25 years ago this day.

[kookbreaker]

On December 9th, a few hours from this writing. Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner (http://danielfaulkner.com/index1.html) was issuing a traffic citation to a wrong way driver who attempted to puch him. Faulkner had subdued the man with minimal violence when he was shot in the back by another man. Drawing his own weapon, Faulkner was able to shoot his assailant before collapsing, wherupon the assailant shot Faulkner several times in the face, killing him outright.

Faulkner's murderer was one Wesley Cook, better known to the world as Mumia Abu Jamal. Unable to escape due to the gunshot wound, Mumia was quickly picked up by police only a few yards away from his victim. Witnesses were able to identify him at the site.

Mumia had his day in court. Since every single piece of evidence pointed to his guilt, Mumia attempted to turn his court case into a Chicago 7 radical madhouse in an effort to get some kind of mistrial The judge would not have any of it, and the case proceeded depsite his and his allies attempts at disruption. His lawyer, hampered already with a loser of a case and by Mumia's withholding of critical files, did his best, but the outcome was inevitable: Guilty. Mumia would be sentenced to death.

Several years passed, and somehow, perhaps due to some alleged skill at writing, Mumia became a cause celebre amongst the College socialist/activist/anti-globalist set. The 'Free Mumia' T-shirt in its time was perhaps more popular than the Che shirt worn by the same crowd.

Word spread, and myths were invented by Mumia's new lawyers. Despite his being found guilty, neither Mumia, nor his own brother (the person Faulkner was citing for driving the wrong way) gave an explanation for the events of that day until very recently, and then it was a tale that made not a bit of sense.

The myths became legends in the Mumia supporters, despite their total lack of truth. Even worse was how the 'Free Mumia' crowd loved to play the conspiracy game boths ways: Mumia didn't do it, but he had a right to kill Faulkner anyway. Mumia's most ardent supporters were all too happy to slander Faulkner in any way possible, one vocal supporter even calling Faulkner a child prostitute pimp.

But often this level of attitude was rare. Many college students who donned the infamous T-shirts were unaware there was a real murder victim in this case. If you were to ask one, the better odds were that they didn't even know Faulkner's name. Many just heard from a friend that Mumia was a 'political prisoner' and thought it would be cool to support a guy like that. The ones that did know were often unaware of basic legal concepts, or were clueless about the evidence in the trial.

None of the myths started by Mumia's lawyers held any water. The most famous was that the shell found in Faulkner was from a .45, when Mumia had a .38. in an appeal trial even Mumia's own ballistics expert had to admit that was not true, and the evidence was that the bullets found in Faulkner matched the ammo in Mumia's gun. Other myths, such as claims that Mumia's lawyer was inept (he wasn't he was a very good murder trial lawyer) or that no money was given for Mumia's defense (untrue) plus dozens of others myths all made for a deliberately constructed conspriacy theory. Mumia-mania hit such a stride that the citizens of Paris named a city street after him. Thanks guys, next time someone kills a gendarme perhaps Philly should name an alley after the killer?

Several appeals fell flat, mostly due to lack of anything resembling a half-way decent reason for anyone to consider the trial or the case improper in any manner. When the main appeal reached the PA supreme court, a group that cannot agree on anything (much like the SCOTUS) they voted unanimously against the appeal, pointing out the sloppy and useless 'evidence' brought to the trial. Mumia supporters were shocked, after all myths they beleived had to be true, but of course they weren't. Mumia's lawyers built a house of media-straw that could not withstand even light court-based scrutiny. But the faithful still held on.

In what would have been his final days, Mumia latched onto a crazy confessor's wild and impossible story as the 'real tale' of what happened to Faulkner. It was a pathetic attempt, and in fact was still not a tale written by Mumia or his brother. They merely signed their names to the bottom of the crazy confessor's fairy tale. Oddly enough, the lawyers who had worked so hard to spread myths about the case had previously sung praises of Mumia for his prior unwillingness to use the laughable tale.

Mumia still lingers on Death Row. But a 2001 judgement (hailed incorrectly by Mumia lovers as something equal to a mistrial) put his death sentence in suspension due to a procedural problem. Mumia is in limbo
and has been for the past five years.

Mumia-mania went into decline in early 2001 with that court decision. Since then, the events of 9-11 took even more attention away from Mumia. At first due to shock, but then by the 911 conspiracies appealing to the same college world-saver crowd. They apparently decided that it was easier to turn Bush/Cheney into overwrought cartoon supervillains than it was to explain why so much effort had been made to frame a Taxi cab driver.

Twenty-five years ago today, Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner was killed...by Mumia Abu Jamal.

[60hzxtl]

http://danielfaulkner.com/index1.html

Daniel Falkner had 25 years of life. Tomorrow he has been gone 25 years.

His killer has had 25 years of appeals. 25 years of groceries. 25 years of a roof over his head and 25 years of medical care.

25 years to play the courts. 25 years to become a cause celebre.

25 years to spin a myth.

[Jeff Wagg]

I once confronted a student about Che. She recommended that I watch the "Motorcycle Diaries" and I did. It was OK, but I wasn't inspired.

Curious about Che, I did some research. I read that he "enjoyed executing prisoners." This disturbed me. You can say it was a war, killing happened on both sides, but to enjoy it executions? That bothered me.

I mentioned this to the student, and she said.. "But it was for a good cause."

Sigh. We sure do love our myths.

[Mercutio]

both sides do.

None of us get off free.

I am ignorant on this issue--not siding one way or the other.

[Jeff Wagg]

both sides do.

None of us get off free.

I am ignorant on this issue--not siding one way or the other.

This is true.. I don't know that what I read about Che was true, but I still found the student's response chilling.

[Mercutio]

I just watched "Hotel Rwanda". Despite the fact that I had a student who survived the Rwandan genocide (and thus had a ready-made excuse for siding with one of the factions), the scariest part of the film was the final escape, when you saw (spoiler) that people on both sides were refugees, fleeing from certain death.

No good guys, no bad guys.

Ok, plenty of bad guys.

"We have met the enemy, and he is us."

*sigh*

[Redtail]

I once confronted a student about Che. She recommended that I watch the "Motorcycle Diaries" and I did. It was OK, but I wasn't inspired.

Curious about Che, I did some research. I read that he "enjoyed executing prisoners." This disturbed me. You can say it was a war, killing happened on both sides, but to enjoy it executions? That bothered me.

I mentioned this to the student, and she said.. "But it was for a good cause."

Sigh. We sure do love our myths.

At least she knew something about Che. I've called out 20 students in the past 3 years for wearing a Che Tshirt and 4 have known anything beyond "Jay-Z wore one in his video".

Now back to Faulkner. I've never understood why so many people in college will take up the cause of any intelligent or eloquent speaker/writer then within a month of graduating either drop it or reverse position.

[diomedes]

I was involved with campus/community radio when I was a student in the early 1990's. At the time Mumia Abu Jamal had made a number of radio commentaries that were being circulated by cassette tapes around North America and played on campus radio. I know our station played them. At the annual general meeting that year, there was a motion to purchase the tapes outright for the station and also someone set up a tin for donations. Neither was very successful. There was an attempt to push it as a cause celebre but it really didn't catch on. I did hear the tapes. Mumia Abu Jamal is a strong public speaker. He admitted that he was on the scene and that he had a gun and that no one else was around but he didn't shoot the officer and that he was framed. Even hearing Mumia himself explain it, it didn't make any sense.

[Beleth]

Thanks for that, kookbreaker. That story was entirely new to me.

[kookbreaker]

Mumia Abu Jamal is a strong public speaker. He admitted that he was on the scene and that he had a gun and that no one else was around but he didn't shoot the officer and that he was framed. Even hearing Mumia himself explain it, it didn't make any sense.

He has avoided telling any kind of story as much as he possibly could. I'm surprised he admitted to having a gun, usually it takes a lot just to get him to admit he was even on the scene.

Telling the story, of course, means it has to make some kind of sense while still making you innocent to your adoring fans. I understand a lot of folks stepped away from Leonard Peltier's fan club after he admitted to shooting at FBI agents. I guess it was a bit harder to make a politcal prisoner status out of him then. What are you gonna say? "he shot at them..but he didn't want to hurt them!"

[gumboot]

Yeah I had never heard of it before...

