Log in

View Full Version : Mumia Abu-Jamal's Innocence (Split from "ISO supports Taliban?")



fredbergen
29th August 2009, 05:07
Fake Socialist [CG's real name removed- Random Precision] alibis the racist legal lynchers (https://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/debsian/2008-08/msg00087.html), but Mumia Is Innocent Beyond the Shadow of a Doubt! (http://www.internationalist.org/workerspowertofreemumia0703.html)

The drive to lynch Mumia Abu-Jamal has been a judicial horror show from the start. After Mumia was shot in the chest that December 9, police picked him up and rammed his head into a telephone pole. When the police wagon arrived at Jefferson Hospital, the cops threw him to the ground and beat him again. At the hospital doors Mumia was subjected to a new beating. His real “crime” in the eyes of the police is that he survived the attempt to murder him in the streets, so for the past 25 years they have been trying to lynch him in the courts. To accomplish this the government has fabricated a whole tissue of lies. “Mumia Abu-Jamal stood over Officer Faulkner and shot him in the face, mortally wounding him,” claims House Resolution 1082. False. This story was concocted by prosecutor Joseph McGill, the bullet casings on the sidewalk do not match the gun Jamal was licensed to carry as a taxi driver, the bullet removed from Faulkner’s body was a different caliber, the trajectory of the shot that killed the policeman is the opposite of someone standing over him, there were no divots (loose chips) in the sidewalk.

A cop later claimed that Mumia “confessed” in the police wagon, but his partner reported that Mumia said nothing. Two months later, at a conference of the police with the district attorney, a story was invented about Jamal “hollering” a confession in the hospital corridor, but this is denied by the physician, who said the patient had lost too much blood to be able to say anything loudly, and another police officer reported that that Mumia “made no comments.” None of this was brought out at the 1982 trial, because the police claimed the officer was “not available” and Jamal’s incompetent lawyer didn’t subpoena him. Witnesses on the scene were coerced by the police into saying that Jamal shot Faulkner. A main prosecution witness, a prostitute, Cynthia White, was known to “turn tricks” for the police. A second prostitute, Pamela Jenkins, who was a key government witness in the federal investigation into the 39th Precinct corruption scandal, reported the police pressure to perjure herself and name Jamal as the shooter.

A third prostitute, Veronica Jones, said in a 1996 hearing that police coerced her into changing her account that she saw two men run from the scene; when she insisted on telling the truth about what happened, she was taken from the stand in handcuffs and jailed on an “outstanding warrant.” Another witness, white cab driver Robert Chobert, later recanted key elements of his original testimony to an investigator for Jamal’s defense team. His recantation was never brought out in court. Another eyewitness, taxi driver William Singletary, stated flatly in a deposition that Mumia Abu-Jamal did not shoot Faulkner, that the shooter was a black male wearing a green army jacket who then fled the scene. Altogether five witnesses reported seeing a man in a green army jacket on the scene, several saying they saw him fleeing. (Jamal had on a red quilted ski jacket with a blue stripe.) Yet Singletary was never called to testify by the prosecution or the defense, and others were not questioned about the man in the army jacket.

The vital importance of this became clear when one Arnold Beverly, who had previously told members of Jamal’s defense team that he knew who shot the police officer, finally admitted, in June 1999, in a sworn and videotaped deposition, that “Jamal had nothing to do with the shooting” and that “I shot Faulkner in the face at close range.” Beverly was wearing a green army jacket that night. His deposition gives a detailed account of the events, and an explanation of why Faulkner was killed:

“I was hired, along with another guy, and paid to shoot and kill Faulkner. I had heard that Faulkner was a problem for the mob and corrupt policemen because he interfered with the graft and payoffs made to allow illegal activity including prostitution, gambling, drugs without prosecution in the center city area.”

Several witnesses reported seeing two men fleeing the scene. The second one was quite likely Kenneth Freeman, who had been in a car with Mumia’s brother, Billy Cook. Freeman, who was also wearing a green army jacket, later told Cook about “a plan to kill Faulkner. He told me that he was armed on that night and participated in the shooting.”

Saorsa
29th August 2009, 05:31
MOVE is a nasty, apocalyptic cult that only has any cred on the left
because it was attacked by the cops and one of their members got
caught killing a cop. While they certainly didn't deserve to have a
bomb dropped on them, they were a terrible nuisance to the
neighborhood and had made the block practically unlivable. At the huge
Mumia demo I went to in Philly in '99, almost every other word out of
the many speakers mouths was, "John Africa." John Africa this, John
Africa that. There was more about John Africa than there was about
Mumia.

Before anyone gives me any shit about saying Mumia did it, let me say
that if I came a across a cop beating the crap outta my brother, and I
had a gun, there'd be one less cop in the world. Mumia was justified
in shooting Faulkner.

I'd be interested in learning more about this Chegitz. What else can you tell us about MOVE? That's the group Mumia was in I take it.

chegitz guevara
29th August 2009, 05:44
https://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/debsian/2008-08/msg00087.html

You don't care about revolutionary theory just like you don't care that Mumia is innocent, you pretend that Lenin was a Menshevik and you alibi the racist legal lynchers out to get Mumia. You are a phony, cynical con-man opportunist scum.

