Mumia Abu-Jamal Case: DA Dropping Death Penalty

24

Comments

  • pjhawks
    pjhawks Posts: 13,066
    Byrnzie wrote:
    pjhawks wrote:
    well you don't believe trial transcripts so not sure how any reference you would consider unbiased.

    We're not talking about trial transcripts. We're talking about Danielfaulkner.com

    What trial transcripts are you pretending that I don't 'believe'?

    you said you read the trial transcripts - and you said you don't believe mumia is a murderer - ergo you don't believe the trial transcripts. focus on your own justice system, stay out of ours.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    pjhawks wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    pjhawks wrote:
    well you don't believe trial transcripts so not sure how any reference you would consider unbiased.

    We're not talking about trial transcripts. We're talking about Danielfaulkner.com

    What trial transcripts are you pretending that I don't 'believe'?

    you said you read the trial transcripts - and you said you don't believe mumia is a murderer - ergo you don't believe the trial transcripts. focus on your own justice system, stay out of ours.

    The trial transcripts don't prove he committed the murder, as they fail to take in all of the other factors, including those I listed above.

    And I'll focus on whatever I choose to focus on, thanks.
  • pjhawks
    pjhawks Posts: 13,066
    Byrnzie wrote:
    "The trial transcripts don't prove he committed the murder, as they fail to take in all of the other factors, including those I listed above.

    And I'll focus on whatever I choose to focus on, thanks.

    12 jurors would disagree - and his conviction has never been overturned in all of the appeals. all racists and paid off by the fbi or something???
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    pjhawks wrote:
    12 jurors would disagree

    I'm sure they would.



    The jury: a fair and impartial panel of Abu-Jamal’s peers?

    An essential element of a fair trial is the selection of an impartial jury of the defendant’s peers, one which will base its verdict solely on the evidence presented to it. Where a case generates a high degree of controversy and publicity, trial courts routinely grant a change of venue, to ensure that the jury has not been exposed to pretrial publicity that could bias its deliberations. Of approximately 80 people in the jury pool at Mumia Abu-Jamal’s trial, all but seven prospective jurors admitted that they were familiar with media coverage of the case.
    The jury eventually selected (including the four alternate jurors) consisted of two blacks and 14 whites. The population of Philadelphia at the time of the trial was 40 per cent African American; a jury racially representative of the community could thus have been expected to include at least five black members.
    The prosecution used 11 out of its 15 peremptory strikes to remove African Americans from the jury. In 1986, the US Supreme Court ruled in the case of Batson v. Kentucky that the removal of potential jurors must be “race neutral”. The jurors selected for the trial of Mumia Abu-Jamal appear to have received different treatment from the court according to their race. Jennie Dawley, black, was the only juror selected while Abu-Jamal was conducting his own defence. Dawley requested, before the trial started, that she be allowed to take her sick cat to the veterinarian during the evening, thereby not disrupting the court proceedings. Judge Sabo denied this request without informing the defence. Juror Dawley was dismissed from the jury when she failed to abide by the Court’s instruction. In contrast, a white juror requested permission to take a civil service exam during court time. Judge Sabo granted this request, temporarily halted the trial and instructed a court official to accompany the juror and ensure that he saw no media coverage of the trial.
    Jennie Dawley was replaced by a white alternate juror, Robert Courchain. On at least five occasions during jury selection, Courchain stated that, although he would try, he might be unable to set aside his bias in the case. For example, he stated:
    “unconsciously I don’t think I could be fair to both sides.” The defence sought the removal of Courchain “for cause” (i.e. that he was incapable of deliberating impartially), but Judge Sabo denied the request. As Jackson had previously used the one peremptory strike available to him at this point he was unable to prevent Courchain from becoming an alternate juror.
    Jackson also allowed two jurors onto the jury whose life experiences could possibly prejudice them against Abu-Jamal. Juror number 11 was the close friend of a police officer who had been shot while on duty. While being questioned, he openly admitted that this experience could mean he was unable to be a fair juror because of his feelings concerning his friend. Juror number 15 (an alternate) was the wife of a serving police officer. Jackson allowed both onto the jury without objection.
  • pjhawks
    pjhawks Posts: 13,066
    Byrnzie wrote:
    pjhawks wrote:
    12 jurors would disagree

    I'm sure they would.