The danielfaulkner.com website has a rebuttal of an Amnesty International report on the trials. Fascinating read. I have always had the opinion that AI were a bunch of ignorant agenda-driven [rule8]'s and this pretty much confirms it. What a load of nonsense.

-Gumboot

[kookbreaker]

danielfaulkner.com is also the only website I ever saw that had the ENTIRE transcript of the trial. All the 'Free Mumia' sites had only a fraction of it, usually the sentencing stage where colloege-students-who-think-they-are-lawyers seem to think it is unfair to bring up elements of Mumia's writing after he tries to tell people, on the stand what a nice guy he is.

Those same websites were very, very critical of the trial, and of course proudly claimed it was all terribly unfair. Don't ask for evidence, just take out word for it!

The Amnesty International paper was a joke. The very fact that they didn't even bother to interview a single person involved in the trial or the day of the event, yet claimed that they did immense research puts me in mind of those who claim to research 9-11 by watching youtube videos.

[ConspiRaider]

Interesting post, KB, wasn't aware of any of this. Conspiracy theorism certainly does appear to be a mindset - into which an event is dialed.

But it still needs to be vigorously opposed.

[jhunter1163]

I used to live near Philly, so I have a passing familiarity with this case. I never delved too deeply into it, because my assumption has always been that one does not get onto Death Row without some pretty solid evidence that one belongs there.

Mumia should be executed, and the sooner the better, his bleeding-heart defenders notwithstanding.

ETA: This reminds me of a similar case in Texas, where a woman was executed for killing her husband and two young children. She loudly proclaimed her innocence, in the face of overwhelming evidence of her guilt, and her cause was taken up by the liberal loon left down there. Her name was Frances Newton, if anyone's interested in reading about her case.

[CFLarsen]

The Amnesty International paper was a joke. The very fact that they didn't even bother to interview a single person involved in the trial or the day of the event, yet claimed that they did immense research puts me in mind of those who claim to research 9-11 by watching youtube videos.

Name one organization (or person) that doesn't make mistakes.

[Brainache]

The only time I'd ever heard the name Abdul Mumia Jabal was in a line in a Michael Frante song.

Now I know what it's all about....the rhyme.

[Zep]

I have only passing awareness of the case (I graduated the year before it occurred). I don't think Mumia should be executed. However I do think he should rot in jail, sans any special priviledges including media access. From what I can find in a quick search, he had his many opportunities to clear his name - he failed abysmally each time, and simply dug a deeper hole to wallow in. Live (and die) with it, dude.

[valis]

Name one organization (or person) that doesn't make mistakes.

Mis understanding the facts is a mistake.

Willfully ignoring them because they don't fit your anti American and anti death penalty agenda is a different matter.

[MG1962]

It is just one in a long line - Ruben Carter (Hurricane) Of Bob Dylan fame comes to mind.

I understand courts can make errors, proceedure not followed correctly. Thats what appeals are about. The fact he can not even get a hearing says more about the lack of new evidence or issues with proceedure than his innocence.

It is interesting to see Che make a resurgence. There is no doubt he had character flaws, but as an icon of freedom fighters etc, his postion could not be challenged. But having said that. His time and place have definately passed

[kookbreaker]

Name one organization (or person) that doesn't make mistakes.

Claus,

Can you read the rebuttal and really tell me that this was a mistake, and not deliberate, planned dishonesty? AIUSA went out of their way to avoid getting information that might point to Mumia being guilty. They essentially just parroted what Mumia's lawyers were claiming with a bit more dramatic license.

It is the equivelant of a major news organization saying they did 'extensive research' on 911 and then you find out all they did was watch Loose Change.

In fairness, this was AIUSA, not the international organization. I have my disagreements with AI but they were not directly responsible for this 'paper'.

[kookbreaker]

One of the most succinct articles on Mumia was actually written by a Socialist. Rodney Anonymous' Awww Screw Mumia (http://www.rodneyanonymous.com/mumia.html) sums things up quite well. Especially with this sentence:


I'm a Socialist. I'm anti Death Penalty and pro Choice, and I think that the sooner the left drops Mumia as its poster-child the better.

[CFLarsen]

Claus,

Can you read the rebuttal and really tell me that this was a mistake, and not deliberate, planned dishonesty? AIUSA went out of their way to avoid getting information that might point to Mumia being guilty. They essentially just parroted what Mumia's lawyers were claiming with a bit more dramatic license.

'Tis not for me to show that it was a mistake, m'lad. Show me that it was deliberate, planned dishonesty.

It is the equivelant of a major news organization saying they did 'extensive research' on 911 and then you find out all they did was watch Loose Change.

You're stretching it. Nobody can be as loony as LoonyTunes.

In fairness, this was AIUSA, not the international organization. I have my disagreements with AI but they were not directly responsible for this 'paper'.

Can you show a pattern of this behavior with AIUSA?

[CFLarsen]

Mis understanding the facts is a mistake.

Willfully ignoring them because they don't fit your anti American and anti death penalty agenda is a different matter.

I am not ignoring anything. I am just pointing out that it is perhaps not so smart to dismiss AI because of one (possible) mistake.

It would be difficult to support anything, in that case.

[kookbreaker]

'Tis not for me to show that it was a mistake, m'lad. Show me that it was deliberate, planned dishonesty.


What would you call it when you claim to have a balanced account, yet have managed not to interview anyone on one side of the arguement. I would not call it a mistake.


You're stretching it. Nobody can be as loony as LoonyTunes.


Have you read some of the Mumia material? Its not as spectacular as LC, but often just as nutty.


Can you show a pattern of this behavior with AIUSA?

No I can't, but I did not say I would.

[Deathshead]

Having lived in the Philly area on and off for many years this story is not news to me. The Faulkner case is cut and dry. If you read the transcripts it is difficult to come to any other conclusion.
As far as Ernesto 'Che' is concerned, type in any search engine the following. Assassins, bumbler. A great read follows by Humberto Fontova. I have also approached several people wearing Che shirts. They knew nothing about the real person, only the myths.

[CFLarsen]

What would you call it when you claim to have a balanced account, yet have managed not to interview anyone on one side of the arguement. I would not call it a mistake.

What exactly is gained by that? The report (http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/document.do?id=EB6C736A7369F3D78025686C00526C98) (which, curiously enough, the David Faulkner site has a faulty link to), specifically states that:

After many years of monitoring Mumia Abu-Jamal's case and a thorough study of original documents, including the entire trial transcript

If you want to bring up things that were not used in court, that's fine. But AI is concerned with whether the actual court proceedings were OK or not.

Have you read some of the Mumia material? Its not as spectacular as LC, but often just as nutty.

Are you talking about the AIUSA report? Anyone can come up with a nutty argument.

No I can't, but I did not say I would.

So, you only have this one incident? Isn't that a bit premature, to dismiss AIUSA on account of just one mistake (as you call it)?

[gumboot]

You're stretching it. Nobody can be as loony as LoonyTunes.


Actually the methodology of "Loose Change" and the AIUSA report is strikingly similar.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

What would you call it when you claim to have a balanced account, yet have managed not to interview anyone on one side of the arguement. I would not call it a mistake.


Not to mention stating things as fact that are quite blatantly the complete opposite - for example describing the accounts of the witnesses as "inconsistant" despite the fact that three of them specifically physically identified Jamal at the scene of the crime, five minutes after it happened.

-Gumboot

[CFLarsen]

Actually the methodology of "Loose Change" and the AIUSA report is strikingly similar.

-Gumboot

How so?

[kookbreaker]

What exactly is gained by that? The report (http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/document.do?id=EB6C736A7369F3D78025686C00526C98) (which, curiously enough, the David Faulkner site has a faulty link to), specifically states that:

They specifcally parrot comments by Mumia's then lawyers. THESE 'MYTHS' ARE THINGS THAT ONE CANNOT DETERMINE FROM THE COURT DOCUMENTS! YOU HAD TO GET THEM FROM THE MUMIA MEDIA MACHINE!

There is nothing that indicates that Mumias trial lawyer was a hack foisted on him by the courts. Nothing in the documents says anything about the money for Mumia's trial. Examining the documents would show the EXACT OPPOSITE of what they claim. The attacks on Judge Sabo are straight from the Mumia media machine, not from the official documents.

This means they either talked with Mumia's lawyers or just picked up their media packet wholesale. Either way, they failed in any effort to be objective, which the tone of the article tries to present themselves as being.


