Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The undisputed Champion of all Mumia is Guilty threads.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
ShaneGR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-03 10:47 PM
Original message
The undisputed Champion of all Mumia is Guilty threads.
Mods, I realize there is a nother thread on this subject. It has 130 posts and I felt we really need to get this message out to the left. The source I am using is not a conservative website, and I do not wish to engage in any flaming.

This thread will be long.... it is intended as a resource for people, so perhaps it can be bookmarked by inquisitive minds.

The following material refutes every single myth a lot of the pro-Mumia people use to defend him. The source I am using can be found at:

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/a/l/als313/art/two.html (CLICK SOURCES and then Faulkner)

I have only copied in the beginning of each analysis, for a more complete view, visit the site.

MYTH #1

Those who support Mumia Abu-Jamal often allege that the bullet removed from Officer Faulkner's brain was .44 caliber. Jamal's gun -- found on the ground next to him at the crime scene -- was a .38 caliber revolver. Therefore, his supporters argue, Jamal couldn't have fired the shot that killed Officer Faulkner.

When asked to provide proof to support this allegation, Jamal's supporters point to a handwritten note made by Assistant Medical Examiner, Dr. Paul Hoyer. Dr. Hoyer's note said, "shot 44 Cal".

Dr. Hoyer testified at the 1995 PCRA Hearing and explained that his 1981 note merely reflected his speculation at what caliber the bullet might be, made when he first saw the wound and before he started the autopsy. The note was written on a piece of scrap paper, and was not a part of (and was never intended to be a part of) his professional findings.

Some of Jamal's supporters, including his attorneys, have now altered this ".44 caliber" myth, and now argue that that there may be several fragments of the bullet "missing," and that if these fragments were the correct size and weight, they would prove that the bullet was .44 caliber. They have never offered any evidence, of any kind, to support this theory.

BRIEF REBUTTAL

Official ballistics tests done on the fatal bullet verify that Officer Faulkner was killed by a .38 caliber bullet, not a .44 caliber bullet. The fatal .38 slug was a Federal brand Special +P bullet with a hollow base (the hollow base in a +P bullet was distinctive to Federal ammunition at that time). It is the exact type (+P with a hollow base), brand (Federal), and caliber (.38) of bullet found in Jamal's gun. Additionally, tests have proven that the bullet that killed Officer Faulkner was fired from a weapon with the same rifling characteristics as Jamal's .38 Caliber revolver. Further, Jamal's own ballistics expert, George Fassnacht, conceded in his 1995 PCRA testimony that the fatal bullet was not .44 caliber, and that it was most "likely" a .38. Although the D.A.'s officer offered in open court to let Jamal's attorneys test the fatal bullet, they refused this offer, and have never offered any alternative test results to counter the above evidence. Dr. James Hoyer's handwritten notation on a piece of scrap paper certainly does not constitute such evidence. Dr. Hoyer, a medical doctor who has had no formal ballistics training, has never claimed that he was able to determine the caliber of the bullet. He plainly testified in 1995 that what he wrote was a "guess." Furthermore, Dr. Hoyer testified that, after writing this guess, he had measured the bullet with a standard ruler. Although he acknowledged that this was not the accepted scientific method by which to gage the caliber of a bullet, his rough measurement was consistent with the slug being .38 caliber, and not a .44. Finally, Dr. Hoyer testified that, at the time he made his .44 caliber guess -- while looking at the horrendous wound to Officer Faulkner's head -- he was unaware that the killer had been using high-velocity +P ammunition. Had he known this, he would not have assumed that the slug was of an unusually large caliber.

So maybe the gun the police produced as evidence against Jamal was thrown there in order to frame him? No. The gun had been legally purchased by Jamal years prior to the shooting, and was registered in his name.

MYTH #2

According to Mumia Abu-Jamal's lawyers and supporters, several "eyewitnesses" saw somebody else shoot Officer Faulkner and then run off into the night.

In an article written by Jamal lawyer Leonard Weinglass, The Trial of Mumia Abu Jamal, Weinglass states:

"In all, four witnesses situated in four separate locations on the street, none of whom knew each other or Mumia, reported seeing the shooter flee, and all had him going in precisely the same direction."

The four individuals that Weinglass regularly labels as "eyewitnesses" are: Deborah Kordansky, Robert Chobert, Veronica Jones and Desie Hightower. Each will be discussed later in this section.

