Mumia Abu-Jamal: A Right or Left conspiracy?

There is much controversy surrounding the case of one of the most infamous cases of the last century. The case involves the murder of Danny Faulkner, a Philapedlphia police police officer in late 1981. The alleged murderer of Faulkner is Wesley Cook (aka: Mumia Abu-Jamal), of which has been sentenced to execution by the State of Pennsylvania.One thing is certain. This case can easily be characterized by bias. But by whom? Is the conspiracy coming from the Right or the Left-- or both?This is the prosecutions version of events that led a jury of Mumia's peers to indict him:On the 9th of December, 1981, at approximately 3:55 a.m., Officer Faulkner conducted a routine traffic stop on William Cook at the intersection of Locust and 12th. It is unclear what precipitated the stop, or what prompted the attempted arrest of Cook, but dispatchers claim that Faulkner radioed for a police wagon (which in those days was used to transport people in custody).Mumia Abu-Jamal was allegedly across the street watching the event. Mumia's birth name is Wesley Cook (who is William Cook's brother). Mumia is reported to have ran across the street and shot Faulkner in the back. In other words, he was ambushed. Faulkner was able to turn and return fire, hitting Mumia in the chest. Faulkner then fell to the ground, where Mumia allegedly stood over Faulkner firing more shots at close range, striking Faulkner in the face.When backup arrived, they stated that Mumia was slumped over his brothers car, apparently injured from taking a shot to the chest. In his hands was a .38 caliber revolver with five spent bullets. Four eyewitnesses testified that it Mumia was the shooter.At the hospital, three witnesses claimed that Mumia unapologetically confessed to the slaying.Given to such evidence, a jury of 10 white and two black jurors chargeded Mumia with first degree homicide, in which he still remains on death row to this day.Based on the accounts understood by me, I believe that Mumia is guilty. What are the odds that:

• Some other unknown person randomly shot Faulkner when Mumia had a clear motive (his brother being taken to jail, is known to take issue with white people, is known to view negatively figures of authority, and was physically present at the scene, etc)?
  ​
• Mumia had Faulkners bullet lodged in his chest. If Mumia didn't attack him, then how and why exactly was he shot?
  ​
• How is it that Mumia had in his possession the murder weapon, with the exact same amount of spent cartridges in his gun that correspondingly was found in Faulkner and nearby if he didn't do it?
  ​
• The weapon was registered to Mumia, it was in his possession (smoking, no less), and he was even wearing a corresponding holster for that exact model weapon.
  ​
• Four people witnessed the murder, five if you include Cook. Why would four people invent a story that Mumia shot Faulkner if he is supposedly innocent?
  ​
• Mumia initially confessed to the murder, stating, "I shot the motherfucker, and I hope the motherfucker dies."
  ​
• Why would a police agency frame an innocent man for the murder of one of their own as opposed to trying to find the actual killer?

Why I decided to start this thread: Crashfrog writesTo answer Crash, I believe strongly that the preponderance of guilt must be present in order to convict someone. If there is not, it should go to a mistrial because a reasonable doubt exists. And while I don't believe Mumia should be executed, I think this case strongly supports that he in fact is guilty of the crime he's been charged and convicted for.Naturally, I strongly urge that Mumia be afforded the right to exhaust the appeals process, and even encourage the reopening of the case in the event that the District Attorney's Office feels that there is some reasonable evidence that he didn't have a fair trial exists.I encourage the skeptics of his crime on this board to present defensive evidence to the contrary. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typoEdited by nemesis_juggernaut, : Edit to add more information