So, you only have this one incident? Isn't that a bit premature, to dismiss AIUSA on account of just one mistake (as you call it)?

I didn't. Claus. Someone else did. They may have their reasons and you'll have to ask them. I personally am annoyed with AI for various reasons, but I do not dismis them entirely. They did good work in the past and frankly just need to get their act a bit more on track.

I don't consider this a mistake.The Adoption of this tactic by AIUSA was a mistake (trying to make their case against the DP by bringing attention to guilty parties) but writing a delibeately deceptive article and dsiguising it as being objective is well past 'mistake'.

[gumboot]

How so?

Well, pulling out facts, presenting them in a distorted light, and then building an argument of emotion based on that.

Cherrypicking quotes.

Statements of fact that directly contradict the evidence.

Implication and insinuation in the form of questions and open-ended remarks that are designed to cast doubt or slander without directly stating their case.

Failing to back up assertions with evidence.

Making strawman arguments.

Using questionable resources instead of reliable ones that say the complete opposite.

That sort of thing.

-Gumboot

[kookbreaker]

How so?

Quote Mining.

Poisoning the well for 'background' (Philly cops under Rizzo vs. 'Northwoods')

Ignoring or minimizing vast amounts of evidence that actually point the crime in question (Ignoring the ballistics and witness evidence vs. ignoring the plane debris and eyewitnesses at the Pentagon).

For starters.

[gumboot]

Poisoning the well for 'background' (Philly cops under Rizzo vs. 'Northwoods')

Ignoring or minimizing vast amounts of evidence that actually point the crime in question (Ignoring the ballistics and witness evidence vs. ignoring the plane debris and eyewitnesses at the Pentagon).

For starters.


SNAP! I missed two!

-Gumboot

[CFLarsen]

They specifcally parrot comments by Mumia's then lawyers. THESE 'MYTHS' ARE THINGS THAT ONE CANNOT DETERMINE FROM THE COURT DOCUMENTS! YOU HAD TO GET THEM FROM THE MUMIA MEDIA MACHINE!

Why are you screaming?

There is nothing that indicates that Mumias trial lawyer was a hack foisted on him by the courts.

Why not?

Nothing in the documents says anything about the money for Mumia's trial. Examining the documents would show the EXACT OPPOSITE of what they claim. The attacks on Judge Sabo are straight from the Mumia media machine, not from the official documents.

This means they either talked with Mumia's lawyers or just picked up their media packet wholesale. Either way, they failed in any effort to be objective, which the tone of the article tries to present themselves as being.

How do you know they didn't speak to the other part?

I didn't. Claus. Someone else did.

You must have missed this one, then:

The Amnesty International paper was a joke. The very fact that they didn't even bother to interview a single person involved in the trial or the day of the event, yet claimed that they did immense research puts me in mind of those who claim to research 9-11 by watching youtube videos.

They may have their reasons and you'll have to ask them.

Me? Shouldn't you be the one asking them for their reasons?

I personally am annoyed with AI for various reasons, but I do not dismis them entirely. They did good work in the past and frankly just need to get their act a bit more on track.

I don't consider this a mistake.The Adoption of this tactic by AIUSA was a mistake (trying to make their case against the DP by bringing attention to guilty parties) but writing a delibeately deceptive article and dsiguising it as being objective is well past 'mistake'.

I have yet to see evidence of it being deliberate.

Well, pulling out facts, presenting them in a distorted light, and then building an argument of emotion based on that.

Cherrypicking quotes.

Statements of fact that directly contradict the evidence.

Implication and insinuation in the form of questions and open-ended remarks that are designed to cast doubt or slander without directly stating their case.

Failing to back up assertions with evidence.

Making strawman arguments.

Using questionable resources instead of reliable ones that say the complete opposite.

That sort of thing.

-Gumboot

Quote Mining.

Poisoning the well for 'background' (Philly cops under Rizzo vs. 'Northwoods')

Ignoring or minimizing vast amounts of evidence that actually point the crime in question (Ignoring the ballistics and witness evidence vs. ignoring the plane debris and eyewitnesses at the Pentagon).

For starters.

I'm seeing a hell of a lot of claims here. I'm not seeing a hell of a lot of evidence.

Note that I have no particular opinion on this case. I'm just reacting to claims being made, without evidence.

I'm funny that way.

[Pyrrho]

So, Claus, what do you know about the Mumia case?

[kookbreaker]

Why are you screaming?


Because you are being deliberately dense, Claus. You are defending the undefendable. You complained to me that the AIUSA article just worked from court documents when it is obvious that was not the case.


Why not?


Umm, becuase there isn't. Why would there be?


How do you know they didn't speak to the other part?


Danilefaulkner.com which is much more thorough, did ask the relvenat parties, most of whom are involved in some way with danilefaulkner.com. They could be lying, but I doubt it.


You must have missed this one, then:


I said the paper was a joke Claus, you must have missed where you said:


Isn't that a bit premature, to dismiss AIUSA on account of just one mistake


Which is NOT what I said.


I have yet to see evidence of it being deliberate.


If it was not deliberate it was unbelievably sloppy work. Either way...



I'm seeing a hell of a lot of claims here. I'm not seeing a hell of a lot of evidence.


Sorry Claus, but you will have to actually read the AIUSA article and its rebuttal. I'm not about to retype the whole thing here. You'll just need to find out for yourself. The evidence is in the article and that's all there is to it.


Note that I have no particular opinion on this case.


No opinion? Interesting. You were previously talking about the article and how we should consider it to be a mistake or deliberate obfuscation.


I'm just reacting to claims being made, without evidence.


The evidence is in the article. If you cannot seethe paralells to Loose Change tactics then that's your problem. I pointed out several, as did gumboot, and they are not exactly hidden.


I'm funny that way.

What's funny is that you seem to be blind to CT tactics when they are right in front of you. Is it really that hard to admit that AIUSA used the same tactics that Dylan Avery did?

[CFLarsen]

So, Claus, what do you know about the Mumia case?

Like I said, I'm not particularly interested in this case. I am, however, interested in evidence.

Because you are being deliberately dense, Claus. You are defending the undefendable. You complained to me that the AIUSA article just worked from court documents when it is obvious that was not the case.

Is it? So far, I have only seen claims.

Umm, becuase there isn't. Why would there be?

You said that there is nothing "that indicates that Mumias trial lawyer was a hack foisted on him by the courts". Why? Why wasn't he a "hack"? Why wasn't he "foisted" on Mumia?

Danilefaulkner.com which is much more thorough, did ask the relvenat parties, most of whom are involved in some way with danilefaulkner.com.

I didn't ask if that site was more thorough or if they spoke to relevant parties. I asked how you know AIUSA didn't speak to the other part.

They could be lying, but I doubt it.

Why?

I said the paper was a joke Claus, you must have missed where you said:

Which is NOT what I said.

OK, so when you compare AIUSA with those who do 9/11 research via YouTube, you are not dismissing AIUSA?

If it was not deliberate it was unbelievably sloppy work. Either way...

There is a hell of a difference between incompetence and deliberation.

Sorry Claus, but you will have to actually read the AIUSA article and its rebuttal. I'm not about to retype the whole thing here. You'll just need to find out for yourself. The evidence is in the article and that's all there is to it.

I didn't ask you to retype the whole thing. All I asked for was evidence of your claims.

Just, oh, one example of each claim? Is that insurmountable?

No opinion? Interesting. You were previously talking about the article and how we should consider it to be a mistake or deliberate obfuscation.

Indeed. It has to do with claims being made and what evidence is presented of those claims.

The evidence is in the article. If you cannot seethe paralells to Loose Change tactics then that's your problem.

It can hardly be my problem, since you have presented absolutely nothing to support your claims.

I pointed out several, as did gumboot, and they are not exactly hidden.

What you and gumboot has pointed out is claims. Not evidence.

What's funny is that you seem to be blind to CT tactics when they are right in front of you. Is it really that hard to admit that AIUSA used the same tactics that Dylan Avery did?

So far, I have not seen any evidence that AIUSA has used CT tactics. Only claims that they have.

[kookbreaker]

Like I said, I'm not particularly interested in this case. I am, however, interested in evidence.


Then read the court transcript.


Is it? So far, I have only seen claims.


Which claims are you having difficulty with?


You said that there is nothing "that indicates that Mumias trial lawyer was a hack foisted on him by the courts". Why? Why wasn't he a "hack"? Why wasn't he "foisted" on Mumia?