In his book, "Race For Justice" Mr. Weinglass writes:

"Due to Commonwealth misconduct and the court's rulings, the true facts of the case that Mr. Jamal was shot by Officer Faulkner as Mr. Jamal approached the scene, and that a third black man then shot Officer Faulkner and fled the scene were suppressed and not established".

Weinglass' theory that another man shot Faulkner and then ran from the scene is supported and promoted by lawyer Stuart Taylor in his article, "Guilty and Framed". Taylor writes:

"The defense theory seems more plausible. Weinglass' theory is, "At that moment, Officer Faulkner faced a life threatening situation. He had one suspect who allegedly struck him, bent over the hood of a car with another individual running towards him. He was alone. It was 4A.M. It was dark. The neighborhood was unsettling."

Taylor goes on to state that Weinglass "believes" that Faulkner fired first, hitting Jamal in the chest. And then, another man, who had been driving with William Cook, exited Cook's car and shot Faulkner in the back, then in the face, and ran away into the darkness before police arrived.

Stuart Taylor also writes:

"No fewer than five eyewitnesses have made statements at one time or another that support the defense theory that someone ran away from the scene. These accounts also raise at least a suspicion that police were so bent on nailing Jamal that they have shunned, or even suppressed, evidence supporting this defense theory. Taking the eyewitness testimony as a whole, it seems more likely than not, that somebody had been in Cook's car with him and had run away before police arrived. It's also at least conceivable that this mystery man killed Faulkner."

In Weinglass' public presentations, as well as in his writings, he states that Cook's passenger, the "phantom shooter," ran down Locust Street and entered a small alleyway before police arrived. As Taylor states, the basis for Weinglass' theory is his allegation that the four individuals -- each of whom Weinglass claims was an "eyewitness" and "on the street in different locations" -- testified to seeing another man do the shooting and running away.

NOTE:

The "Commonwealth misconduct" referred to by Weinglass and Taylor are their allegations that, in order to get testimony detrimental to Mumia Abu-Jamal, Assistant District Attorney Joe McGill organized and agreed upon "deals" for legal leniency with two of his eyewitnesses (Cynthia White and Robert Chobert) in 1982. Weinglass alleges that these "deals" were not disclosed to the court or to Jamal's attorney. Both Leonard Weinglass and Jamal's original attorney, Anthony Jackson, argue that the District Attorneys Office and members of the Philadelphia Police Department conspired to keep these "deals" from Mr. Jackson in 1982. Additionally, Weinglass and Jamal's supporters contend that there is clear evidence of police intimidation of witnesses who would have offered testimony favorable to Jamal. (For more information on the alleged coercion of witnesses, go to Myth #6).

BRIEF REBUTTAL

Of the four supposedly exculpatory eyewitnesses, three are not eyewitnesses at all -- they admit that they did not see the shooting, and did not see the shooting scene until well after the shooting was over. The other is an eyewitness for the prosecution, who has consistently said that Jamal was the killer.

MYTH #3

Jamal's supporters claim that prosecutor Joe McGill and Judge Albert Sabo conspired to "racially stack" the jury that convicted Jamal, in violation of his civil rights. Some supporters have gone so far as to claim that there was only one black juror at Jamal's original trial in 1982; others have said there were none. It is alleged that this "racially stacked" jury disregarded all the evidence and found Jamal guilty simply because he was black.

In his book "Race For Justice", Leonard Weinglass states, "During the course of the jury selection, the prosecution used eleven of fifteen peremptory challenges to excuse nearly 75 percent of the eligible black jurors." In his public presentations, Weinglass claims that the sole reason for the dismissal of these prospective jurors was the fact that they were black.

Jamal's lawyers also argue that his absence from an "in chambers conference," in which the Judge, the prosecutor, and Jamal's trial attorney (a black man) discussed and agreed upon the removal of a black juror who had violated sequestration, was a pretext to remove her because of her race.




BRIEF REBUTTAL

Though you wouldn't know it if you spoke to one of Jamal's supporters, the jury that convicted Mumia Abu-Jamal was not simply thrust upon him. Jamal represented himself throughout the jury selection process, and personally participated in the selection of each and every juror. He used his peremptory challenges (each side gets 20 of these, each of which allows them to reject one potential juror at their discretion) to remove an unknown number of white potential jurors -- although, at the time, no one thought to accuse Jamal of rejecting white people because of their race.

It is also of interest that prosecutor Joe McGill -- who was supposedly rejecting potential jurors solely because they were black -- accepted at least four black people for the jury. Further, Jamal personally used one of his own peremptory challenges to remove one of these black persons from the jury.