    The jury: a fair and impartial panel of Abu-Jamal’s peers?

    An essential element of a fair trial is the selection of an impartial jury of the defendant’s peers, one which will base its verdict solely on the evidence presented to it. Where a case generates a high degree of controversy and publicity, trial courts routinely grant a change of venue, to ensure that the jury has not been exposed to pretrial publicity that could bias its deliberations. Of approximately 80 people in the jury pool at Mumia Abu-Jamal’s trial, all but seven prospective jurors admitted that they were familiar with media coverage of the case.
    The jury eventually selected (including the four alternate jurors) consisted of two blacks and 14 whites. The population of Philadelphia at the time of the trial was 40 per cent African American; a jury racially representative of the community could thus have been expected to include at least five black members.
    The prosecution used 11 out of its 15 peremptory strikes to remove African Americans from the jury. In 1986, the US Supreme Court ruled in the case of Batson v. Kentucky that the removal of potential jurors must be “race neutral”. The jurors selected for the trial of Mumia Abu-Jamal appear to have received different treatment from the court according to their race. Jennie Dawley, black, was the only juror selected while Abu-Jamal was conducting his own defence. Dawley requested, before the trial started, that she be allowed to take her sick cat to the veterinarian during the evening, thereby not disrupting the court proceedings. Judge Sabo denied this request without informing the defence. Juror Dawley was dismissed from the jury when she failed to abide by the Court’s instruction. In contrast, a white juror requested permission to take a civil service exam during court time. Judge Sabo granted this request, temporarily halted the trial and instructed a court official to accompany the juror and ensure that he saw no media coverage of the trial.
    Jennie Dawley was replaced by a white alternate juror, Robert Courchain. On at least five occasions during jury selection, Courchain stated that, although he would try, he might be unable to set aside his bias in the case. For example, he stated:
    “unconsciously I don’t think I could be fair to both sides.” The defence sought the removal of Courchain “for cause” (i.e. that he was incapable of deliberating impartially), but Judge Sabo denied the request. As Jackson had previously used the one peremptory strike available to him at this point he was unable to prevent Courchain from becoming an alternate juror.
    Jackson also allowed two jurors onto the jury whose life experiences could possibly prejudice them against Abu-Jamal. Juror number 11 was the close friend of a police officer who had been shot while on duty. While being questioned, he openly admitted that this experience could mean he was unable to be a fair juror because of his feelings concerning his friend. Juror number 15 (an alternate) was the wife of a serving police officer. Jackson allowed both onto the jury without objection.

    mumia's defense team used 10 of 20 strikes to exclude black jurors - were they racist too? try again...next
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    pjhawks wrote:
    mumia's defense team used 10 of 20 strikes to exclude black jurors - were they racist too? try again...next

    http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset ... 2000en.pdf
    'The prosecution used 11 out of its 15 peremptory strikes to remove African Americans from the jury.'


    Try again. And please stop making shit up.

    Next.
  • pjhawks
    pjhawks Posts: 13,066
    edited December 2011
    Byrnzie wrote:
    pjhawks wrote:
    mumia's defense team used 10 of 20 strikes to exclude black jurors - were they racist too? try again...next

    http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset ... 2000en.pdf
    'The prosecution used 11 out of its 15 peremptory strikes to remove African Americans from the jury.'


    Try again. And please stop making shit up.

    Next.

    what did i make up? mumia's defense struck 10 black jurors.

    both sides have the right to strike jurors in the american justtice system - both chose to strike potential black jurors. so one side is racist for doing that but the other side is not? please enlighten me.

    and how does that affect whether he pulled the trigger or not? again it doesn't. mumia supporters look for every angle except the fact that HE pulled the trigger - and his brother witnessed the crime and has never once testified that mumia didn't do it.

    try again....

    edit: in fact instead of trying to show racial bias somehow show me actual evidence of the crime that shows he didn't do it or that someone else did it? again enough of the racial rhethoric - show evidence of the CRIME not the aftermath please.
    Post edited by pjhawks on
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    edited December 2011
    pjhawks wrote:
    what did i make up? mumia's defense struck 10 black jurors.