Oh, I'm sorry. I though that you might have had some time to review some of the material already referenced on this thread. I didn't know you were being lazy. Here:

http://danielfaulkner.com/indexmyth10.html


I didn't ask if that site was more thorough or if they spoke to relevant parties. I asked how you know AIUSA didn't speak to the other part.


Let's say there is no evidence that they did so. Wheras there is evidence (I already presented it) that they did talk to the Mumia side.


Why?


Because they've shown more honesty and forthcomingness in my experience than the 'other side'.


OK, so when you compare AIUSA with those who do 9/11 research via YouTube, you are not dismissing AIUSA?


In this case I am. As to the entire organization? That's a different matter.


There is a hell of a difference between incompetence and deliberation.


True, but when sloppiness allows you to hold up a politcal agenda one has but to wonder.


I didn't ask you to retype the whole thing. All I asked for was evidence of your claims.


OK. Which ones?


Just, oh, one example of each claim? Is that insurmountable?


I gave you examples of mine.


So far, I have not seen any evidence that AIUSA has used CT tactics. Only claims that they have.

I gave you examples already.

[senorpogo]

Twenty-five years ago today, Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner was killed...by Mumia Abu Jamal.

Thanks for the story.

It's also worth noting that all the attention that Mumia receives is something of a disservice to people who are legitimately wrongfully imprisoned for crimes they did not commit. Supporting a legitimate killer's delusional defense distracts and turns people against others who may have real grievance with their conviction.

[Brainster]

I have long thought that the focus on the possibility that innocent people are being executed by the anti-Death Penalty advocates is a tactical blunder that leads directly to CT woo. I understand it; the argument that somebody innocent is about to be executed is more compelling than the argument that we should not be executing people. But once you start down the "he's innocent" road you will be ignoring evidence of guilt and looking for the odd eyewitness, the little loose end, you'll start quote-mining... it's inevitable because you have started with the conclusion instead of the evidence.

[senorpogo]

But once you start down the "he's innocent" road you will be ignoring evidence of guilt and looking for the odd eyewitness, the little loose end, you'll start quote-mining... it's inevitable because you have started with the conclusion instead of the evidence.

That's a strawman.

But I oppose hi-jacking the thread (and yes I do realize I started the hi-jack so it is my fault). I believe a similar conversation is occurring in the politics section in a thread - When the death penalty fits perfectly!

[Elizabeth I]

There is no doubt he had character flaws, but as an icon of freedom fighters etc, [Che's] postion could not be challenged. [bolding mine]

From wikipedia:
He was appointed commander of the La Cabaña Fortress prison, and during his five-month tenure in that post (January 2 through June 12, 1959),[20] he oversaw the trial and execution of many people, among whom were former Batista regime officials and members of the "Bureau for the Repression of Communist Activities" (a unit of the secret police know by its Spanish acronym BRAC). According to José Vilasuso, an attorney who worked under Guevara at La Cabaña preparing indictments, these were lawless proceedings where "the facts were judged without any consideration to general juridical principles" and the findings were pre-determined by Guevara.[21]

Yep, a regular George Washington.

[Elizabeth I]

You said that there is nothing "that indicates that Mumias trial lawyer was a hack foisted on him by the courts". Why? Why wasn't he a "hack"? Why wasn't he "foisted" on Mumia?

I don't know if he was a hack or not; however, from Wikipedia:

Abu-Jamal was charged with first degree murder. He initially retained the services of criminal defense attorney Anthony Jackson. In May 1982 Abu-Jamal announced that he would represent himself with Jackson continuing to act as his legal advisor. Although the judge initially allowed Abu-Jamal to represent himself, the judge eventually reversed his own decision due to Abu-Jamal's disruptive behavior in the court [1], and it was ordered that Anthony Jackson resume his role as Abu-Jamal’s attorney. [bolding mine]

Please note that Abu-Jamal hired the attorney himself.

That said, the dangerously repressive, totalitarian United States has a thing about everyone being entitled to legal representation in a criminal trial. In practice, that has been construed to include effective legal representation. It is not unusual for a court to decide that it is not in a defendant's own best interest to allow him to defend himself, especially in a case where the death penalty is involved.

[fuelair]

I once confronted a student about Che. She recommended that I watch the "Motorcycle Diaries" and I did. It was OK, but I wasn't inspired.

Curious about Che, I did some research. I read that he "enjoyed executing prisoners." This disturbed me. You can say it was a war, killing happened on both sides, but to enjoy it executions? That bothered me.

I mentioned this to the student, and she said.. "But it was for a good cause."

Sigh. We sure do love our myths.
Did she, by wild chance, say how the cause was good? - I keep thinking of what his "good cause" in Cuba became from it's beginning.

[CFLarsen]

Then read the court transcript.

No. The claim is yours.

Which claims are you having difficulty with?


That the AIUSA report was a deliberate, planned dishonesty.

That AIUSA went out of their way to avoid getting information that might point to Mumia being guilty.

That AIUSA essentially just parroted what Mumia's lawyers were claiming with a bit more dramatic license.

That AIUSA didn't manage to interview anyone on one side of the argument.

That AIUSA specifically parrot comments by Mumia's then lawyers.

That AIUSA deliberately wrote a deceptive article.

That AIUSA quote mined.

That AIUSA poisoned the well.

That AIUSA ignored or minimized vast amounts of evidence that actually point to the crime in question.

That Mumias trial lawyer was not a hack foisted on him by the courts.


You have not provided evidence of any of these claims.

Oh, I'm sorry. I though that you might have had some time to review some of the material already referenced on this thread. I didn't know you were being lazy. Here:

http://danielfaulkner.com/indexmyth10.html

The AIUSA report, thanks.

Let's say there is no evidence that they did so. Wheras there is evidence (I already presented it) that they did talk to the Mumia side.

That's beside the point. You claimed that they didn't talk to the other side. Show your evidence.

Because they've shown more honesty and forthcomingness in my experience than the 'other side'.

Why? It isn't enough just saying that they have. Show me.

In this case I am. As to the entire organization? That's a different matter.

Thanks for clarifying.

True, but when sloppiness allows you to hold up a politcal agenda one has but to wonder.

What political agenda are you talking about?

OK. Which ones?

...

I gave you examples of mine.

...

I gave you examples already.

See above.

[CFLarsen]

I don't know if he was a hack or not; however, from Wikipedia:

Abu-Jamal was charged with first degree murder. He initially retained the services of criminal defense attorney Anthony Jackson. In May 1982 Abu-Jamal announced that he would represent himself with Jackson continuing to act as his legal advisor. Although the judge initially allowed Abu-Jamal to represent himself, the judge eventually reversed his own decision due to Abu-Jamal's disruptive behavior in the court [1], and it was ordered that Anthony Jackson resume his role as Abu-Jamal’s attorney. [bolding mine]

Please note that Abu-Jamal hired the attorney himself.

Yeah. But he also dismissed the attorney, but was forced to accept him later on. I'd call that "foisted".

[kookbreaker]

No. The claim is yours.

You said you were interested in evidence, then you make this comment. Interesting.



That the AIUSA report was a deliberate, planned dishonesty.


I cannot prove this.


That AIUSA went out of their way to avoid getting information that might point to Mumia being guilty.


I point out again that they did not contact parties on the side saying Mumia is guilty. Ed Rendell, for example, is on record as saying they did not contact him, and the danielfaulkner.com crowd has contacts up and down, say that none of them were contacted.


That AIUSA essentially just parroted what Mumia's lawyers were claiming with a bit more dramatic license.


A simple reading of the AIUSA claims alongside the claims of Mumia's lawyers reveals this. Examples include the claim that Mumia's lawyer was incompetent and unwanted, and that he had no funds for his trial. No documents reveal this, as it is very much the opinion of Mumia's lawyers. Other comments include the false claims about racist jury selection, which the trial documents show to be completely wrong, yet AIUSA repeated them.

A quick, and not even the strongest example is (incidently one made by Mumia's Lawyers)

"Although all five bullets in Abu-Jamal's gun were spent, the police failed to conduct tests to ascertain whether the weapon had been fired in the immediate past. The test is relatively simple: smell the gun for the odour of gun powder, which should be detectable for approximately five hours after the gun was fired. Compounding this error, the police also failed to conduct chemical tests on Abu-Jamal's hands to find out if he had fired a gun recently."