It is also known that McGill used ten (out of twenty) challenges to remove black potential jurors. But it is important to note that it is not unlawful to reject black potential jurors, any more than it is unlawful to reject white ones. What is unlawful is to reject a potential juror because of his or her race. Jamal has never offered any proof that McGill did that. On the contrary, the record shows a legitimate reason for McGill to have removed each of the black potential jurors he did:

1) Janet Coates. (Black) Indicated that she would be biased against police and that she had listened to Jamal on the radio. (N.T. 6/7/82, 129-30)
2) Alma Austin (Stipulated to being black at 1995 PCRA hearing.) Expressed strong feelings against the death penalty. (N.T. 6/8/82, 2.51-54)
3) Verna Brown (Black) Stated that she had listened to Jamal on the radio. (N.T. 6/8/82, 3.242-245)
4) Beverly Green (Race unknown. At the 1995 PCRA hearing Mr. Weinglass stated that he would verify that Ms Green was black, but later removed her from the witness list and withdrew the claim) Hesitant in answering the prosecutor's questions. (N.T. 6/8/82, 3.242-245)
5) Genevieve Gibson (Black) Listened to Jamal on the radio. (N.T. 6/10/82, 4.78)
6) Gaitano Ficordimondo (Race unknown) (N.T.6/10/82, 4.96)
7) Webster Riddick (Black) Expressed "strong reservations" about the death penalty. (N.T.6/10/82, 4.222-224)
8) John Finn (Race unknown) Stated that he was a member of the clergy, and was very hesitant to answer the prosecutor's questions directly. (N.T. 6/11/82, 5.75-82)
9) Carl Lash (Black) Stated that he had formerly been a "prison counselor". (N.T. 6/11/82, 5.105, 110-111, 113-114)
10) Delores Thiemicke (Race Unknown) At age 24, she was unemployed. (N.T. 6/11/82, 5.192-193)
11) Gwendolyn Spady (Black) Stated that she had listened to Jamal on the radio. (N.T. 6/15/82, 111-13)
12) Mario Bianchi (Race not of record.) Stated he listened to Jamal on the radio and had difficulty understanding the presumption of innocence. (N.T. 6/15/82, 111-113)
13) Wayne Williams (Black) Stated that he had listened to Jamal on the radio. (N.T. 6/15/82, 171-173)
14) Henry McCoy (Black) Stated that his daughter worked at a radio station with Jamal. (N.T. 6/15/82, 223-225)
15) Darlene Sampson (Stipulated that she was black at 1995 PCRA hearing.) Stated that she had listened to Mr. Jamal on the radio, that she had strong feelings against the Death Penalty and that she "could not be fair if the trial was a long one". (N.T. 6/16/82, 276, 281-291, 293-297)

In Pennsylvania -- as in most states that employ Capital Punishment -- it is a legal requirement in capital murder cases that any person not willing to consider a death sentence be dismissed from the jury. Several prospective jurors in Jamal's trial were released from service because they expressed profound disagreement with the use of the Death Penalty and stated that they would not be willing to consider it as an option if they found Jamal to be guilty. Others were dismissed because they listened to Jamal on the radio, or knew someone who knew him personally, or because they were hesitant in answering questions or had difficulty understanding key concepts. There is nothing to suggest that the prosecutor was acting on the basis of anyone's race.

McGill, who started with 20 peremptory challenges, had five that he never used -- yet the first juror selected by McGill and Jamal (Jeannie Dooley, or Dawley) was black. Lacking any real evidence for their claims of racial animus, Jamal's lawyers now like to talk about statistics. But in the 1982 trial, Jamal -- who was representing himself -- failed to note the race of each prospective juror so it would become part of the official record. Today, there is no way to tell how many of the people on the panel of prospective jurors was black, or how many of them were rejected by Jamal (thus reducing the number of qualified black potential jurors available to McGill).

Weinglass' pronouncement that the blacks rejected by McGill made up "75%" of all of the black people in the jury pool is, quite simply, a lie. He made the figure up out of thin air.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has twice reviewed the court record in this case to determine if McGill used his peremptory challenges with discriminatory intent. Both times, it found that he had no such intent.

MYTH #4

Mumia Abu-Jamal is a "political prisoner," who received his death sentence, because of his political ideology. The basis for this argument, according to Jamal and his attorneys, is the fact that prosecutor Joe McGill, brought up Jamal's political beliefs and his prior membership in the Black Panther Party, in front of the jury.

