants are pitifully inadequate in many jurisdictions. Police misconduct has been cited in many cases and the risk of wrongful convictions in capital trials remains alarmingly high.
Amnesty International remains concerned that the relationship between the Pennsylvania judiciary and the law enforcement community at the very least gives rise to the unfortunate impression that justice is a one-way street leading to Mumia Abu-Jamal’s eventual execution.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, for example, appears to have ignored its own previous precedents in denying the defendant’s appeals.
Proponents of the execution of Abu-Jamal maintain that he had a “fair” trial and was duly convicted and sentenced by a jury of his peers. The adversarial system of justice in the USA can only be a fair arbiter if the defence and prosecution have reasonable access to the resources necessary to present their version of events, and if the judge overseeing the case is truly neutral. Juries can only be accurate assessors of events if they are given a complete view of the facts - including any differing explanations and interpretations of events - and are made aware of the possible reasons for the bias of witnesses. These factors were clearly missing in Abu-Jamal’s trial.
During the trial of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the jury was left unaware of much of the crucial information regarding the death of Officer Faulkner.
Other factors present during the prosecution of this case also render the verdict and sentence fundamentally unsound, including inadequate trial representation, the overt hostility of the trial judge and the appearance of judicial bias during appellate review.
Based on its review of the trial transcript and other original documents, Amnesty International has determined that numerous aspects of this case clearly failed to meet minimum international standards safeguarding the fairness of legal proceedings. Amnesty International therefore believes that the interests of justice would best be served by the granting of a new trial to Mumia Abu-Jamal.
The trial should fully comply with international standards of justice and should not allow for the reimposition of the death penalty. The organization is also recommending that the retrial take place in a neutral venue, where the case has not polarized the public as it has in Philadelphia. Finally, the authorities should permit prominent jurists from outside the USA to observe the proceedings, to ensure that the retrial complies in all respects with universally-recognized human rights safeguards.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A Life in the Balance
The Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal
Conclusion
Capital punishment may only be carried out pursuant to a final judgement rendered by a competent court after a legal process which gives all possible safeguards to ensure a fair trial, at least equal to those contained in article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights...” Quoted in the New York Times on 8 August 1995. Amnesty International is appalled that a police officer would openly espouse the possibility of an extrajudicial execution.
For the diminishing list of countries which still resort to the death penalty, international human rights standards require the very highest level of fairness in capital cases, given the irreversible nature of the penalty.
The trial of Mumia Abu-Jamal took place in an atmosphere of animosity and tension, much of it directed against the defendant. As the judge at the first pretrial hearing stated: “I know there are certain cases that have explosive tendencies in this community, and this is one of them.” That animosity has endured throughout the 17 years since the trial, particularly within the law enforcement community. In 1995, upon learning of Mumia Abu-Jamal’s stay of execution, Philadelphia police officer James Green said: “It makes you wonder. Maybe we should have executed him at 13th and Locust [the crime scene] where he executed Danny Faulkner.”
The law enforcement community’s unseemly agitation for the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal is just one of Amnesty International’s concerns over this case.
Many of the deficiencies that Amnesty International has identified in the Mumia Abu-Jamal case mirror broader concerns over the application of the death penalty nationwide.
Concern about possible judicial bias is not limited to Pennsylvania and the resources provided to indigent defendants are pitifully inadequate in many jurisdictions. Police misconduct has been cited in many cases and the risk of wrongful convictions in capital trials remains alarmingly high.
Amnesty International remains concerned that the relationship between the Pennsylvania judiciary and the law enforcement community at the very least gives rise to the unfortunate impression that justice is a one-way street leading to Mumia Abu-Jamal’s eventual execution.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, for example, appears to have ignored its own previous precedents in denying the defendant’s appeals.
Proponents of the execution of Abu-Jamal maintain that he had a “fair” trial and was duly convicted and sentenced by a jury of his peers. The adversarial system of justice in the USA can only be a fair arbiter if the defence and prosecution have reasonable access to the resources necessary to present their version of events, and if the judge overseeing the case is truly neutral. Juries can only be accurate assessors of events if they are given a complete view of the facts - including any differing explanations and interpretations of events - and are made aware of the possible reasons for the bias of witnesses. These factors were clearly missing in Abu-Jamal’s trial.
During the trial of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the jury was left unaware of much of the crucial information regarding the death of Officer Faulkner.
Other factors present during the prosecution of this case also render the verdict and sentence fundamentally unsound, including inadequate trial representation, the overt hostility of the trial judge and the appearance of judicial bias during appellate review.