This ignores the testimony of Jamal's appeal ballistic attorney who says the sniff test has 'no scientific validity'. As for the chemical tests? Useless, given that Mumia's hands would have been in contact with police officers and others after he struggled with them (a detail ignored by AIUSA). This information was available to AIUSA, but they chose to ignore it.

Far more critical was the fact that AIUSA, rather than address the critical issue of the bullets matching those in Mumia's gun as well as his chamber, whines about the defense not having their own ballistics expert. Actually, they did, but they elected not to use him in 1982. AIUSA outright ignored discussion between Jackson and Sabo about this. Somehow AIUSA thinks that it is the state's fault that they didn't get someone to lie on Mumia's behalf


That AIUSA didn't manage to interview anyone on one side of the argument.


See above.


That AIUSA specifically parrot comments by Mumia's then lawyers.


See above.


That AIUSA deliberately wrote a deceptive article.


They certainly went out of their way to write a biased one.


That AIUSA quote mined.


Several mistatements about what the witnesses said are made in order to make it seems as if they conflicted. When the trial quotes and statements to the police are shown in full (such as with the Danielfaulkner.com article) they show a much clearer picture.


That AIUSA poisoned the well.


Read the 'Background' section of the AIUSE paper and explain why it is relevant to the Mumia case.


That AIUSA ignored or minimized vast amounts of evidence that actually point to the crime in question.


The section labeled 'Case for the Prosecution' ignores several very key elements in the case. A reading of the trial transcript shows they avoid or misstate several crucial pieces of physical evidence and witness tesimony. Examples include the


That Mumias trial lawyer was not a hack foisted on him by the courts.



I already linked to this. Mumia chose Jackson after several reccommendations. Now in another post you comment that:


But he also dismissed the attorney, but was forced to accept him later on. I'd call that "foisted".

Not according to US Law. If you want to change lawyers, you cannot do so in the middle of a trial just to cause disruption. You also do not have an unlimited right to self-representation. Also, you cannot just grab anyone as your attorney as Mumia wanted starting at the beginning of the trial.

[fuelair]

Might as well give it up - there are people out there who will never believe a slime-sucking murderer is a slime-sucking murderer even if they see him do the murder - it's like the CTers' (the "honest" ones anyway). "He/she's a good writer and a swell person and there's just no way he/she could have murdered somebody and if they killed that person(s) it was just because the person they killed was evil and mean and didn't give them respect or candy and they just got shafted by the unfair justice system and I'm gonna throw a big tantrum if you don't let him/her go cause I like him/her 'cause he/she is depending on me!!!! SO THERE!!!"

[CFLarsen]

You said you were interested in evidence, then you make this comment. Interesting.

Yes, I am interested in evidence. Show me.

I cannot prove this.

Then, you shouldn't claim it was.

I point out again that they did not contact parties on the side saying Mumia is guilty. Ed Rendell, for example, is on record as saying they did not contact him, and the danielfaulkner.com crowd has contacts up and down, say that none of them were contacted.

I point out again that I am not interested in what the danielfaulkner-site says. I want independent evidence.

Surely, you can see the problem in using one side as evidence against the other? That's like relying on Sylvia Browne to counter Randi.

A simple reading of the AIUSA claims alongside the claims of Mumia's lawyers reveals this.

Show me.

Examples include the claim that Mumia's lawyer was incompetent and unwanted, and that he had no funds for his trial.

He wasn't unwanted? Then, why did Mumia dismiss him? Isn't a dismissal a sure sign that you are unwanted?

No documents reveal this, as it is very much the opinion of Mumia's lawyers.

I am not interested in what Mumia's lawyers had to say. I am solely interested in what AIUSA says.

Other comments include the false claims about racist jury selection, which the trial documents show to be completely wrong, yet AIUSA repeated them.

As being true? Show me.

A quick, and not even the strongest example is (incidently one made by Mumia's Lawyers)

Again, I am not interested in what Mumia's lawyers had to say. Show me what AIUSA said.

"Although all five bullets in Abu-Jamal's gun were spent, the police failed to conduct tests to ascertain whether the weapon had been fired in the immediate past. The test is relatively simple: smell the gun for the odour of gun powder, which should be detectable for approximately five hours after the gun was fired. Compounding this error, the police also failed to conduct chemical tests on Abu-Jamal's hands to find out if he had fired a gun recently."

This ignores the testimony of Jamal's appeal ballistic attorney who says the sniff test has 'no scientific validity'. As for the chemical tests? Useless, given that Mumia's hands would have been in contact with police officers and others after he struggled with them (a detail ignored by AIUSA). This information was available to AIUSA, but they chose to ignore it.

Waaaait a second.

If AIUSA ignores what Mumia's attorney says, why do you complain about them ignoring what the other side says? You have to be consistent: Either AIUSA is biased in favor of Mumia, or they are not.

Far more critical was the fact that AIUSA, rather than address the critical issue of the bullets matching those in Mumia's gun as well as his chamber, whines about the defense not having their own ballistics expert. Actually, they did

Show me.

, but they elected not to use him in 1982.

Why not? Could that be the reason why AIUSA didn't want to address it?

AIUSA outright ignored discussion between Jackson and Sabo about this. Somehow AIUSA thinks that it is the state's fault that they didn't get someone to lie on Mumia's behalf

Show me.

They certainly went out of their way to write a biased one.

I have seen absolutely no evidence from you on this. No references, no direct quotes, no nothing.

Several mistatements about what the witnesses said are made in order to make it seems as if they conflicted. When the trial quotes and statements to the police are shown in full (such as with the Danielfaulkner.com article) they show a much clearer picture.

Show me.

Read the 'Background' section of the AIUSE paper and explain why it is relevant to the Mumia case.

No. The onus is not on me. It is on you. Show me.

I take the time to find the references and quote appropriately. You can - and should - do the same.

The section labeled 'Case for the Prosecution' ignores several very key elements in the case. A reading of the trial transcript shows they avoid or misstate several crucial pieces of physical evidence and witness tesimony. Examples include the

øeh...what?

I already linked to this. Mumia chose Jackson after several reccommendations. Now in another post you comment that:

Quote, please. I cannot guess what it is you are referring to.

Not according to US Law. If you want to change lawyers, you cannot do so in the middle of a trial just to cause disruption. You also do not have an unlimited right to self-representation. Also, you cannot just grab anyone as your attorney as Mumia wanted starting at the beginning of the trial.

I am not talking about what the law dictates. I am talking about how the law works. Did Mumia want his attorney, after he had dismissed him? No. Yet, he was forced to accept him.

Foisted? You bet.

Might as well give it up - there are people out there who will never believe a slime-sucking murderer is a slime-sucking murderer even if they see him do the murder - it's like the CTers' (the "honest" ones anyway). "He/she's a good writer and a swell person and there's just no way he/she could have murdered somebody and if they killed that person(s) it was just because the person they killed was evil and mean and didn't give them respect or candy and they just got shafted by the unfair justice system and I'm gonna throw a big tantrum if you don't let him/her go cause I like him/her 'cause he/she is depending on me!!!! SO THERE!!!"

Don't look at me. I'm not defending Mumia at all.

[kookbreaker]

I point out again that I am not interested in what the danielfaulkner-site says. I want independent evidence.


Ed Rendell. On record. You'll need to scour some old Philly newspapers.


Surely, you can see the problem in using one side as evidence against the other? That's like relying on Sylvia Browne to counter Randi.


Are you genuinely equating the Daniel Faulkner website, the most coherant and complete website about the case, with SYLVIA BROWN? Oh, for effing sake...


He wasn't unwanted? Then, why did Mumia dismiss him? Isn't a dismissal a sure sign that you are unwanted?


You fail to understand. In the US court system you either have to fire your lawyer before the trial or else establish a good reason for firing your own attorney. Petty whims and politcal moves are not considered good reasons. It has also been established in US law that you do not have a right to unlimited self-representation, nor can you use your own disruption when acting as your own lawyer to mess up a trial, nor can you demand a previously unmentioned person come in and represent you. Mumia tried to do all of these things, he was not allowed to do so. Any properly run court in the US would have acted similarly, and possibly the world.