    Please elaborate. Where's your source? And what's the context for why these jurors were struck?

    http://www.iacenter.org/prisoners/mumia/maj_factsheet/
    'The prosecution used what have since been ruled illegal means to keep Black people off the jury. Only two Black jurors served on this case, in a city that is 40 percent Black.'

    pjhawks wrote:
    his brother witnessed the crime and has never once testified that mumia didn't do it.

    Neither has he testified that he did do it. It's widely believed that the police threatened him with a separate offence and intimidated him into not testifying. Now why would they do that if they thought he would testify against his brother?

    http://www.iacenter.org/prisoners/mumia/maj_factsheet/
    'Eyewitnesses who were not called to testify in 1982 have come forward. They say Mumia Abu-Jamal was not the shooter. Eyewitness Veronica Jones says police threatened to jail her if she testified. Other witnesses, who testified against Abu-Jamal in the original trial, have changed their stories, saying police threatened and intimidated them.'


    http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset ... 2000en.pdf
    William Cook, Abu-Jamal’s brother and an obvious eyewitness to the killing, did not testify for either side at trial. He was convicted in separate proceedings of assaulting Faulkner.
    Cook made a statement to the police on the night of the shooting, and another to Abu-Jamal’s legal team in 1995. However, neither of these statements have been seen by Amnesty International. Abu-Jamal’s supporters have alleged that in 1982, Cook was being intimidated by the police and feared being charged in connection with the killing and was therefore too frightened to testify. Cook was scheduled to testify during the 1995 hearing but failed to appear.
    Again it was alleged that this was due to fear of the police and of being arrested on unrelated charges in court. In his written denial of the 1995 appeal, Judge Sabo made negative assumptions regarding Cook’s unwillingness to testify. Since 1995, the defence team have been unable to locate Cook despite numerous attempts.
    Post edited by Byrnzie on
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    pjhawks wrote:
    edit: in fact instead of trying to show racial bias somehow show me actual evidence of the crime that shows he didn't do it or that someone else did it? again enough of the racial rhethoric - show evidence of the CRIME not the aftermath please.

    http://www.heureka.clara.net/art/mumia.htm
    'The 'facts' not disputed are police officer Daniel Faulkner was shot on the street, 4 am 9 December 1981, after having stopped Mumia's brother's car and beating his brother with a flashlight. Mumia arrived on the scene moments later, and appears to have been shot by Faulkner as the bullet found in his body matched that of Faulkner's gun. Mumia and Faulkner were found on the ground not far apart.

    Mumia was taken to hospital seriously injured, where he remained in critical condition for a period of time following emergency surgery. It was claimed by a female security guard at the hospital, a crucial witness in the prosecution case, that Mumia openly confessed to everyone within earshot that he had shot the policeman, adding for emphasis, 'I hope the motherfucker dies.' The surgeon who dealt with Mumia on the spot said he was to weak to speak. The police officer who took Mumia into custody and stayed with him stated in his written report that Mumia remained silent through the entire time he was with him. His testimony was not produced in court. The officer was unable to give evidence as he was 'on vacation'. A defence request for an adjournment to enable the witness to be called was refused. It was learnt later that Officer Wakshul, who wrote in his report that Jamal had made no statement at the hospital emergency, 'the defendant made no comment', was sitting at home and was available.

    Priscilla Durham (who was a friend of the deceased officer) suddenly remembered the 'confession' two months after the event. She allegedly told her supervisor at the time, who also seemed to have not told anyone else or made a written note, and was not available for cross-examination in court. The event that jolted the memory of Priscilla Durham was several police officers suddenly recalling the 'confession', and their memories were jolted by Mumia, two months later, filing charges of police brutality for the beating he received on the night of the killing.

    The key prosecution witness was a prostitute with a long history of arrests. She testified that she saw Mumia shoot Faulkner by running up behind him, shooting him once, and then firing again after he fell to the sidewalk. Her testimony contradicted previous statements and contradicted that of other witnesses. Another prostitute who was working the same area that night testified she was offered the same same deal as the prosecution witness: immunity from arrest by the police in return for her testimony against Mumia.

    Cynthia White, the prosecution star witness, is a convicted prostitute. No one was able to place Cynthia White at the scene, including her friend Veronica Jones, another prostitute. Cynthia White has stated she did not see Mumia with a gun or notice which hand he allegedly used to shoot with.