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

Let me just cover some of the evidence in Abu-Jamal's favor: The four eyewitnesses you refer to were:Robert Chobert
Michael Scanlon
Cynthia White
Albert MagiltonCynthia White was a police informant, and her testimony was revealed to be false. She testified at trial that she was nearly a block closer to the crime than she actually was. Furthermore, her testimony was only corroborated by Veronica Jones, who we know was offered favorable treatment by police in exchange for falsely corroborating White's testimony.Robert Jones, the cab driver, testified to having seen someone of much different build and dressed differently than Abu-Jamal shoot Falkner.Michael Scanlon didn't see the entire altercation, drove off before it was over, and was intoxicated at the time.Albert Magilton didn't see the shooting, and didn't testify that Abu-Jamal was the shooter.That leaves us with zero witnesses who offered credible testimony that Abu-Jamal was the shooter. The gun was actually several feet away from where they found Abu-Jamal. The coroner's inital notes concluded that the bullet removed from Falkner's body was a .44 caliber round. The report of officer Gary Wakshul, who was present during Abu-Jamal's entire treatment, made no mention of any confession by Abu-Jamal, and stated that Abu-Jamal made no comments whatsoever. Abu-Jamal's doctor reported that Abu-Jamal was completely unconscious during the entire treatment.One of those who testified about the supposed confession, Priscilla Durham, was a close friend of David Falkner. She later confessed to family members that she had given false testimony under pressure from police. How about by the presiding judge Albert Sabo, who, before the trial began, was heard by the court stenographer to say that he was going to "help them fry the nigger"?Do you think maybe he could have been biased? Just a little bit? Or perhaps it was the officers of the 39 Precinct, who were involved in a precinct-wide investigation of corruption, evidence tampering, and false conviction that resulted in the conviction of five officers on several counts of planting false evidence, including officers who were involved with the Falkner investigation. How do you feel now, knowing that nearly all of the evidence you refer to is either unreliable or the direct result of police suborning false testimony under the nose of a racist judge?Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Your whole post reeks of the typical socialist websites I've been going over for the better part of an hour now.Other than pro-Mumia websites, which makes all sorts of claims with nothing to corroborate them, what evidence do you have of these claims?I have tried to locate the actual court transcripts online and can't find them anywhere. If you can find them somehow, I would love to review it.The most comprehensive study of the case that I can find on the web is found here. This doesn't, obviously, mean that the information is necessarily true, but it sure brings to bear a lot more credibility than some of the pro-mumia websites which, so far as I've seen, literally offers nothing other than hearsay and conjecture for how they obtained such "facts." It goes in to the myriad of speculations offered by you. How do you know any of the allegations you've claimed are reliable, in which to make the audacious claim that the others are unreliable?And it still doesn't explain why Mumia had been shot by Faulkner if some mystery man lurking in the shadows was realy the culprit. I mean, it sounds more like Grassy Knoll conspiracies than substantiated evidence.There is hard evidence pointing to Mumia, not circumstantial. I've yet to see a shred of actual evidence in favor of Mumia.Secondly, lets look at this conspiracy theory reasonably. If the 39th precinct lost one of their own, why would they intentionally go after someone they allegedly knew didn't do it, as opposed to going after the real culprit? That makes no sense, whatsoever.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

I know next to nothing about this, so a few questions if I may. What is the evidence for this, and when was it established? How do we know that she received "favorable treatment by police," what was that treatment, and when was the fact of the treatment disclosed? So what? Initial investigative conclusions are often changed for completely non-nefarious reasons. What do you want us to conclude from this?What is the source, or sources, of the information you present?

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Is there any reason for a Death Penalty?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Innocent until proven guilty?The onus is on the prosecution side to show that its evidence is reliable. The defense only has to introduce a reasonable doubt.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

The answer to your question depends on how you mean it.If you intend to ask if there's any basis under the law for him to get the death penalty, I'd be willing to bet that killing a cop is a sufficient basis.If instead you intend to ask the broader question whether there should be a death penalty, I believe there should not be.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

According to several courts, he has been proven guilty. If someone is now trying to get the verdicts reversed, the onus is most certainly on them to provide the proof.Edited by subbie, : Subtitle.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Fair enough. My understanding of the OP was that we were discussing whether or not he should have been convicted in the first place, not what it would take to reverse the verdict.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