Based on its review of the trial transcript and other original documents, Amnesty International has determined that numerous aspects of this case clearly failed to meet minimum international standards safeguarding the fairness of legal proceedings. Amnesty International therefore believes that the interests of justice would best be served by the granting of a new trial to Mumia Abu-Jamal.
The trial should fully comply with international standards of justice and should not allow for the reimposition of the death penalty. The organization is also recommending that the retrial take place in a neutral venue, where the case has not polarized the public as it has in Philadelphia. Finally, the authorities should permit prominent jurists from outside the USA to observe the proceedings, to ensure that the retrial complies in all respects with universally-recognized human rights safeguards.
they don't claim he is innocent because they can't, because he isn't.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A Life in the Balance
The Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal
Conclusion
Capital punishment may only be carried out pursuant to a final judgement rendered by a competent court after a legal process which gives all possible safeguards to ensure a fair trial, at least equal to those contained in article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights...” Quoted in the New York Times on 8 August 1995. Amnesty International is appalled that a police officer would openly espouse the possibility of an extrajudicial execution.
For the diminishing list of countries which still resort to the death penalty, international human rights standards require the very highest level of fairness in capital cases, given the irreversible nature of the penalty.
The trial of Mumia Abu-Jamal took place in an atmosphere of animosity and tension, much of it directed against the defendant. As the judge at the first pretrial hearing stated: “I know there are certain cases that have explosive tendencies in this community, and this is one of them.” That animosity has endured throughout the 17 years since the trial, particularly within the law enforcement community. In 1995, upon learning of Mumia Abu-Jamal’s stay of execution, Philadelphia police officer James Green said: “It makes you wonder. Maybe we should have executed him at 13th and Locust [the crime scene] where he executed Danny Faulkner.”
The law enforcement community’s unseemly agitation for the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal is just one of Amnesty International’s concerns over this case.
Many of the deficiencies that Amnesty International has identified in the Mumia Abu-Jamal case mirror broader concerns over the application of the death penalty nationwide.
Concern about possible judicial bias is not limited to Pennsylvania and the resources provided to indigent defendants are pitifully inadequate in many jurisdictions. Police misconduct has been cited in many cases and the risk of wrongful convictions in capital trials remains alarmingly high.
Amnesty International remains concerned that the relationship between the Pennsylvania judiciary and the law enforcement community at the very least gives rise to the unfortunate impression that justice is a one-way street leading to Mumia Abu-Jamal’s eventual execution.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, for example, appears to have ignored its own previous precedents in denying the defendant’s appeals.
Proponents of the execution of Abu-Jamal maintain that he had a “fair” trial and was duly convicted and sentenced by a jury of his peers. The adversarial system of justice in the USA can only be a fair arbiter if the defence and prosecution have reasonable access to the resources necessary to present their version of events, and if the judge overseeing the case is truly neutral. Juries can only be accurate assessors of events if they are given a complete view of the facts - including any differing explanations and interpretations of events - and are made aware of the possible reasons for the bias of witnesses. These factors were clearly missing in Abu-Jamal’s trial.
During the trial of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the jury was left unaware of much of the crucial information regarding the death of Officer Faulkner.
Other factors present during the prosecution of this case also render the verdict and sentence fundamentally unsound, including inadequate trial representation, the overt hostility of the trial judge and the appearance of judicial bias during appellate review.
Based on its review of the trial transcript and other original documents, Amnesty International has determined that numerous aspects of this case clearly failed to meet minimum international standards safeguarding the fairness of legal proceedings. Amnesty International therefore believes that the interests of justice would best be served by the granting of a new trial to Mumia Abu-Jamal.
The trial should fully comply with international standards of justice and should not allow for the reimposition of the death penalty. The organization is also recommending that the retrial take place in a neutral venue, where the case has not polarized the public as it has in Philadelphia. Finally, the authorities should permit prominent jurists from outside the USA to observe the proceedings, to ensure that the retrial complies in all respects with universally-recognized human rights safeguards.
they don't claim he is innocent because they can't, because he isn't.
That's a bit thick of you. Instead of jumping to conclusions like the police officers are doing, instead of being judge, jury, and executioner like the police officers wish they were, they want an actual fair trial to take place where all the facts are brought to light. It really isn't their place to declare who is innocent and who is guilty.
