Great Job, Dave!

Hi Dave, you did an excellent job!  I don't know how anyone can possibly listen to this debate and still conclude that Mumia had a fair trial.  And of course, it was great that you vouched further for the importance of the new crime scene photos, as you did with your presentation at the Dec. 4 Journalists for Mumia press conference. (listen here)

Best,

Hans 

by Hans Bennett (19 articles, 81 quicklinks, 82 diaries, 145 comments) on Thursday, December 13, 2007 at 1:07:05 PM
 

Let's see....

His fingerprints were on the murder weapon, eye witnesses SAW him do it, and he admitted it in the hospital when he said Yeah, i shot that M... f...er and I hope that M... F...er dies.

I guess that had no bearing on anything.....  

 Nor does the fact that his own brother will not testify about Mumia's innocence despite the fact that he was in the car that was stopped for a routine traffic violation...

I guess that has no bearing on anything either...

has ANYONE pulling for mumia actually read the trial transcripts? 

I don't think it is possible that anyone could have...

 Ciao, CZ

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 673 comments) on Thursday, December 13, 2007 at 2:32:28 PM
 

Hmmm... Mumia's Trial Was Fair?

Well, You ask if we've read the transcripts, but did you even listen to this show that you are criticizing?

That confession you cite was thoroughly discredited in the radio program, given that it took over 2 months to be officially reported by police. Also, the fingerprints were officially inconclusive, which is to be expected given the way the police handled the guns, as PO James Forbes is shown holding them both in his bare-hand and is seen touching the metal parts of the gun---as is shown in the newly discovered crime scene photos.

Maureen Faulkner was asked about this on WHYY / NPR radio on Tuesday, to which she said: "From what this photograph is showing, I don't know if his hands are actually on the grip of the gun, it seems like he has his finger holding the gun through the actual trigger part, but not on the handle of the gun. At that time, I'm sure the evidence was somewhat contaminated."

The photos were recently featured on The Today Show.

As far as the other evidence cited against Mumia, in my essay I just wrote about the WHYY show, I take excerpts from the recent Journalists for Mumia flyer debunking the evidence presented on the "Murdered By Mumia" website, which says Abu-Jamal "was unanimously convicted of the crime by a racially mixed jury based on: the testimony of several eyewitnesses, his ownership of the murder weapon, matching ballistics, and Abu-Jamal's own confession." Link here for the that article, or just link above and read the flyer directly. Then, please explain how you think those points are factually inaccurate. Also, I am curious to know what you think of these new photos,, For more on them, check out Reuters, The Today Show, The SF Bay View, the Journalists for Mumia press-release, and the Educators for Mumia press release. or view them closer at Abu-Jamal-News.com

by Hans Bennett (19 articles, 81 quicklinks, 82 diaries, 145 comments) on Thursday, December 13, 2007 at 4:16:50 PM
 

Take note

 I asked a question about whether or not a pro mumia supporter has ever read the trial transcript  In response, I get a question regarding whether or not  I listened to the radio show on NPR...

 By this response I can conclude that NO, you have NOT read the transcript.

 You gave a list of people FOR Mumia, but one person was absent...

Mumia's BROTHER, Billy Cook, who was DEFINITELY there that evening REFUSED TO TESTIFY...  So, as far as supporters, he, CLEARLY, is NOT for Mumia...

So, your case that the mysterious shooter sitting in billy's car somehow got out, walked around behind falkner and shot him in the back with Mumia's gun, was missed by falkner as he turned and shot mumia, and then, upon fleeing the scene, managed to drop mumia's gun in mumia's hands as he laid there bleeding... 

Yep those conspiracies are wonderfully entertaining...

Maybe you should READ the transcripts from the actual case instead of the blogs.... 

 Ciao, CZ

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 673 comments) on Friday, December 14, 2007 at 9:23:49 AM
 

As one who has read and footnoted the transcripts

I have to say that they are not the bible. In fact, they are deeply flawed because of who Sabo allowed to testify, and what questions they were allowed to be asked and to answer.