Furthermore, the AIUSA article implies that Jackson was just plopped on Mumia from the start without any input from Mumia. This is not true. Mumia selected Jackson after interviews and recommendations. It was when Mumia realised that his only 'hope' was to disrupt things so much that he got a mistrial that he played the game of being his own council.

AIUSA also implies (bit does not outright state) that Jackson was not a competent lawyer. Jackson's excellent record stands in stark contrast to this claim. The records of Mumia's appeal where Jackson testified show he was successful in aquitting 13 of 20 murder cases.


I am not interested in what Mumia's lawyers had to say. I am solely interested in what AIUSA says.


You asked me to prove that they were parroting the claims of Mumia's Laywers. I did so and now you say this? Give me a break!


As being true? Show me.


I did. Stop breaking up my comments.


Again, I am not interested in what Mumia's lawyers had to say. Show me what AIUSA said.


See above.


Waaaait a second.

If AIUSA ignores what Mumia's attorney says, why do you complain about them ignoring what the other side says? You have to be consistent: Either AIUSA is biased in favor of Mumia, or they are not.


Perhaps I should be clearer: When I talk about Mumia claims and Mumia myths I am referring to the lawyers who laucnhed the media campaign and filled the internet with stories of how Mumia was framed. These laywers were not Jackson, who was the legal council for Mumia


Show me.


Quit interrupoting and pay attention for once.


Why not? Could that be the reason why AIUSA didn't want to address it?


No becuase the AIUSA article implies that Mumia couldn't get an expert!


Show me.


Did you even read the article you are defending? Here:

"As noted on page 12, the court refused to grant the defence funding sufficient to obtain expert witnesses. As a consequence, the jury was presented with no expert testimony to counter the prosecution's assertion that Abu-Jamal had fired at Officer Faulkner and that the policeman was killed with Abu-Jamal's weapon."

Not only is the implication that somehow got screwed out of experts funds other defendants untrue (it was S.O.P. for courts through the USA to pay for defense experts after they had submitted bills) it is also a lie that they could not obtain experts. Jackson wnet right out and hired George Fassnacht, a ballistics expert. Fassnacht was unable to help Mumia. See his testimony in the 1995 appeal, August 2nd.


I have seen absolutely no evidence from you on this. No references, no direct quotes, no nothing.


I've given more than enough, and more than you deserve for this petty game-playing. I would remind that a cop was killed, and all you want to do is play your silly games.


No. The onus is not on me. It is on you. Show me.

I've done enough with what I've written above. It is just one example, and I pointed out plenty more. I'm not jumping through hoops for you, Claus.

[QUOTE]
I am not talking about what the law dictates. I am talking about how the law works. Did Mumia want his attorney, after he had dismissed him? No. Yet, he was forced to accept him.

Foisted? You bet.

Not according to US law. See my above comments and talk with a US lawyer if you don't beleive me.

You are not allowed to fire your lawyer as a tactic to forestall or disrupt a trial. You are not allowed to demand a new lawyer during a case without good reason. When Mumia elected to represent himself, Sabo required that he retain Jackson as a legal advisor or else replace him with another proper attorney. Mumia stated he did not want to be represented by 'any lawyer in the world'. Mumia supporters, including AIUSA, make it seem as if Jackson was appointed by Sabo or some other judge. But that is not true.

It is a bad idea to not take a court case seriously.

Sabo gave Mumia a lot of leeway...far more than the law requires. But he did not give him unlimited leeway. So Mumia couldn't turn the court into a madhouse.

Read the following, and understand the problems if you can:

http://www.danielfaulkner.com/indexmyth9.html


Don't look at me. I'm not defending Mumia at all.

No, you are just defending the liars who defend him, for reasons I cannot fathom. At first you seemed keen on trying to mitigate this AIUSA article as a mistake, now you seem determined to exonerate them.

[gumboot]

Kook I would quietly suggest that you refuse to answer any more of CF's posts until he has read both the AIUSA report and the rebuttal.

This is like arguing with CTer about the NIST report when they haven't read it.

-Gumboot

[CFLarsen]

Ed Rendell. On record. You'll need to scour some old Philly newspapers.

Surely, you can see that this is not convincing? You would not accept references to Danish newspapers, unavailable online, yourself. Would you?

Are you genuinely equating the Daniel Faulkner website, the most coherant and complete website about the case, with SYLVIA BROWN? Oh, for effing sake...

No, I point out that the principle is the same: Using the other side as a credible source. That's why we find independent sources.

You fail to understand. In the US court system you either have to fire your lawyer before the trial or else establish a good reason for firing your own attorney. Petty whims and politcal moves are not considered good reasons. It has also been established in US law that you do not have a right to unlimited self-representation, nor can you use your own disruption when acting as your own lawyer to mess up a trial, nor can you demand a previously unmentioned person come in and represent you. Mumia tried to do all of these things, he was not allowed to do so. Any properly run court in the US would have acted similarly, and possibly the world.

The point is not what US Law allows, but what actually happened. Mumia got a lawyer he didn't want.

Furthermore, the AIUSA article implies that Jackson was just plopped on Mumia from the start without any input from Mumia. This is not true. Mumia selected Jackson after interviews and recommendations. It was when Mumia realised that his only 'hope' was to disrupt things so much that he got a mistrial that he played the game of being his own council.

AIUSA also implies (bit does not outright state) that Jackson was not a competent lawyer. Jackson's excellent record stands in stark contrast to this claim. The records of Mumia's appeal where Jackson testified show he was successful in aquitting 13 of 20 murder cases.

I see a lot of implications here. Are you sure you are not biased against AIUSA?

You asked me to prove that they were parroting the claims of Mumia's Laywers. I did so and now you say this? Give me a break!

If you want to show that they were parroting the claims, then you have to show that they uncritically took them as true.

I did.

No, what you gave me was your opinion on what AIUSA thinks.

Stop breaking up my comments.

This is not a spoken debate, where your line of thought is interrupted.

Perhaps I should be clearer: When I talk about Mumia claims and Mumia myths I am referring to the lawyers who laucnhed the media campaign and filled the internet with stories of how Mumia was framed. These laywers were not Jackson, who was the legal council for Mumia

What does AIUSA have to do with that?

Quit interrupoting and pay attention for once.

Again, this isn't a spoken debate.

No becuase the AIUSA article implies that Mumia couldn't get an expert!

Again, "implies".

Did you even read the article you are defending?

I am not defending the article. I am asking you for evidence of your claims.

Here:

"As noted on page 12, the court refused to grant the defence funding sufficient to obtain expert witnesses. As a consequence, the jury was presented with no expert testimony to counter the prosecution's assertion that Abu-Jamal had fired at Officer Faulkner and that the policeman was killed with Abu-Jamal's weapon."

Thank you. Remember to link to the source. (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510012000?open&of=ENG-325)

Not only is the implication that somehow got screwed out of experts funds other defendants untrue (it was S.O.P. for courts through the USA to pay for defense experts after they had submitted bills) it is also a lie that they could not obtain experts. Jackson wnet right out and hired George Fassnacht, a ballistics expert. Fassnacht was unable to help Mumia. See his testimony in the 1995 appeal, August 2nd.

"Implication" again. The quote says nothing about Mumia getting screwed out of expert funds, but only that the court didn't want to fund what AIUSA thought was sufficient.

You are reading way too much into this.

I've given more than enough, and more than you deserve for this petty game-playing.

Asking for evidence is not "petty game-playing".

I would remind that a cop was killed, and all you want to do is play your silly games.

Yes, a cop was killed. While sad and tragic, it happened 25 years ago, and Mumia is still behind bars because of that, and will never get out.

I've done enough with what I've written above. It is just one example, and I pointed out plenty more. I'm not jumping through hoops for you, Claus.

All I am asking is for you to back up your claims with evidence.

No, you are just defending the liars who defend him, for reasons I cannot fathom. At first you seemed keen on trying to mitigate this AIUSA article as a mistake, now you seem determined to exonerate them.

I am not defending AIUSA, nor am I trying to exonerate them. But if what you have presented so far is what you want to back up your claims with, then I'm afraid you are not making a very good case.

[kookbreaker]

Claus. This was a reminder thread about a victim who's name has been slandered over the years, and how a conspiracy was artificially created over the tragic incident.

And you have turned it into one of your game-playing threads.

Goodbye.