    Cynthia White was arrested in 1987 (five years after the trial) on armed robbery charges. Philadelphia homicide detective Douglas Culbreth appeared in court and asked that Cynthia White be released without posting money because she was 'a Commonwealth witness in a very high profile case.' Cynthia White subsequently failed to show up for her court date and has since disappeared.

    Veronica Jones, who now testifies in support of Jamal, was threatened with the loss of her children if she did not support the police story.

    Of the three remaining witnesses, all male, two said they saw Mumia run to the scene where the police officer was beating his brother. Both testified that gunfire erupted shortly after Mumia arrived, but neither saw Mumia shoot Faulkner. The third witness, a cab driver who had pulled up behind the police car, was closest to the shooting. He told police that a gunman fled the scene, before more police arrived, by running to where an alleyway intersects the sidewalk some thirty yards away. The gunman was a large, heavy man. In court, he testified the gunman took just a few steps and then sat down on the curb at the precise point where the police found Mumia, slumped over and bleeding profusely from his wound.

    On the night of the incident, cab driver Robert Chobert said the man who shot Officer Faulkner ran down the block. However, at the trial he said the man 'slumped down on the curb 10 feet away'.

    Jeff Scanlon, a white businessman, testified that he saw the defendant standing over the body firing. However, on the night of the incident in a written statement to police he described the 'assailant' as a heavy-set man with an Afro-hairstyle. Mumia Abu-Jamal wears long dreadlocks.

    Dessie Hightower, a Black man, testified that Faulkner's gun was still in his holster when he was put into a wagon on route to the hospital. He witnessed the brutal beating of Mumia and the 'accidental' ramming of his head into a pole. He saw a man run away from the scene in dreadlocks.

    A witness not called, a local resident, reported seeing a man flee the scene in the same direction as reported by cab driver Robert Chobert on the night. As did a third prostitute who observed one or two men running from the scene, but recanted her story after lengthy questioning by the police. In total, four witnesses situated in four separate locations on the street, none of whom knew each other or Mumia Abu-Jamal, reported seeing a gunman flee the scene, and all saw him fleeing in the same direction.

    A key eyewitness, not called, was William Singletary. He saw the whole incident and has testified that Mumia Abu-Jamal was not the gunman. Singletary, a local businessman, was intimidated by police when he reported this, and subsequently fled the city.

    William Singletary's testimony (11 August 1995) describes how police tore up his written statement, and forced him to sign a different statement which they dictated.

    The prosecution case was that Mumia first shot Faulkner, wounding him slightly. When the officer returned fire and hit him, Mumia, angered, stood over Faulkner, who had since fallen to the sidewalk, and shot him in the face, killing him instantly. None of the witnesses saw this version of events, none even saw Mumia get shot.

    Detective William Thomas, 15 year veteran, who was in charge of the whole investigation and described himself as the hub of the wheel that all the spokes fed into did not carry out any tests to determine if Mumia or Faulkner held a weapon that night.

    A bullet first reported by the medical examiner as being in two fragments and of .44 calibre, reconstructed itself together and became one bullet of .38 calibre 'consistent' with Mumia's gun. The prosecution ballistics expert claimed he could not match the bullet recovered from Faulkner's body to Mumia's gun due to the fragmented nature of the bullet. A copper bullet jacket was found at the scene. The police ballistics expert testified that the bullets in both Faulkner's gun and Mumia's gun did not have copper jackets. The defence was unable to provide a ballistics expert due to lack of funds.

    The Medical Examiner wrote in his report 'shot w/ 44 cal', the gun owned by Mumia Abu-Jamal was .38 calibre. Mumia was carrying a legally purchased gun on his job as a late night cab driver because he had been robbed several times.

    It was learnt later that the police never tested Mumia Abu-Jamal's gun to see if it had been recently fired, never tested Mumia's hands to see if he had fired a gun, had no proof that Mumia's gun was the fatal weapon, and have lost a bullet fragment removed by the medical examiner.

    The judge, Albert Sabo, has sentenced more people to death than any other sitting judge in the United States. Six former Philadelphia prosecutors have sworn in court documents that no accused could receive a fair trial in his court.

    Judge Sabo rejected an appeal on the grounds that the original trial had been flawless, and even had one of the defence attorneys taken out in handcuffs.