That's a bit thick of you. Instead of jumping to conclusions like the police officers are doing, instead of being judge, jury, and executioner like the police officers wish they were, they want an actual fair trial to take place where all the facts are brought to light. It really isn't their place to declare who is innocent and who is guilty.
the facts were brought to light. he did it. being from the philly area I've seen hundreds of stories on the case. I've read a few books on the case. there is zero evidence that anyone but mumia killed officer Danny Faulkner. he is a murderer.
That's a bit thick of you. Instead of jumping to conclusions like the police officers are doing, instead of being judge, jury, and executioner like the police officers wish they were, they want an actual fair trial to take place where all the facts are brought to light. It really isn't their place to declare who is innocent and who is guilty.
the facts were brought to light. he did it. being from the philly area I've seen hundreds of stories on the case. I've read a few books on the case. there is zero evidence that anyone but mumia killed officer Danny Faulkner. he is a murderer.
Yeah, except for those ones that were suppressed and censored out. :roll:
That's a bit thick of you. Instead of jumping to conclusions like the police officers are doing, instead of being judge, jury, and executioner like the police officers wish they were, they want an actual fair trial to take place where all the facts are brought to light. It really isn't their place to declare who is innocent and who is guilty.
the facts were brought to light. he did it. being from the philly area I've seen hundreds of stories on the case. I've read a few books on the case. there is zero evidence that anyone but mumia killed officer Danny Faulkner. he is a murderer.
Yeah, except for those ones that were suppressed and censored out. :roll:
ugh please. here is what we know about the case: 4 witnesses place him as the shooter. he was lying near the officer when found, with a wound from the officer's gun. his gun was fired and was lying next to him when he was found. the caliber of bullet from his gun was the same caliber that killed office Faulkner. and 3 independent witnesses claim to have heard him admit in the hospital that he killed officer Faulkner. dispute the witness claims as you wish, but the physical evidence is pretty clear of his guilt.
ugh please. here is what we know about the case: 4 witnesses place him as the shooter. he was lying near the officer when found, with a wound from the officer's gun. his gun was fired and was lying next to him when he was found. the caliber of bullet from his gun was the same caliber that killed office Faulkner. and 3 independent witnesses claim to have heard him admit in the hospital that he killed officer Faulkner. dispute the witness claims as you wish, but the physical evidence is pretty clear of his guilt.
so yea someone else did it :roll:
I've already addressed all of these points previously in this thread - witnesses who were coerced and threatened by the police, and who subsequently changed their stories. No routine ballistics tests carried out on his gun to determine whether it had been fired. Witnesses who came forward later to testify that they'd seen another man shoot Faulkner and flee the scene before Mumia arrived and tried to assist Faulkner before he was himself shot and then beaten by the police.
Why are you choosing to ignore all of these points? What is it that you have against Mumia Abu-Jamal exactly?
Comments
again it's not about things being fishy - it's about who killed officer danial faulkner - and evidence without any shadow of a doubt only points to one man, the man convicted of the murder. again fbi fies, white jurors, etc. doesn't change that facts of who pulled the trigger.
edit: and the Move situation is a whole other story. Move had as much blame in that situation as the city of philadelphia. and that is from someone who grew up within about 5 miles of that location and was here and watched it on live tv as it happened.
How do you know what the police threatened him with? You don't. None of us do.
Read the post above. How can you honestly say there's nothing fishy about this case?
Documentary on the case here if anyone fancies watching it:
Mumia Abu-Jamal: A Case For Reasonable Doubt? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3582154541
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/15/justi ... ?hpt=hp_t2
I know a few people who believe the DP will always be around. I hope that is not the case.
'In November, Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber halted a pending execution and declared that no other executions would occur while he was in office.
"I am convinced we can find a better solution that keeps society safe, supports the victims of crime and their families and reflects Oregon values," he said. "I refuse to be a part of this compromised and inequitable system any longer."
i wonder where is all the criticism about him being "soft on crime"..... :think:
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Now...
I don't think reading trial transcripts is a prerequisite to having an opinion on whether an injustice was done or not, if, for no other reason, than most people don't fully understand the import of the type of issues that come up in trial. For instance, someone in this thread poo-pooed the idea that prosecutors struck 10 of 12 black jurors...that might not seem significant to the average person but that fact alone should raise eyebrows IF you know you're SCOTUS case law.
So...my only points are that I doubt anyone here has read the trial transcripts in full, but if they haven't so what? That's not a bar to having an opinion. Being ignorant however, is.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
So, you've read the trial transcripts.
I guess that's a wrap then.