I would note, for example, that the new photographs from Mr. Polokoff show that there was no taxicab parked behind Faulkner's squad car. Indeed, no witness initially reported seeing Chobert or his cab where he claimed he was, and it is almost certain that his testimony--the most crucial witness testimony in the case--was all fabricated.  So reading the transcript doesn't tell us much in that case.

The same argument can be made regarding White. The most significant of her testimony is not in the trial transcript. It is in her initial signed statement to the police, which was that she saw Faulkner shot five times while he was standing, and that he fell over and lay screaming--totally at odds with her later testimony and with medical science (he died instantly from the head shot). She too gave manufactured testimony at the trial.

She also provided two drawings of the scene for police (both published in my book). Although she included the ford parked in front of Billy Cook's VW, which played no role in the incident, she drew no taxi behind Faulkner's vehicle.

So don't make overmuch of those transcripts. they are not holy writ by any means. Also, people forget another transcript--the one from the PCRA in 1995, where a fifth witness interviewed at length by the police, but not called by the prosecution at the trial, said he saw someone (not identified) wrestling with Faulkner, and throwing him to the ground, after which the shooting happened. Since this scenario--completely at odds with the official one--would require that Faulkner had to have shot Mumia Abu-Jamal first (he couldn't have fired a downward-coursing bullet from the ground up), it suggests that Jamal was shot before Faulkner, making the whole thing a different can of worms.

by Dave Lindorff (354 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 163 comments) on Friday, December 14, 2007 at 10:07:02 AM
 

I have read transcripts--not that it matters

Actually, I have read the transcripts, and so has author Dave Lindorff.  And, because I've read them, I know how much time it took!  To declare "have you read the transcripts" is the ultimate red herring, because one certainly does not have to read the entire transcripts, to know the trial was rotten.  Honestly, all I think someone needs to read is something like my flyer (which I cited and politely asked you to find one single error in) which lays out the basics, and challenges the "evidence" cited by Murdered.

So, now, along with the NPR show, I am guessing you never read my summary of the facts either----considering that you didn't adress a single point I made.

Unfortunately, i thought that because you are a writer on this cool site, that you might have been open to legit dialogue and to learning something new.  However, I am beginning to think you are like the rest of the FRY MUMIA lynch mob---facts don't matter.

That is too bad, and I realize I am wasting my time engaging you, so this last email here from me is more for the benefit of other readers who may be checking this out, and I want them to know that the side who thinks Mumia needs a new trial, do back their arguments up with facts. 

by Hans Bennett (19 articles, 81 quicklinks, 82 diaries, 145 comments) on Friday, December 14, 2007 at 10:12:26 AM
 

Lynch mob?

I am beginning to think you are like the rest of the FRY MUMIA lynch mob---facts don't matter.

You do a search on google for Mumia, and all you find are sites saying "FREE MUMIA!"  

 FACT, Falkner was shot in the back a fact that is ignored, conveniently, by the "Free Mumia" crowd; a fact which is at odds with all of the stories about wrestling and tossing to the ground and Falkner shooting first..  Mumia never mentioned Falkner ever drawing his weapon let alond drawing his weapon first...

this fact was never disputed by the defense mounted over the past quarter century.... 

during the first trial, Mumia represented himself and was able to work on jury selection...  Abu-Jamal had been unanimously convicted of by a jury of his own choosing...

 The way things stand now, fewer and fewer people are disputing that Jamal SHOT Falkner..  Rather they are floating the concept of self defense...  this will be as doomed as the failed attempt to float the concept of a .44 caliber bullet dug out of Falkner...  

Not even jamal's lawyers kept that idea going.... 

 The latest arguments: 

Abu-Jamal's counsel told the Third Circuit Court that Abu-Jamal did not get a fair trial because the judge was a racist and the jury was both racially-biased and misinformed.

 You are wrong...  Facts DO matter..  They all point toward Jamal as the shooter.  Jamal's defense is to float the idea that the RACIST SYSTEM was against him... 

 Open mind?  please..  you have no room to even consider that Jamal shot Danny Falkner...

Ciao, CZ 

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 673 comments) on Friday, December 14, 2007 at 10:52:41 AM