Nice ad hominem (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/ad-hominem/) attack. Don't deal with what I wrote, attack me personally in order to discredit me. Yeah, you can do that, but it doesn't make me wrong.

You're falling into the fallacist's fallacy (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/fallacists/) (just because evidence was faked it doesn't mean Jamal didn't kill Faulkner).

Once we use logic to eliminate false arguments, we are left the physical evidence and the curious facts that neither Jamal nor his brother said anything about the night in question for twenty years.

What are the important facts?


Officer Faulkner was beating the shit out of Jamal's brother.
Jamal's gun had five spent cartridges in it, and the bullets from the gun were consistent with those found in Officer Faulkner.
Jamal's brother made no statement about the events of that night for twenty years, and then said he didn't see who did it.
Jamal waited almost twenty years before giving a story that is inconsistent with the physical evidence.

There is good reason to believe that witnesses were coerced in the case. There is good reason to believe that Jamal's "confession" was made up. We know Jamal's trial was bullshit. None of that, however, means Jamal didn't kill Faulkner. It means he didn't get a fair trial. That's different.

So it comes down to, most people would kill someone beating the shit out of their brother after being shot by same. Jamal's gun had five spent bullets and there were five bullets in Faulkner. I have yet to hear any explanation that would give me reasonable doubt.

And, I have no problem with someone killing a cop in self-defense or someone else's defense. Rather than saying Jamal is innocent, we should be saying it was justifiable homicide.

chegitz guevara
29th August 2009, 06:02
I'd be interested in learning more about this Chegitz. What else can you tell us about MOVE? That's the group Mumia was in I take it.

Mumia was not a member of MOVE. He may have been in MOVE's periphery. MOVE, btw, is not an acronym. MOVE started as a kind of Black, urban, hippie, rasta cult. You can read more about them on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE).

In 1978, after complaints about the lack of sanitation in the MOVE compound, after a year of negotiations, the police assaulted the cult's home. In the invasion, a police officer was killed (and many more people were injured). Several MOVE members went to prison. Jamal, a local award winning journalist, investigated and discovered that the police officer was shot in the back, which indicated that he was shot by his fellow officers (Autopsy reports show clearly that the bullet that hit Ramp traveled in a downward direction; MOVE members were in a basement in their house below the street making it ballistically impossible for them to have fired the shot). This didn't affect the outcome of the trial, which sent nine MOVE members to prison.

Jamal killed Faulkner in 81.

In 1985, MOVE had relocated to a new neighborhood, a middle class Black neighborhood. Again, they created a sanitation hazard (they didn't believe in killing animals and their compost heaps attracted rats and roaches). In addition, they set up a loudspeaker system which was blaring night and day, including profanities. The police again tried to evict them. This time MOVE had guns, apparently. There were two fortifications on the top of the MOVE house and the police dropped a bomb on the roof to try and destroy them. Instead, it set the building on fire. The fire eventually destroyed the entire block. "Eleven people, including John Africa, five other adults and five children, died in the resulting fire. Ramona Africa and one child, Birdie Africa, were the only survivors." The others could have escaped by chose to burn to death. They could have let the children escape. That's pretty fucked up.

chegitz guevara
29th August 2009, 18:15
I think you've got that backwards. He is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

There is no evidence that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that Mumia killed Faulkner.

Mumia's gun had five empty cartridges. Faulker had five bullets in him consistent with Mumia's gun. Mumia was shot by Faulkner before he was killed. Faulkner was shot once in the back and four times by someone standing over him.

Only one of two people could have been standing over Faulkner, Jamal or his brother. It's conceivable that, after having shot each other in the first exchange of fire, Jamal's brother picked up Jamal's gun and executed Faulkner, but neither one of them is arguing that. That would give me reasonable doubt.

Jamal's brother says he didn't see who five times shot the man who was beating him with a night stick. Jamal claims he wasn't there, but ran to the scene of the shots being fired, with a gun that apparently only had one bullet in it, and five empty cartridges.

That's the evidence that needs to be discredited. All the rest, the coercion of testimony, the falsification of testimony, that unfair trial, none of that is relevant to whether or not Jamal actually committed the crime. For example, I could lie, claiming, "I've seen you breath." The fact that I'm lying about seeing you breathe does not mean that you do not breathe. The fact that the cops were trying to frame Mumia doesn't mean he didn't kill Faulkner. It means they were taking no chances of his getting off.

The physical evidence and the behavior of Jamal and his brother only make sense if Jamal killed Faulkner, and no explanation that would provide reasonable doubt has been provided.

I used to Mumia was innocent. I wrote articles supporting him. I believed the Partisan Defense Committee. As I was studying the case more to write better arguments in his defense, I began learning things that Mumia's supporters never mention. A materialist, someone who has uses the scientific method as his guide, must re-evaluate his position when contradictory evidence is presented.

I do not have a reasonable doubt that Mumia killed Faulkner. As I write, however, I think he was fully justified.