FREE TAPATALK APP

kookbreaker · 8th December 2006, 07:16 PM

On December 9th, a few hours from this writing. Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner 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 · 8th December 2006, 07:39 PM

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 · 8th December 2006, 07:50 PM

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 · 8th December 2006, 07:52 PM

both sides do.

None of us get off free.

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

Jeff Wagg · 8th December 2006, 07:55 PM

Originally Posted by Mercutio

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 · 8th December 2006, 08:05 PM

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 · 8th December 2006, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 8th December 2006, 08:10 PM

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 · 8th December 2006, 08:31 PM

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

kookbreaker · 8th December 2006, 08:40 PM

Originally Posted by diomedes

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 · 8th December 2006, 09:24 PM

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 · 8th December 2006, 09:34 PM

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 · 8th December 2006, 10:03 PM

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 · 9th December 2006, 01:15 AM

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 · 9th December 2006, 01:37 AM

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

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 · 9th December 2006, 01:46 AM

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 · 9th December 2006, 02:08 AM

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 · 9th December 2006, 02:10 AM

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

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 · 9th December 2006, 02:35 AM

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 · 9th December 2006, 05:17 AM

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

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 · 9th December 2006, 05:24 AM

One of the most succinct articles on Mumia was actually written by a Socialist. Rodney Anonymous' Awww Screw Mumia sums things up quite well. Especially with this sentence:

Quote:

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 · 9th December 2006, 05:29 AM

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

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.

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

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.

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

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 · 9th December 2006, 05:35 AM

Originally Posted by valis

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 · 9th December 2006, 05:36 AM

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

'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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Can you show a pattern of this behavior with AIUSA?

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

Deathshead · 9th December 2006, 05:38 AM

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 · 9th December 2006, 05:48 AM

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

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 (which, curiously enough, the David Faulkner site has a faulty link to), specifically states that:

Quote:

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.

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

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.

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

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 · 9th December 2006, 05:55 AM

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

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 · 9th December 2006, 05:58 AM

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

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 · 9th December 2006, 06:02 AM

Originally Posted by gumboot

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

-Gumboot

How so?

kookbreaker · 9th December 2006, 06:11 AM

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

What exactly is gained by that? The report (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.

Quote:

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 · 9th December 2006, 06:14 AM

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

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 · 9th December 2006, 06:14 AM

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

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 · 9th December 2006, 06:16 AM

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

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 · 9th December 2006, 07:18 AM

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

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?

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

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

Why not?

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

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?

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

I didn't. Claus. Someone else did.

You must have missed this one, then:

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

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.

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

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

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

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

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.

Originally Posted by gumboot

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

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

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 · 9th December 2006, 07:32 AM

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

kookbreaker · 9th December 2006, 07:45 AM

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

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.

Quote:

Why not?

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

You must have missed this one, then:

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

Quote:

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

Which is NOT what I said.

Quote:

I have yet to see evidence of it being deliberate.

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · 9th December 2006, 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by Pyrrho

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.

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

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.

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

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?

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

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.

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

They could be lying, but I doubt it.

Why?

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

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?

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

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

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

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

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?

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

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.

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

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.

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

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

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

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

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 · 9th December 2006, 08:04 AM

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

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

Then read the court transcript.

Quote:

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

Which claims are you having difficulty with?

Quote:

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Why?

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

OK. Which ones?

Quote:

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

I gave you examples of mine.

Quote:

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 · 9th December 2006, 08:10 AM

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

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 · 9th December 2006, 08:21 AM

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.

8th December 2006, 07:16 PM	#1
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,258	25 years ago this day. On December 9th, a few hours from this writing. Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner 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.
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,258	__________________ Thanks for helping me win Best Children's Gifts and Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011 & 2012! Spectrum Scientifics - My store - Google it people!

8th December 2006, 07:39 PM	#2
60hzxtl Muse Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Brooklyn Posts: 698	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.
	__________________ Loose Change, own all the versions!

8th December 2006, 07:52 PM	#4
Mercutio Shakespeare's Sock Puppet Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Live Free Or Die Posts: 16,325	both sides do. None of us get off free. I am ignorant on this issue--not siding one way or the other.
	__________________ "But to see her was to love her Love but her, and love forever."

8th December 2006, 08:05 PM	#6
Mercutio Shakespeare's Sock Puppet Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Live Free Or Die Posts: 16,325	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
	__________________ "But to see her was to love her Love but her, and love forever."

8th December 2006, 08:08 PM	#7
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,399	Originally Posted by 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. 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.
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,399	__________________ AVENGERS!!!.. Turn off the dark!

8th December 2006, 07:50 PM	#3
Jeff Wagg Eponymous Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Chicago Posts: 3,052	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.

8th December 2006, 07:55 PM	#5
Jeff Wagg Eponymous Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Chicago Posts: 3,052	Originally Posted by Mercutio 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.

8th December 2006, 08:10 PM	#8
diomedes New Blood Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 15	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.
diomedes New Blood Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 15

8th December 2006, 08:31 PM	#9
Beleth FAQ Creator Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Not in a cave Posts: 4,134	Thanks for that, kookbreaker. That story was entirely new to me.
	__________________ Administrator and Head Moderator, The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe Forum Big Fan, Stop Sylvia Browne I will come back only after the words "Hi, Nyarl!" are returned to the post http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...5&postcount=14 .

8th December 2006, 08:40 PM	#10
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,258	Originally Posted by diomedes 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!"
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,258	__________________ Thanks for helping me win Best Children's Gifts and Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011 & 2012! Spectrum Scientifics - My store - Google it people!