BRIEF REBUTTAL

Mumia Abu-Jamal was sentenced to death by a jury that heard the monumental amount of evidence pointing to his guilt as a remorseless murderer. It was Mumia Abu-Jamal, not the judge or the prosecutor, who openly and frequently chose to proclaim his political ideology before the jury. The record verifies that there was not a single occasion during the trial in which any reference to Jamal's political ideology was made by the prosecutor or the judge. It was not until the sentencing phase of the trial, after Jamal had already been convicted, that prosecutor Joe McGill addressed, for the first and only time, what Jamal chooses to describe as statements of his "political ideology." In response to character witnesses who said that Jamal was a "peaceful man" and that violence was alien to his nature, the prosecutor asked Jamal if he had written that "All political power grows from the barrel of a gun." The prosecutor's questions went to Jamal's violent nature, not his political ideology.

It is clear to anyone who reads the trial record that the basis for Jamal's sentence was not his politics. Mumia Abu-Jamal was sentenced to death for a violent, cowardly and premeditated act of murder.

MYTH #5

Mumia Abu-Jamal's supporters argue that the amount of funding given to him by the Commonwealth was insufficient to hire experts in his behalf. It is often argued that Jamal was given the paltry sum of $150 to mount his entire defense.

A 1996 HBO-TV documentary, A Case for Reasonable Doubt, repeats this assertion and further states that Jamal had no ballistics expert or criminologist available to work for him at the original trial. HBO further contends that had Jamal been granted access to these experts he could have "blown gaping holes in the prosecution's case."

BRIEF REBUTTAL

In direct contradiction to the allegations of his supporters, the record verifies that Jamal was given enough money to hire his own experts. Yet they were able to find absolutely nothing wrong with the prosecution case.

Receipts were produced at the 1995 PCRA hearing to verify that Jamal received in excess of $13,000 (In 1982 dollars.) to mount his defense in 1982. Contrary to HBO's erroneous allegation, with this money Jamal and his attorney hired a criminologist, a ballistics expert, a photographer, and even a personal court stenographer. Jamal also had the support of a number of people who functioned as "legal runners" for Jackson and him in 1982. In addition to public funds, Jamal was admittedly receiving an undisclosed (and possibly large) amount of private funding from a number of groups, such as The Black Journalists Association and Concerned Friends and Family of Mumia Abu-Jamal. Anthony Jackson, Jamal's hand-picked attorney, admitted that this extra funding was well in excess of the customary level of support offered to any ordinary defendant accused of murder in Philadelphia in 1982.

MYTH #6

The police intimidated and coerced witnesses, lost and withheld evidence in an attempt to frame Mr. Jamal and deny him a fair trial.

In their 1995 closing argument the defense states, "For almost 13 years the prosecution has promoted the false representation that the evidence in this case is overwhelming. In fact, it is more like a house of cards that has been propped up by prosecutorial and police fabrication, coercion, alternatively coercion and promises made to witnesses. And misrepresentation, destruction of evidence." (9-11-95, T.R. 23)


BRIEF REBUTTAL

In a classic tactical ploy used by defense attorneys when their clients are guilty, we find Mr. Jamal's attorneys attempting to put the police and the legal system itself on trial. To date however, the defense has never actually established and verified one instance of police coercion, lost evidence, or conspiracy in this case that stood up to scrutiny in the courtroom. Despite this, Mr. Weinglass continues to make these unsubstantiated allegations outside the courtroom for media consumption.

The defense regularly makes pointed allegations of criminal conduct against several parties in this case. If they have evidence to back their serious assertions, wouldn't they immediately present it to the proper authorities and let them proceed with a criminal prosecution of the guilty parties. Until such time, these allegations remain nothing more than a baseless ploy designed to deflect attention away from the guilt of their client.

MYTH #7

Evidence was presented at trial verifying that just before being taken inside the hospital emergency room, Jamal crudely claimed credit for the murder, shouting, "I shot the mother fucker and I hope the mother fucker dies. This, as you might suppose, is something of a problem for the proponents of Jamal's supposed innocence. Having supposedly just watched someone else commit the murder, and having remained oddly silent about the someone else running away (not even complaining about his brother's failure to mention it), Jamal suddenly decided to say, "I shot the mother fucker<.>" Hardly the conduct of an innocent man.