    Are you still going to pretend that this is a closed case that contains nothing fishy?
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    edited December 2011
    pjhawks wrote:
    edit: in fact instead of trying to show racial bias somehow show me actual evidence of the crime that shows he didn't do it or that someone else did it? again enough of the racial rhethoric - show evidence of the CRIME not the aftermath please.


    http://www.abu-jamal-news.com/article.php?name=framing4
    In his new book b]The Framing of Mumia Abu-Jamal[/b, O’Connor argues that Abu-Jamal was clearly framed by police, and that the actual shooter was a man named Kenneth Freeman.

    Hans Bennett: Advocates of Abu-Jamal's conviction and execution always say that a police frame-up of Abu-Jamal is a lunatic, far-fetched "conspiracy theory" that should be dismissed by any sane observer. What do you mean when you say he was "framed"? How was this done?

    J. Patrick O'Connor: Mumia's early association with the Philadelphia branch of the Black Panther Party marked him as a subversive to George Fencl, the chief inspector of the Philadelphia Police Department’s Civil Defense Bureau. His subsequent sympathetic coverage of MOVE while reporting for the local public radio station made him an avowed enemy of Mayor Frank Rizzo. Minutes after Officer Faulkner was shot at 3:55 a.m., Inspector Alfonzo Giordano – who reported directly to Fencl – took command of the crime scene and personally set in motion the framing of Abu-Jamal. It would be Giordano who claimed that Mumia told him in the paddy wagon that he dropped his gun after he shot Faulkner; it would be Giordano who arranged for prostitute Cynthia White and felon Robert Chobert to identify Abu-Jamal as the shooter. Giordano and White would be the D.A. Office’s only witnesses at the preliminary hearing to hold Abu-Jamal over for trial where Giordano repeated this “confession.”

    Giordano is as corrupt a police officer as one can imagine. For years he had been extorting kickbacks – personally averaging $3,000 per month – from Center City prostitutes, pimps and bar owners, which explains his early arrival at the crime scene. He knew Cynthia White and her pimp. He coerced her at the scene to identify Abu-Jamal as the shooter. She would be the only witness the D.A. had to claim to see Abu-Jamal holding a gun over Faulkner. In her original statement to the police – given within an hour of the shooting – she had Abu-Jamal running from the parking lot and from as far away as 10-yards firing off “four or five shots” at Faulkner before the officer fell. In her third interview with police detectives, given on December 17, she fine-tuned her statement to comport with the actual evidence in the case that Faulkner was shot at close range. (In one of the most sinister aspects of Abu-Jamal’s case, the police department waited until the Monday after Abu-Jamal’s conviction to “relieve” Giordano of his duties on what would prove to be well-founded “suspicions of corruption.” Four years after Abu-Jamal’s trial, Giordano pled guilty to tax evasion in connection with those payouts and was sent to prison.)

    Incredibly, the police arriving at the crime scene would later claim not to have conducted any tests to determine if Abu-Jamal had recently fired a gun by checking for powder residue on his hands or clothing, nor did they claim to even feel or smell his gun to determine if it had been recently fired. Tests such as these are so routine at murder scenes that it is almost inconceivable the police did not run them. It is more likely that they did not like the results of the tests.

    From the outset, the investigation into the shooting death of Officer Faulkner was conducted with one goal in mind: to hang the crime on Mumia Abu-Jamal. There was no search for the truth, no attempt at providing the slain officer with the justice he deserved. Giordano handed Abu-Jamal to the D.A.’s Office with his own lie about Abu-Jamal confessing to him and packing off Cynthia White in a squad car to tell her concocted account of the shooting. When the D.A.’s Office was forced to back away from the corrupt Giordano, Assistant D.A. Joseph McGill elicited a new “confession” to replace Giordano’s in February when security guard Priscilla Durham and Officer Garry Bell, Faulkner’s best friend on the police force, responded to his promptings by saying they heard Abu-Jamal blurt out at the hospital, “I shot the mother-fucker and I hope the mother-fucker dies.” Not one of the dozens of other officers present at the hospital would make such a claim. In fact, the two officers who accompanied Abu-Jamal from the time he was placed in the paddy wagon until he went into surgery, reported that he made no comments in signed statements given to detectives assigned to the case that morning.