No, unfortunately I know there is a legal basis. That is the big question in my opinion.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, my understanding, and I concede that I may well be wrong about this, is that many of the allegations now being made in support of his innocence consist of facts that were developed post trial. If that is the case, then it is a very heavy burden that the defendant must meet, as it should be.If, however, the information we are discussing was available at trial, then it has already been considered by the only factfinders of any significance, the jury. We can discuss ad nauseum the facts that were educed at trial, but none of us is in as good a position to come to any conclusion about those facts as was the jury. We cannot assess the credibility of any witnesses. We will not have the benefit of the deliberative process that the jury engaged in. And, without access to the actual transcripts, we will not know the exact testimony that the witnesses gave, nor the arguments of counsel.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Wikipedia is the only source that I have used. The Mumia defense team has signed affidavits of these testimonies.Of course none of this stuff came up at his trial; Albert Sabo was determined to "fry this nigger", in his own words, so naturally he ruled against the admission of this evidence at every turn. Similarly, the police report that refuted the three "witnesses" who heard his "confession" was excluded by Sabo. The people making these allegations stood nothing to gain, and much to lose, by making them. Testimony against self-interest is pretty credible, and at the very least every single so-called "eyewitness" suffers from a considerable lack of credibility.That adds up to reasonable doubt, in my view. Is Mumia innocent? I can't say. It's beyond question at this point, though, that he did not receive a fair trial and that much of the evidence against him - like his vaunted "confession" - is just pure fabrication by a police force known to have engaged in that kind of evidence planting and falsification for decades.That's reasonable doubt. You can't support a guilty verdict with the evidence that was presented at his trial. That's 100% true. There's just no question about it, except to people who want to "fry a nigger", or at least a cop-killer. You're totally right. I mean it's not like the police have ever shot a black man for absolutely no reason, right?Oh, wait. I don't see what Faulkner shooting Mumia has anything to do with it. We're talking about an officer with a history of using unnecessary force. I mean, at the time the shooting began, he was beating Cook with a flashlight. Is it really so unreasonable to suggest that, after catching a bullet, he would have turned around and shot the first black man he saw? I think they think they framed a guilty man. I think the Philadelphia police planted evidence about a man they all assumed was guilty to ensure a confession - an ages-old technique in law enforcement.Unfortunately it's not up to them who's guilty and who's not. Is Mumia innocent? Again, it's hard to say. But there's abundant reasonable doubt when so much of the evidence brought against him is such obvious forgery. When so much of the testimony was obvious coerced by police.And it's instructive to note that the only time his brother has come out of hiding - fearing for his life from police intimidation and vengeance - has been to proclaim his brother's innocence. So at least one eyewitness claims that Mumia is innocent.It all adds up to reasonable doubt for me, even in the face of the physical evidence, which is strong but not that strong. They should have based their case on that, rather than try to stack the deck with fake evidence and imagined confessions.Remember that the only thing connecting the gun to Mumia was that it was found nearby and that it was found to have been registered in his name. The ballistics match between the bullets in Falkner and the gun only specifies the same make and model gun, it isn't conclusive to that specific firearm. And with all the fake evidence police manufactured against Mumia, we have to wonder if perhaps the registration wasn't faked, as well.Incidentally it doesn't help your case for you to be inventing evidence, either - like "the gun was in his hand" or "there were four eyewitnesses."

It's a matter of public record that she was a police informant, and that was confirmed in court during the 1995 corruption trial of the officers of the 39th precinct.A number of eyewitnesses confirm that White was nowhere near as close as she testified that she was, and even White herself has signed an affidavit refuting her testimony. I guess we can only look at her arrest records. Maybe you can obtain them? And we know that she's not the only one to report being offered favorable treatment to perjure herself; Pamela Jenkins was made the same offer during the Abu-Jamal trial.Most of this information was disclosed after the trial. It's been the focus of many of his legal appeals. That there's uncertainty as to whether or not the bullets from the gun were the ones in Falkner - they could not be conclusively matched to that specific firearm, you know. And gunshot residue was never found on Abu-Jamal's hands, which would have been conclusive evidence that he had fired a gun.Again, do these things add up to innocence? I don't know. But a reasonable person would have to conclude reasonable doubt. How can there not be reasonable doubt in the face of so much evidence tampering?

I think that's a misunderstanding of how the law works. It's not necessary to prove innocence beyond reasonable doubt for a successful appeal, although it does help, obviously; it's legally sufficient to controvert enough of the prosecution's evidence, or make a compelling claim that the trial was not fair - made so, say, by a judge who announced his intention before the trial to help "fry that nigger". One only needs to restore reasonable doubt in guilt, not prove innocence beyond doubt.It's abundantly clear at this point that nearly none of the police evidence holds up to scrutiny. And the physical evidence is simply not conclusive. Falkner could have been shot with any .38 caliber Charter Arms revolver. The match to the specific firearm found at the scene was never conclusively made.

Well, wait a second. A lot of this evidence was available at trial - I mean, the police evidence tampering could have been discovered at any time - it simply was either concealed by the prosecution, quashed by the police, or disallowed by a judge committed to helping "fry that nigger."Just because the evidence was available doesn't mean that the jury heard it. For instance, the police report that refuted the so-called "hospital confession" was disallowed by judge Sabo. Juries make mistakes, they're only human, and they're hardly above being second-guessed. A jury verdict is not sacrosanct. And, in general, the procedures of trial very rarely allow for a truly objective analysis of the evidence, due to the very stringent rules of evidence handling. Whereas in science, we can still use evidence of less-than-perfect credibility, evidence at trial is supposed to either be completely credible, or be disallowed completely.We're probably in a better position than that jury to come to the right conclusion, simply as a result of time and a lack of restriction on what evidence we're allowed to hear.