Jamal's supporters allege that the Philadelphia Police, who supposedly have a reputation for intimidating and framing defendants, fabricated a story about Jamal's confession at Jefferson Hospital on the morning of the killing. They point to the fact that the two police officers that heard the confession didn't report it until 2 months later, and that one of them, Officer Gary Wakshul wrote in his report, "The Negro male made no comments." On this basis, they insist that the testimony of the officers is not true.


BRIEF REBUTTAL

The confession was heard by a hospital security guard and reported by her the next day. Officers Gary Bell and Gary Wakshul each stated that they failed to write about the confession in their reports because they were emotionally devastated after seeing their friend and partner with a fatal hole in his head. They did not even remember what they had written in their reports immediately after the shooting.

Taken alone, the officers' explanation would certainly warrant some doubt. But the testimony of hospital security guard Priscilla Durham removes that doubt. She heard Jamal shout, "I shot the mother fucker and I hope the mother fucker dies" outside the ER, and made an immediate report of the incident. A copy of the report was produced at the 1982 trial and was identified by Ms. Durham. Priscilla Durham's corroborates what the officers heard that morning and reported later, and demonstrates that it was an actual event, not an invention.

Jamal's supporters don't know what to make of Priscilla Durham's testimony because it devastates their myth that Jamal never uttered his two self-incriminating statements at the hospital. They usually fail to mention her at all, but when they do they resort to ridicule or some other brush-off device. At one of his many public speeches at a rally for Jamal, Leonard Weinglass got a big laugh from Jamal fans by dismissing Ms. Durham as someone who "wanted to be a policeman." The real joke, however, is on the effort to try to explain away Jamal's confession. The fact of Ms. Durham's testimony destroys the myth that the confession was made up by the police after the fact. And the fact of the confession destroys -- once again, in yet another way -- the myth of Jamal's supposed innocence.

MYTH #8

Leonard Weinglass states in his article, "The Trial of Mumia Abu Jamal", "Mumia arrived at the scene only moments after the officer had pummeled his brother with his flashlight." According to this myth, Jamal was coming to the aid of his brother who, while handcuffed, was being brutally beaten by Officer Faulkner.

BRIEF REBUTTAL

Several eyewitnesses testified that it was William Cook who initiated an unprovoked attack on Officer Faulkner by striking him in the face. These eyewitnesses stated that, having been punched in the face, Faulkner acted to subdue Cook by striking him "no more than three times" on the shoulders with a black object, which could have been a nightstick, blackjack or a flashlight.

Cook himself has never alleged that he was "pummeled" by Faulkner. As a matter of fact, Cook pleaded guilty to assaulting Officer Faulkner.

MYTH #9

Mumia Abu-Jamal and his supporters argue that he was not permitted to represent himself at trial, supposedly in violation of his civil rights. They also argue that, once Jamal was denied this right, he asked to have John Africa assist him in as "co-counsel" and that the "bias" Judge Albert Sabo improperly refused this request.


BRIEF REBUTTAL

The argument that Mumia Abu-Jamal was "denied his right to represent himself" is made in absolute contradiction to the record. It is undeniable that Jamal began by representing himself on May 13, 1982. According to his own attorney, Jamal continued to represent himself until what was supposed to have been the first day of trial -- June 17, 1982. But after repeated warnings that his incessant disruptions would cause him to forfeit this right, he was removed from "pro se" status.

While it is true that the law affords individuals the right to represent themselves, that right is not unlimited. The law requires one who represents himself to conduct himself appropriately, and states that the right to self-representation may be forfeited by persistent improper conduct.

The record shows that Judge Albert Sabo went to extraordinary lengths to see that Jamal was given ample opportunity to conduct himself appropriately in order to retain his "pro se" status. But Jamal repeatedly chose to disrupt the proceedings. After the entire first day of trial was halted and replaced with pointless delays, inane arguments, and contemptuous acts by Jamal, Judge Sabo instructed Anthony Jackson, Jamal's co-councel, to assume control of Jamal's defense.

Some argue that it was Judge Albert Sabo's "plan" all along to find a reason to remove Jamal. They contend that it is Sabo who is to blame for somehow inciting Jamal to commit his disruptions in response to his extreme bias in favor of the prosecution. Yet to those who attended the 1982 trial, it was clear from the outset that Jamal never really intended to "represent" himself. Instead, Jamal planned to have John Africa join him in defiantly presenting himself as the victim of an illegitimate legal system, turning Judge Sabo's courtroom into a forum for dispensing their own brand of political ideology to the press.