8th December 2006, 09:24 PM	#11
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,196	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
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

8th December 2006, 09:34 PM	#12
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,258	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.
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,258	__________________ Thanks for helping me win Best Children's Gifts and Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011 & 2012! Spectrum Scientifics - My store - Google it people!

8th December 2006, 10:03 PM	#13
ConspiRaider Writer of Nothingnesses Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 11,169	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.

9th December 2006, 01:15 AM	#14
jhunter1163 Beer-Swilling Semiliterate Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Room 118, Bohemian Grove Marriott Posts: 15,904	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.
	Last edited by jhunter1163; 9th December 2006 at 01:20 AM.

9th December 2006, 01:37 AM	#15
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,804	Originally Posted by kookbreaker 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.
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

9th December 2006, 01:46 AM	#16
Brainache Nasty Brutish and Tall Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Behind you! Posts: 9,182	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.
	__________________ Words cannot convey the vertiginous retching horror that enveloped me as I lost consciousness. - W. S. Burroughs Invert the prominent diaphragm!!! Expect from others what you did to them - Seneca.

9th December 2006, 02:08 AM	#17
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985	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.
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985

9th December 2006, 02:10 AM	#18
valis Muse Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: sebastian. fl Posts: 649	Originally Posted by CFLarsen 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.
	__________________ Everybody knows freedom, it's living inside your head. Everybody knows Jesus, you'll meet him when you are dead. A song, by those guys...

9th December 2006, 02:35 AM	#19
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	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

9th December 2006, 05:17 AM	#20
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,258	Originally Posted by CFLarsen 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 Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,258	__________________ Thanks for helping me win Best Children's Gifts and Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011 & 2012! Spectrum Scientifics - My store - Google it people!

9th December 2006, 05:24 AM	#21
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,258	One of the most succinct articles on Mumia was actually written by a Socialist. Rodney Anonymous' Awww Screw Mumia sums things up quite well. Especially with this sentence: Quote: 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.
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,258	__________________ Thanks for helping me win Best Children's Gifts and Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011 & 2012! Spectrum Scientifics - My store - Google it people!

9th December 2006, 05:29 AM	#22
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,804	Originally Posted by kookbreaker 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. Originally Posted by kookbreaker 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. Originally Posted by kookbreaker 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?
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

9th December 2006, 05:35 AM	#23
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,804	Originally Posted by valis 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.
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

9th December 2006, 05:36 AM	#24
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,258	Originally Posted by CFLarsen '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. Quote: 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. Quote: Can you show a pattern of this behavior with AIUSA? No I can't, but I did not say I would.
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,258	__________________ Thanks for helping me win Best Children's Gifts and Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011 & 2012! Spectrum Scientifics - My store - Google it people!

9th December 2006, 05:38 AM	#25
Deathshead Student Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 42	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.
Deathshead Student Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 42

9th December 2006, 05:48 AM	#26
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,804	Originally Posted by kookbreaker 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 (which, curiously enough, the David Faulkner site has a faulty link to), specifically states that: Quote: 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. Originally Posted by kookbreaker 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. Originally Posted by kookbreaker 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)?
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

9th December 2006, 05:55 AM	#27
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,196	Originally Posted by CFLarsen 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
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

9th December 2006, 05:58 AM	#28
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,196	Originally Posted by kookbreaker 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
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

9th December 2006, 06:02 AM	#29
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,804	Originally Posted by gumboot Actually the methodology of "Loose Change" and the AIUSA report is strikingly similar. -Gumboot How so?
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

9th December 2006, 06:11 AM	#30
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,258	Originally Posted by CFLarsen What exactly is gained by that? The report (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. Quote: 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'.
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,258	__________________ Thanks for helping me win Best Children's Gifts and Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011 & 2012! Spectrum Scientifics - My store - Google it people!

9th December 2006, 06:14 AM	#31
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,196	Originally Posted by CFLarsen 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
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

9th December 2006, 06:16 AM	#33
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,196	Originally Posted by kookbreaker 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
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

9th December 2006, 07:18 AM	#34
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,804	Originally Posted by kookbreaker 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? Originally Posted by kookbreaker There is nothing that indicates that Mumias trial lawyer was a hack foisted on him by the courts. Why not? Originally Posted by kookbreaker 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? Originally Posted by kookbreaker I didn't. Claus. Someone else did. You must have missed this one, then: Originally Posted by kookbreaker 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. Originally Posted by kookbreaker They may have their reasons and you'll have to ask them. Me? Shouldn't you be the one asking them for their reasons? Originally Posted by kookbreaker 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. Originally Posted by gumboot 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 Originally Posted by kookbreaker 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.
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

9th December 2006, 07:32 AM	#35
Pyrrho Man in Black Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 3,678	So, Claus, what do you know about the Mumia case?
Pyrrho Man in Black Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 3,678	__________________ The Skeptics Society \| The Skeptics Society Forum \| Skepticality Promoting SCIENCE and CRITICAL THINKING

9th December 2006, 07:45 AM	#36
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,258	Originally Posted by CFLarsen 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. Quote: Why not? Umm, becuase there isn't. Why would there be? Quote: 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. Quote: You must have missed this one, then: I said the paper was a joke Claus, you must have missed where you said: Quote: Isn't that a bit premature, to dismiss AIUSA on account of just one mistake Which is NOT what I said. Quote: I have yet to see evidence of it being deliberate. If it was not deliberate it was unbelievably sloppy work. Either way... Quote: 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. Quote: 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. Quote: 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. Quote: 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?
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,258	__________________ Thanks for helping me win Best Children's Gifts and Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011 & 2012! Spectrum Scientifics - My store - Google it people!