    The prosecution knew that its new “confession” could be skewered if Abu-Jamal’s defense attorney, Anthony Jackson, called the two officers who accompanied Abu-Jamal to the stand, so all the prosecution really had was Cynthia White. With White saying she saw it all from beginning to end, and willing to testify that she saw Abu-Jamal blow the helpless Faulkner’s brains out in ruthless cold blood, McGill had his case made, providing White’s credibility could survive Jackson’s cross-examination. McGill bet the entire case that it could, and despite the utter web of lies she told the jury, was right.

    Bennett: Why do you think that Kenneth Freeman was the actual shooter of Police Officer Daniel Faulkner?

    O'Connor: Kenneth Freeman was Billy Cook’s street vendor partner and was riding with him in the VW when Faulkner pulled the VW over. Freeman got out of the VW and subsequently handed Faulkner a phony driver’s license application bearing the name of Arnold Howard, which Howard had recently loaned to him. Howard’s papers were found in Faulkner’s shirt pocket. Police rounded up both Howard and Freeman in the early morning hours of December 9 and brought them in for questioning. At the Post-Conviction Relief Act hearing in 1995, Howard testified that on several occasions, Cynthia White picked Freeman out of a lineup.

    At Billy Cook’s March 29 trial for assaulting Officer Faulkner, with McGill as the prosecutor, White told McGill in direct testimony that the passenger in the VW “had got out.” McGill said, “He got of the car”? White responded, “Yes.” (At Abu-Jamal’s trial, McGill got White to testify that only Abu-Jamal, Cook, and Faulkner were at the scene.)

    Various witnesses said they saw a black man running from the scene right after the shooting. Some of the eyewitnesses said this man had an Afro and wore a green army jacket. Freeman did have an Afro and he perpetually wore a green army jacket. Freeman was tall and burly, weighing about 225 pounds at the time.

    Cab driver Robert Harkins was driving right by the parked police car and the VW when he saw a police officer grab a man. The man “then spun around and the officer went to the ground,” falling face down backwards, landing on his hands and knees. The assailant shot the officer in the back, causing him to roll over on his back, and then executed him with a shot to his forehead.

    Harkins described the shooter as a little taller and heavier than the 6-foot, 200-pound Faulkner. Robert Chobert told police in his first statement that the shooter had an Afro and weighed about 225 pounds. (Abu-Jamal, also about 6-foot, wore his hair in dreadlocks and weighed 170 pounds at the time.)

    In Billy Cook’s April 29, 2001, affidavit he declared that Freeman was with him the night of the shooting, was armed, and fled the scene after Faulkner was shot. Cook said he did not see who shot Faulkner.

    Freeman would meet an ignominious death hours after Philadelphia police firebombed the MOVE house on Osage Avenue in 1985, killing 11 MOVE members, including John Africa, whose corpse had been beheaded. Freeman’s dead body was found bound, gagged and naked in a vacant lot. There would be no police investigation into this obvious murder. The coroner listed his cause of death as a heart attack. The timing and modus operandi of the abduction and killing alone suggest an extreme act of police vengeance.
    Post edited by Byrnzie on
  • pjhawks
    pjhawks Posts: 13,066
    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.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    pjhawks wrote:
    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.
    pjhawks wrote:
    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:

    Mumia Abu-Jamal: A Case For Reasonable Doubt? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3582154541
  • JonnyPistachio
    JonnyPistachio Florida Posts: 10,219
    Not about this case, but I found this article aboutt he DP interesting:

    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.
    Pick up my debut novel here on amazon: Jonny Bails Floatin (in paperback) (also available on Kindle for $2.99)
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    JonnyPistachio wrote:
    Not about this case, but I found this article aboutt he DP interesting:

    http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/15/justi ... ?hpt=hp_t2


    '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."
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,875
    Byrnzie wrote:
    JonnyPistachio wrote:
    Not about this case, but I found this article aboutt he DP interesting:

    http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/15/justi ... ?hpt=hp_t2


    '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

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    This is worth a watch. Some Eddie Vedder at the end of it too. Apparently he's on the soundtrack to this new documentary: http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/1/mu ... ted_states
  • vant0037
    vant0037 Posts: 6,170
    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
    2025-05-03 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    vant0037 wrote:
    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.
  • vant0037
    vant0037 Posts: 6,170
    Byrnzie wrote:
    vant0037 wrote:
    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
    2025-05-03 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    vant0037 wrote:
    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.

    Fair enough. I misunderstood your other post.

Categories