Adherence to precedent is supposedly a fundamental principle of the American legal system. Patterns of failing to follow precedent produces what is dubbed the Ă ‚¬Ĺ"Abu-Jamal ExceptionĂ ‚¬ ť the practice of judges craftily changing precedent to exclude extending Abu-Jamal the legal relief given to other defendants raising the same legal issues.
Documented violations in this closely watched case convince groups as diverse as Amnesty International and the national NAACP that Abu-Jamal is the victim of double standards of justice. The NAACP approved a resolution at its centennial convention in July 2009 calling on the US Department of Justice to investigate civil rights violations in the Abu-Jamal case.
The enormous attention given to the Ă ‚¬ËśwhodunitĂ ‚¬ „ aspects underlying Abu-JamalĂ ‚¬ „ s contentious conviction easily obscures critical context regarding systemic violations by Philadelphia authorities. Failing to factor in this important context elevates the credibility of fallacious claims about Abu-JamalĂ ‚¬ „ s guilt.
One fallacious claim is that police did not frame Abu-Jamal. Evidence from the now proven improprieties in those three other high profile 1981 homicides refutes this claim.
The case of the 1981 arrest producing that wrongful death sentence provides a compelling example of Philadelphia police framing an innocent man.Ă‚
Philadelphia police had arrested Neil Ferber six months before their December 1981 arrest of Abu-Jamal, charging Ferber with murdering an organized crime figure.Ă‚
The judge presiding at the trial where Ferber sought compensation for his wrongful incarceration stated in his post-trial opinion that Ă ‚¬Ĺ"a variety of Philadelphia police officersĂ ‚¬ ť engaged in a litany of illegal conduct Ă ‚¬Ĺ"all for the singular purpose of obtaining FerberĂ ‚¬ „ s arrest and subsequent convictionĂ ‚¬ ¦Ă ‚¬ ťĂ‚
Common sense compels consideration of the conclusion that if Philadelphia police would callously frame a man for a mob murder police could frame a man charged with murdering a fellow police officer.
Persons rejecting evidence of police framing Abu-Jamal ignore a disturbing fact uncovered by investigative reporter Dave Lindorff, author of a book on the Abu-Jamal case. Lindorff documented that seventeen of the 35 police officers involved in the MAJ investigation were later indicted and/or disciplined for misconduct that included manufacturing evidence designed to frame suspects.
Federal investigations and findings by courts have repeatedly documented illegal practices by Philadelphia police and prosecutors.
In 1979, two years before Abu-JamalĂ ‚¬ „ s arrest, the US Justice Department filed an unprecedented civil rights violation lawsuit against 21 top Philadelphia officials including the cityĂ ‚¬ „ s then Mayor charging them with actively backing violent police brutalityĂ ‚¬ ¦abusive misconduct frequently utilizing fabricated evidence to discredit victims and defend their police assailants.
Claims presented at trial about Abu-JamalĂ ‚¬ „ s alleged confession first arose during an investigation into his complaint of suffering police beatings on the day of his arrest at the crime scene and inside a hospital emergency room.
During that brutality investigation, two officers suddenly remembered hearing Abu-Jamal confess at the hospital. This pair included the officer who brought Abu-Jamal from the crime scene to the hospital who filed a report three hours after Abu-JamalĂ ‚¬ „ s arrest stating Abu-Jamal made Ă ‚¬Ĺ"no comments.Ă ‚¬ ť
Authorities fired that officer, Gary Wakshul, three years after Abu-JamalĂ ‚¬ „ s arrest. Police officials fired Wakshul for viciously beating a man, including a near fatal assault inside a hospital emergency room.
In 1978, three years before Abu-JamalĂ ‚¬ „ s arrest, the Pa Supreme Court blasted Philadelphia homicide prosecutors for Ă ‚¬Ĺ"perpetrating a falsehood and fraud.Ă ‚¬ ť This misconduct included having the former head of the DAĂ ‚¬ „ s Homicide Unit provide false testimony against a murder defendant. That Supreme Court ruling specifically criticized the Ă ‚¬Ĺ"misleadingĂ ‚¬ ť testimony of ex-Unit head Ed Rendell, who at the time of Abu-JamalĂ ‚¬ „ s trial, served as PhiladelphiaĂ ‚¬ „ s District Attorney.
Courts state and federal have overturned many murder convictions obtained during RendellĂ ‚¬ „ s tenure as District Attorney citing instances of misconduct by homicide prosecutors inclusive of withholding evidence of innocence and engaging in racially discriminatory jury selection practices.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