Case closed.
Signed, sealed, and delivered.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. I have NOT read the trial transcripts, but I'd safely wager that they are extremely voluminous and boring and further, that many people here also have not. It's just become such a stupid line of argument that people get into ("have you read the trial transcripts?" "yes, have YOU?" etc etc etc), as if that makes one side any more credible or not. There was this same debate regarding the West Memphis 3. Generally speaking, I don't trust the average person to parse out the critical statements within a trial transcript. An example was someone's implication that there was no legal significance to the striking of 10 of 12 prospective black jurors from the jury panel.
So I wasn't really disagreeing with you or anyone. I was merely pointing out that (a) I doubt anyone's read the trial transcripts and (b) it makes little difference if you have or haven't. There are sound legal minds for both sides of the argument that can pull out the relevant, critical points better than the average person.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
Fair enough. I misunderstood your other post.
yeah im pretty sure id testify for my brother as well.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
For Mumia . . . Best Comes Last Witness: "Mumia Innocent" - Says Shooter Was Another Man With Dreadlocks
Valerie M. Russ
August 12, 1995
'...At the time of the 1981 murder, Singletary owned and managed a Sunoco gas station at Broad and Thompson streets in North Philadelphia, he testified. He said he was at 13th and Locust streets, site of the shooting, to visit a nightclub.
He was headed back to his parked car when he saw Faulkner stop a Volkswagen being driven by William Cook, Abu-Jamal's brother. Singletary said he heard the officer arguing with Cook and using "a lot of obscenities." In response to Faulkner's approach, Singletary said, a passenger got out of the car and said to Cook, "We don't have to take that, Billy."
Singletary said he heard one popping sound before he saw the passenger shoot the officer in the eye.
The shooter, described as a tall man with dreadlocks, tossed the gun to the side of the Volkswagen and ran east on Locust Street as both Abu-Jamal and Singletary came on the scene, said Singletary, 45.
Then, he said, Abu-Jamal, who also wore dreadlocks, walked up to Faulkner and asked if there was anything he could do.
That was when he said he heard the officer say something like "get Maureen." The officer also "mumbled something that sounded like 'children' " that Singletary said he could not understand.
Singletary said that while Abu-Jamal was leaning over Faulkner, he saw the ''flame" from Faulkner's gun as it discharged and sent a bullet into Abu-
Jamal's chest. He said that he had never seen Abu-Jamal with a gun and that he had not seen Abu-Jamal shoot the officer.
He said he drove to the Police Administration Building to give a witness statement minutes after the 4 a.m. shooting, but police officials either ''tore up" or "balled up and threw in the trash" several statements he wrote of what had occurred.
A "Detective Green," he said, told him he could not leave until he wrote what police wanted. "He told me to write what he wanted me to write (or) they would take me in the elevator and beat me up," he said.
Finally, Singletary said, the fourth statement that he wrote was ''dictated" by the detective at about 9 a.m. He said he had signed the statement, even though it was not true, "because I wanted to get out of there."
Singletary also charged that after he complained about police treatment, cops with guns drawn began to harass him at his shop, breaking windows and hassling his tow-truck drivers...
Singletary told Fisk that he had complained about the police to now- deceased state Rep. Alphonso Deal. Singletary said Deal had told him that he would probably be subpoenaed to testify at Abu-Jamal's trial, but he never was.
In fact, he said, he went on vacation to North Carolina around the time of the trial, in June and July 1982. After court, Singletary told reporters that he had moved to North Carolina for a while because he felt intimidated by police...
Abu-Jamal's lawyers contend police and prosecutors withheld evidence and intimidated witnesses who could have cleared him in the 1982 trial.
http://www.nodeathpenalty.org/new_aboli ... -death-row
....Mumia Declares His Innocence
Mumia always proclaimed his innocence. But having earlier been advised by lawyers not to speak on the specifics, and advised by new lawyers in 2001, he filed an affidavit on the events. Michael Coard referred to this affidavit in the debate, but had no time to elaborate. We provide here some elaboration.
In the most relevant portions of his statement, Mumia said that he was in the area of the shooting at the time because he was a cab driver looking for a fare:
“I was filling out my log when I heard some shouting. I glanced in my rear view mirror and saw a flashing dome light of a police cruiser. This wasn’t unusual. I continued to fill out my log/trip sheet when I heard what sounded like gun shots. I looked again into my rear view mirror and saw people running up and down Locust. As I scanned I recognized my brother standing in the street staggering and dizzy. I immediately exited the cab and ran to his scream. As I came across the street I saw a uniformed cop turn toward me gun in hand, saw a flash and went down on my knees. I closed my eyes and sat still trying to breathe.” — Declaration of Mumia Abu-Jamal, 03 May 2001. (This affidavit is posted in the archives at LaborActionMumia.org.)