[Elizabeth I]

Yeah. But he also dismissed the attorney, but was forced to accept him later on. I'd call that "foisted".

oo-oooh, quote-mining, Lars? You failed to mention the end of my post, which noted that in the U.S. courts often decide that defendants are not qualified to present an effective case, and it's in their OWN BEST INTEREST that they not be allowed to serve as their own attorneys. ETA: The point is to ensure that the defendant gets a fair trial, with competent legal representation, not to ensure that he gets to do whatever he wants.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

[WildCat]

So, Claus, what do you know about the Mumia case?
That guns were involved, therefore he has to take a silly position and stretch this thread to 50+ pages.

[CFLarsen]

oo-oooh, quote-mining, Lars? You failed to mention the end of my post, which noted that in the U.S. courts often decide that defendants are not qualified to present an effective case, and it's in their OWN BEST INTEREST that they not be allowed to serve as their own attorneys. ETA: The point is to ensure that the defendant gets a fair trial, with competent legal representation, not to ensure that he gets to do whatever he wants.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

No quote mining from me. Mumia got a lawyer he didn't want.

[Yahzi]

I am, however, interested in evidence.
For an example of how Claus deals with evidence, you might want to peruse the thread in my sig line.

[Donal]

Cook chose Jackson and then represented himself, with Jackson assisting him. He did get what he wanted, for a time.

However, when it looked as if Cook (I refuse to call him by the name he took while on Death Row) was just trying to disrupt the trial, Judge Sabo ordered Jackson to take over the defense again.

And since when is a trial about a defendant getting what he wants? It is about said defendant getting what is fair and equitable under the law.

If Cook had been allowed to represent himself the way he wanted to and was found guilty, there would have been a whole new world of appeals and outcry over it. "How could the courts allow an amatuer to defend himself?"

I'm not pro-death penalty, but there has to be a better poster child than this guy.

[Beleth]

Mumia got a lawyer he didn't want.Was he treated justly and within the law?

[CFLarsen]

Was he treated justly and within the law?

That's not the point.

[Beleth]

That's not the point.Answer the question, please. Was he treated justly and within the law?

[CFLarsen]

Answer the question, please. Was he treated justly and within the law?

Probably. Do you understand that it is not the point I am making?

[Beleth]

Probably.Yes or no, please.

[CFLarsen]

Yes or no, please.

Since there hasn't been a file for mistrial, I would assume a yes. But I don't know for sure.

Do you understand that it is not the point I am making?

[Beleth]

Since there hasn't been a file for mistrial, I would assume a yes. But I don't know for sure.

Do you understand that it is not the point I am making?
Do you understand that whatever point you might be making is irrelevant if he was treated justly and within the law?

[CFLarsen]

Do you understand that whatever point you might be making is irrelevant if he was treated justly and within the law?

I answered your question. Answer mine:

Do you understand that it is not the point I am making?

[Beleth]

I answered your question. Answer mine:

Do you understand that it is not the point I am making?
My answer to your question is contingent on your answer to my question.

Do you understand that whatever point you might be making is irrelevant if he was treated justly and within the law?



PS - Why are you screaming?

[CFLarsen]

My answer to your question is contingent on your answer to my question.

Do you understand that whatever point you might be making is irrelevant if he was treated justly and within the law?

That is completely irrelevant to the point I am making. Do you understand that?

PS - Why are you screaming?

I am not screaming. I would use CAPS if I were SCREAMING. I am emphasizing my question, which you seem very reluctant - or unable - to answer. Perhaps you didn't see it, which is why I bold it.

It isn't my contention that it was illegal that Mumia got a lawyer he didn't want. I am saying that he was forced to have a lawyer he didn't want.

Is that clear? Do you understand this?

[Beleth]

That is completely irrelevant to the point I am making. Do you understand that?
As I said before, my answer to this question is contingent on your answer to the following question:

Do you understand that whatever point you might be making is irrelevant if he was treated justly and within the law?

It isn't my contention that it was illegal that Mumia got a lawyer he didn't want. I am saying that he was forced to have a lawyer he didn't want.
Of what relevance is that if he got a just, lawful trial?
(Note that this is just a rephrasing of the question you are having such a hard time answering. Perhaps you will be able to answer it now.)

[Donal]

Except thats not true. He interviewed lawyers and picked one. He then decided during the trial to act as his own attorney. Only after it was evident he did have the capacity to do so, was he forced to allow Jackson (the attorney he originally chose) to represent him.

[CFLarsen]

As I said before, my answer to this question is contingent on your answer to the following question:

Do you understand that whatever point you might be making is irrelevant if he was treated justly and within the law?

And I answered it, several times. Do you understand that it is completely irrelevant to the point I am making? I am not contesting the legality, I am saying that Mumia didn't get the lawyer he wanted.

Do you understand this, yes or no? Why do you have such a hard time answering this simple question?

Of what relevance is that if he got a just, lawful trial?

Because a "just, lawful trial" does not necessarily mean that he got what he deserved. Just take a look at the rate of people who have been exonerated from death row. 1 in 9 is innocent. Do you think the 1 innocent guy got what he deserved?

(Note that this is just a rephrasing of the question you are having such a hard time answering. Perhaps you will be able to answer it now.)

I have answered it many times now.

I do not contest the legality of Mumia being forced to accept a lawyer against his will. I am saying that he was forced to accept a lawyer against his will.

Now, answer my question:

Do you understand that I am not contesting that that Mumia got a lawyer he didn't want, but that I am only saying that he didn't get a lawyer he didn't want?

Yes or No?

[Loss Leader]

You know, from a legal perspective there really isn't much to the Mumia case, at least not in Pennsylvania. Defense of others is tricky at best. In most states, you can defend another person, even with deadly force, if you reasonably believe that person to be in jeopardy. However, if the person you are attacking is a police officer, states are split. In some, if you reasonably believe that you are defending someone from an assailant who turns out, unbeknownst to you, to be a police officer (or is obviously an officer but is breaking the law), you may be allowed to plead that as an affirmative defense.

Unfortunately, Pennsylvania does not follow that rule. If you defend another against what turns out to be a police officer, your beliefs are irrelevant. You have no affirmative defense. You are not allowed to defend another from a police officer.

Mumia did. In that state, it was a crime. The fact that he used deadly force only tells us which crime.

I have sympathy for an otherwise intelligent person who got caught making a very, very bad decision. And I do not believe in the death penalty in any case. But the guy is guilty and should not go free.

[CurtC]

And I answered it, several times. Do you understand that it is completely irrelevant to the point I am making? I am not contesting the legality, I am saying that Mumia didn't get the lawyer he wanted.Allow me to jump in here and say that I understand that it's a separate question - whether he was forced to use a lawyer he didn't want is separate from whether the legal rules were followed.

However, saying that he didn't get the lawyer he wanted is an oversimplification. He did want that lawyer, and decided at a later time that he changed his mind.

[Beleth]

And I answered it, several times.
Here are your responses to me after I asked that question:
I answered your question. Answer mine:

Do you understand that it is not the point I am making?
That is completely irrelevant to the point I am making. Do you understand that?Those are not answers. Those are questions.

Can you phrase your answer in the form of an answer, please?


Do you understand that it is completely irrelevant to the point I am making? I am not contesting the legality, I am saying that Mumia didn't get the lawyer he wanted.

Do you understand this, yes or no? Why do you have such a hard time answering this simple question?Because, as I have said twice before and will repeat a third time now, my answer to that question is contingent on your answer to the question you keep pseudo-answering with more questions. Why are you having such a hard time understanding that?

Because a "just, lawful trial" does not necessarily mean that he got what he deserved.Actually, that's the definition of "just".

Just take a look at the rate of people who have been exonerated from death row. 1 in 9 is innocent.Evidence?

Do you think the 1 innocent guy got what he deserved?We are not talking about some vague "1 innocent guy", we are talking specifically about Wesley Cook. And you believe that Wesley Cook got a just, lawful trial. Therefore you must believe that it was neither unjust nor illegal for him to be forced to have a lawyer he didn't want.

Am I right so far?

I have answered it many times now.

I do not contest the legality of Mumia being forced to accept a lawyer against his will. I am saying that he was forced to accept a lawyer against his will.I know that is what you are saying.
What I don't know is why you are saying it.


Now, answer my question:

Do you understand that I am not contesting that that Mumia got a lawyer he didn't want, but that I am only saying that he didn't get a lawyer he didn't want?

Yes or No?Actually, you are saying the exact opposite: that he did get a lawyer he didn't want.