After this, Mumia says he blacked out, and then “woke up to being beaten by a crowd of cops...”
The Meaning of “Ramp, Ramp, Ramp”
This description of the events, emphasizing that Mumia arrived on the scene only after the officer was shot, matches that of the two most important witnesses, who have never been properly heard from by the courts: Arnold Beverly and William Singletary.
Witness William Singletary confirms the beating, and adds a telling detail, which confirms his account. According to Singletary, the cops picked up the wounded Jamal, three on a side, and rammed his head into a pole while shouting, “Ramp, Ramp, Ramp,” (statements of William Singletary, LaborActionMumia.org). Unbeknownst to Singletary at the time, Ramp was the name of a cop who had been killed by “friendly fire” in a raid on a house belonging to MOVE, a local Black-centered community group in 1978. The young journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal had publicly defended and supported the arrested MOVE members (now called the “MOVE 9”), and exposed this murderous police onslaught in his radio reports.
The senior officer on the scene of the Faulkner shooting, where Jamal was shot, beaten and arrested, was Alfonzo Giordano. Giordano had been involved in the stakeouts and the 1978 attack on MOVE. This explains why they were shouting Ramp’s name: the cops knew exactly who they had that night. It was second nature to them to begin not just the beating, but the vindictive persecution and frame-up of Jamal the very instant they found him.
The Testimony of William Singletary
William Singletary was a businessman who owned gas stations and a towing operation, in which he had frequent dealings with the police. He therefore had no reason to lie against the police; he had every reason to support them. He was also a club owner and was in the area of the shooting to check up on a competitor’s club. He claims to have seen the entire shooting from beginning to end. He said that Mumia arrived only after the cop was shot, arrived unarmed, and never fired a shot. But Singletary’s statement was not accepted, and the cops tried to get him to change his story to make Mumia the shooter. He refused. His businesses were promptly attacked and destroyed by cops, and he was driven out of town, with the warning that he should not be around for the trial.
Singletary’s description of the events dovetails with Arnold Beverly’s description, in several important respects. They both said that Mumia had nothing to do with the shooting of police officer Faulkner, and they both agree that Mumia arrived only after the cop was shot, whereupon he was himself shot by a cop who arrived on the scene.
The case of Mumia Abu-Jamal shows that the much-heralded “rule of law” in this so-called democracy is a fraud from beginning to end. For nearly half a century, Mumia has been hounded by the state’s forces of “law and order.” First targeted when he was 15 under the FBI’s counter-intelligence program (COINTELPRO) for his political work as an activist exposing police racism and brutality, Mumia was framed on the spot in December of 1981.
Yeah, sure.
Mumia Abu-Jamal, A Case for Reasonable Doubt?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSdzpN44zZ0
Tell that to Amnesty international.
http://www.revcom.us/a/v21/1040-049/1044/amnesty.htm
Based on extensive reviews of the trial transcripts, the report documents Mumia's original trial as one riddled with unfairness and injustice, including inadequate legal representation, a judge biased in favor of the prosecution, exclusion of African-Americans from the jury, eyewitnesses who changed their story in favor of the prosecution after pressure from police, a "confession" that two police officers and a security guard did not "remember" until two months later, contradictory ballistics evidence, the withholding of evidence favorable to the defense, and the use of Mumia's political beliefs to influence the jury to sentence him to death.
The report characterizes the atmosphere in Philadelphia leading up to Mumia's trial as, "a city of racial tensions, police brutality and police corruption."
Thanks for your mature contribution.
Not a great deal. Both involve witness intimidation, withholding of evidence, false testimony, and police corruption.
one's a murderer the other 3 are the West Memphis 3.
One's black and the others are white.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset ... 2000en.pdf
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A Life in the Balance
The Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal
Conclusion
Capital punishment may only be carried out pursuant to a final judgement rendered by a competent court after a legal process which gives all possible safeguards to ensure a fair trial, at least equal to those contained in article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights...” Quoted in the New York Times on 8 August 1995. Amnesty International is appalled that a police officer would openly espouse the possibility of an extrajudicial execution.