Why won't you tell me why you are saying that?

First off, as Donal (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2168073#post2168073) pointed out, it's not entirely true. Cook selected that attorney of his own free will. Cook then relegated that attorney to a lower position, and when the judge saw what Cook's goals in the trial were, the judge reinstated the attorney to his previous position.

Second off, as you have agreed, it did not result in a miscarriage of justice.

So why are you making a claim that is not only a half-truth, but wholly unimportant even if it were fully true?

[Beleth]

Name one organization (or person) that doesn't make mistakes.
The Danish Court System.
From the smallest of the Byretten to the Højesteret and Rigsretten themselves.

As my evidence, I present to you every decision they have passed down since their inception. Each decision has been utterly, absolutely, unambiguously, unarguably, fair and moral and just and legal.

If you claim otherwise, provide evidence to prove your claim.

If you do not claim otherwise, retract your insinuation that all organizations or people make mistakes.

[kookbreaker]

Unfortunately, Pennsylvania does not follow that rule. If you defend another against what turns out to be a police officer, your beliefs are irrelevant. You have no affirmative defense. You are not allowed to defend another from a police officer.

Mumia did. In that state, it was a crime. The fact that he used deadly force only tells us which crime.


To this day a part of me suspects that Mumia set the whole situation up to take out a cop. I admit this is purely opinion based on these factors:

Its really hard to take the wrong way up Locust St. 'by accident', as Mumia's brother did.

Its hard to believe he did this right where his brother would be parked.

The reaction upon the arrival of other police officers: "I ain't got nothin' to do with this". It just makes me wonder if he was distancing himself from a plan that his brother came up with but didn't tell him the final result.

[CFLarsen]

Evidence?

Why don't you read this thread, instead of making fool of yourself?

Do you understand that it is completely irrelevant to the point I am making?

I am not contesting the legality, I am saying that Mumia didn't get the lawyer he wanted.

Do you understand this, yes or no?

The Danish Court System.
From the smallest of the Byretten to the Højesteret and Rigsretten themselves.

As my evidence, I present to you every decision they have passed down since their inception. Each decision has been utterly, absolutely, unambiguously, unarguably, fair and moral and just and legal.

If you claim otherwise, provide evidence to prove your claim.

If you do not claim otherwise, retract your insinuation that all organizations or people make mistakes.

Your ignorance of the Danish Court System shines through. Any defendant or prosecutor can appeal to a higher court (usually once, unless it is a pricipal case), where the verdict can either be confirmed or overturned.

Once recent case was where two Palestinian brothers were found guilty of murder and subsequently deported. The Supreme Court overturned the latter verdict.

Your call.

[CFLarsen]

The Bureau of Justice Statistics has just released the 2005 version of its annual report on the death penalty in the U.S. The report notes that both the number of death sentences and the size of death row were down for 2005, and that this represents a trend over the past 5 years. The report states that there were 60 executions in 2005, all by lethal injection, and that the time between sentencing and execution was longer in 2005 than in 2004.
Source (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=2023&scid=64)

Texas is sending fewer to death row (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-death11dec11,0,602773.story?coll=la-headlines-nation)

Texas may lead the nation by far in the number of executions carried out each year, but figures released last week suggest that support here for the ultimate punishment may be on the wane.

Over the last 10 years, the number of death sentences imposed in the state has dropped 65%, from 40 in fiscal 1996 to 14 in 2006, according to statistics compiled by the Texas Office of Court Administration. In that time, murders have remained about the same: State crime statistics show 1,476 murders in 1996 and 1,405 in 2005.

The figures are in line with a national decline in death sentences, and show that "Texas is catching up with the trend," said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center.

A growing number of wrongly convicted inmates across the country and the use of DNA evidence to exonerate the innocent have made jurors increasingly reluctant to impose the death penalty, Dieter said.

...

"There has always been the idea of Texas being tough on crime, but I think as people see how much potential there is for mistakes, they're less inclined to be so heavy handed," said Vicki McCuistion, program director of the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty.

...

Dianne Clements, president of the Houston-based victims rights group Justice For All, said the decline had more to do with U.S. Supreme Court decisions limiting the kinds of cases eligible for the death penalty than a major shift in thinking.

Whatever the reason, the death penalty is on its way out. Welcome to the civilized world.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Whatever the reason, the death penalty is on its way out. Welcome to the civilized world.
Could you please take this political diatribe to the politics subforum?

[CurtC]

Claus, I don't see why you're bringing in information about the death penalty at this point. We were discussing Mumia's lawyer, and Mumia's desires regarding his representation. I am saying that Mumia didn't get the lawyer he wanted.But he did get the lawyer he wanted.

[CFLarsen]

Claus, I don't see why you're bringing in information about the death penalty at this point. We were discussing Mumia's lawyer, and Mumia's desires regarding his representation.

I don't see the problem in bringing up information about the death penalty in a discussion about Mumia.

But he did get the lawyer he wanted.

And then, dismissed him, only to get him back, against his will.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I don't see the problem in bringing up information about the death penalty in a discussion about Mumia...
The discussion is on Mumia's claim of a conspiracy (to frame him); not the ethics of the death penalty in general, or in regards to his case.

[Beleth]

[Insult deleted. -Beleth]
So you don't have evidence of your claim that 1 out of 9 people on Death Row are innocent, then?

Do you understand that it is completely irrelevant to the point I am making?Since you absolutely refuse to say what your point is, I cannot determine what is relevant to your point and what isn't.

I am not contesting the legality, I am saying that Mumia didn't get the lawyer he wanted.

Do you understand this, yes or no?As I answered before (perhaps you missed it):
I know that is what you are saying.
What I don't know is why you are saying it.

So I will ask again:
Why are you making a claim that is not only a half-truth, but wholly unimportant even if it were fully true?

[Insult deleted. -Beleth] Any defendant or prosecutor [in the Danish court system] can appeal to a higher court (usually once, unless it is a pricipal case), where the verdict can either be confirmed or overturned.

Once recent case was where two Palestinian brothers were found guilty of murder and subsequently deported. The Supreme Court overturned the latter verdict.I stand corrected. The Danish court system, as you say, is error-prone... just like the American court system.

[CFLarsen]

You're a waste of time.

[Beleth]

You're a waste of time.
I'm parroting your modus operandi, Claus.

If you see a "fool" and a "waste of time" when I hold up a mirror to you, perhaps you should do some thinking about why that is.

[kookbreaker]

Bumping this thread as it seems Mumia's Supreme Court Appeal (http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20090406_Supreme_Court_rejects_new_trial_bid_by_Mu mia_Abu-Jamal.html) has been denied. Now there's just the resentencing.

ETA: This should probably be moved to the general CT forum.

[Pinch]

Bumping this thread as it seems Mumia's Supreme Court Appeal (http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20090406_Supreme_Court_rejects_new_trial_bid_by_Mu mia_Abu-Jamal.html) has been denied. Now there's just the resentencing.

As much as I hope and would love to see the death penalty in his re-sentencing, somehow I don't think that will happen and he'll spend the rest of his days in the relative comfort of a prison, corresponding with the European hoi polli, writing children's books and poems and accepting phone calls from Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn.

[kookbreaker]

As much as I hope and would love to see the death penalty in his re-sentencing, somehow I don't think that will happen and he'll spend the rest of his days in the relative comfort of a prison, corresponding with the European hoi polli, writing children's books and poems and accepting phone calls from Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn.

It will be interesting to see. Right now this city is not in the mood to let cop killers linger in prison given that we have lost several policemen this year. But the sentencing might be delayed and memories are short.

[Caustic Logic]

The only time I'd ever heard the name Abdul Mumia Jabal was in a line in a Michael Frante song.

Now I know what it's all about....the rhyme.

Man that was mangled. Mumia Abu Jamal, Michael Franti, of Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy and Spearhead. Good stuff, if a bit preachy and self-righteous, I consider myself a fan.

As for Mumia, I'm from that school where we gravitate towards revolutionary voices. But this case doesn't feel right, even being ignorant of the details. He's far too ambiguous to be a viable hero-type, and I suspect a massive mistake in latching onto him, at best, and some kind of disinfo/discredit operation at worst. How many unfairly tasered protesters had just finished taunting cops about locking up the Messiah Mumia? It's stupid to embrace every burning bridge you come across.

Thanks for the thread, however the later pages have gone...