For the diminishing list of countries which still resort to the death penalty, international human rights standards require the very highest level of fairness in capital cases, given the irreversible nature of the penalty.
The trial of Mumia Abu-Jamal took place in an atmosphere of animosity and tension, much of it directed against the defendant. As the judge at the first pretrial hearing stated: “I know there are certain cases that have explosive tendencies in this community, and this is one of them.” That animosity has endured throughout the 17 years since the trial, particularly within the law enforcement community. In 1995, upon learning of Mumia Abu-Jamal’s stay of execution, Philadelphia police officer James Green said: “It makes you wonder. Maybe we should have executed him at 13th and Locust [the crime scene] where he executed Danny Faulkner.”
The law enforcement community’s unseemly agitation for the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal is just one of Amnesty International’s concerns over this case.
Many of the deficiencies that Amnesty International has identified in the Mumia Abu-Jamal case mirror broader concerns over the application of the death penalty nationwide.
Concern about possible judicial bias is not limited to Pennsylvania and the resources provided to indigent defendants are pitifully inadequate in many jurisdictions. Police misconduct has been cited in many cases and the risk of wrongful convictions in capital trials remains alarmingly high.
Amnesty International remains concerned that the relationship between the Pennsylvania judiciary and the law enforcement community at the very least gives rise to the unfortunate impression that justice is a one-way street leading to Mumia Abu-Jamal’s eventual execution.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, for example, appears to have ignored its own previous precedents in denying the defendant’s appeals.
Proponents of the execution of Abu-Jamal maintain that he had a “fair” trial and was duly convicted and sentenced by a jury of his peers. The adversarial system of justice in the USA can only be a fair arbiter if the defence and prosecution have reasonable access to the resources necessary to present their version of events, and if the judge overseeing the case is truly neutral. Juries can only be accurate assessors of events if they are given a complete view of the facts - including any differing explanations and interpretations of events - and are made aware of the possible reasons for the bias of witnesses. These factors were clearly missing in Abu-Jamal’s trial.
During the trial of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the jury was left unaware of much of the crucial information regarding the death of Officer Faulkner.
Other factors present during the prosecution of this case also render the verdict and sentence fundamentally unsound, including inadequate trial representation, the overt hostility of the trial judge and the appearance of judicial bias during appellate review.
Based on its review of the trial transcript and other original documents, Amnesty International has determined that numerous aspects of this case clearly failed to meet minimum international standards safeguarding the fairness of legal proceedings. Amnesty International therefore believes that the interests of justice would best be served by the granting of a new trial to Mumia Abu-Jamal.
The trial should fully comply with international standards of justice and should not allow for the reimposition of the death penalty. The organization is also recommending that the retrial take place in a neutral venue, where the case has not polarized the public as it has in Philadelphia. Finally, the authorities should permit prominent jurists from outside the USA to observe the proceedings, to ensure that the retrial complies in all respects with universally-recognized human rights safeguards.
they don't claim he is innocent because they can't, because he isn't.
That's a bit thick of you. Instead of jumping to conclusions like the police officers are doing, instead of being judge, jury, and executioner like the police officers wish they were, they want an actual fair trial to take place where all the facts are brought to light. It really isn't their place to declare who is innocent and who is guilty.
the facts were brought to light. he did it. being from the philly area I've seen hundreds of stories on the case. I've read a few books on the case. there is zero evidence that anyone but mumia killed officer Danny Faulkner. he is a murderer.
Yeah, except for those ones that were suppressed and censored out. :roll:
ugh please. here is what we know about the case: 4 witnesses place him as the shooter. he was lying near the officer when found, with a wound from the officer's gun. his gun was fired and was lying next to him when he was found. the caliber of bullet from his gun was the same caliber that killed office Faulkner. and 3 independent witnesses claim to have heard him admit in the hospital that he killed officer Faulkner. dispute the witness claims as you wish, but the physical evidence is pretty clear of his guilt.
so yea someone else did it :roll:
I've already addressed all of these points previously in this thread - witnesses who were coerced and threatened by the police, and who subsequently changed their stories. No routine ballistics tests carried out on his gun to determine whether it had been fired. Witnesses who came forward later to testify that they'd seen another man shoot Faulkner and flee the scene before Mumia arrived and tried to assist Faulkner before he was himself shot and then beaten by the police.
Why are you choosing to ignore all of these points? What is it that you have against Mumia Abu-Jamal exactly?
Mumia Abu-Jamal, A Case for Reasonable Doubt?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSdzpN44zZ0