MYTH #10

Mumia Abu-Jamal's lawyers and supporters argue that his attorney at his 1982 trial, was incompetent. They say that Jackson had never tried a capital murder case prior to Jamal's and that he asked not to be assigned to this one.

To support this myth Jamal's attorneys claim:

Jackson never investigated the case.

He failed to interview the prosecution or defense witnesses prior to their testimony.

He "failed to seek adequate funding for experts" to support his defense.

He failed to call "favorable witnesses, like Officer Gary Wakschul and Debra Kordansky."

He failed to call any mitigating character witnesses prior to Jamal's sentencing.

(Jamal's habeas corpus petition to the Federal District Court, 3/28/00)

In his article "The Trial of Mumia Abu Jamal," Jamal's lawyer Leonard Weinglass states, "The only inexperienced actor in Mumia's case was the court appointed attorney".

BRIEF REBUTTAL

Anthony Jackson was a highly experienced and expert criminal defense attorney who was hand picked by Jamal -- not thrust upon Jamal by the court, as Jamal's supporters say. He came to Jamal highly recommended by Jamal's own friends from the Black Journalists Association. According to Jackson, after Jamal himself chose him as his counsel, Jackson petitioned the Court to appoint him at public expense.

Prior to Jamal's case, Jackson had defended no less than 20 murder cases, winning 14 of them. Despite trying many cases in which the possible sentence was death, prior to Jamal, Jackson had never had a client sentenced to death. (N.T. 7/27/95, 92-93,102-103)

Contrary to the false claims of Jamal's lawyers, prior to trial successfully Jackson sought funds from the court to hire a ballistics expert, a photographer, a pathologist, and an investigator to aid him in his defense of Jamal. In fact, Jackson admittedly received more funding in the Jamal case than he had for any of his prior cases.

Among other avenues of preparation, Jackson reviewed each of 150 witness statements given by 75 witnesses, "at least 10 times each." (N.T. 7/28/95, 57-58) He repeatedly reviewed the Medical Examiner's Report and conferred with George Fassnacht, his ballistics expert, in at least four separate face-to-face meetings, each of which lasted several hours. (N.T. 7/28/95, 42). Jackson also repeatedly conferred with Jamal, who obviously knew what had occurred at the crime scene. Jackson directed the activities of his investigator, Robert Greer -- who acknowledged in his 1995 testimony that he devoted intensive effort to investigating the case -- directing him to interview numerous witnesses, including prosecution witness Cynthia White, and other witnesses including Desie Hightower and Robert Pigford.

If Anthony Jackson was impeded in Jamal's trial, he was not impeded by inexperience or lack of preparation. Rather, he was impeded by Jamal's own outrageous conduct in front of the jury, his ill-advised decision to defend himself, and his adamant refusal to cooperate with Jackson after being removed from self-representation.

Jamal and his attorneys now want to re-write history and blame his conviction on his supposedly incompetent lawyer. The truth, however, is that Jamal was convicted because he was proven guilty beyond any doubt by overwhelming evidence.



If you want to read more, go to the site.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jiacinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-03 10:51 PM
Response to Original message
1. I think he did it
http://www.courttv.com/archive/casefiles/mumia/guilty.html

This article provides probably the most fair and balanced analysis of the case.

But Mumia is guilty. He deserves the sentence thrust on him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IranianDemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-03 10:52 PM
Response to Original message
2. BLESS YOUR HEART!
Thank you for exposing Mumia as the cop killing piece of shit that he is. That bastard deserves to rot in jail for the rest of his life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Loyal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-03 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Amen
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Loyal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-03 10:54 PM
Response to Original message
4. Agreed, Mumia is guilty.
He has been adopted as the pet cause of the left and by the Hollywood elites, probably because he's somewhat intelligent. He used to be a journalist, you know, before he killed that cop. But, hey, that wasn't a big deal.

You'd think that if these people wanted to really show why the death penalty is immoral and wrong, that they could have picked someone INNOCENT. Mumia is guilty as hell, and the sooner he dies, the better. No wonder we have this soft-on-crime image.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShaneGR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-03 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Well, I am anti-death penalty
Mostly because I believe it's actually more painful to sit in jail for the rest of your life, then get a quick exit via a needle. Plus, if someone is innocent they can be set free, maybe, by DNA evidence. But one thing is for sure, this scumbag is G-U-I-L-T-Y.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Loyal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-03 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. I don't support lethal injection
Edited on Mon Oct-27-03 11:05 PM by Loyal
I support the electric chair. FLORIDA baby. I'm very much pro-death penalty, seriously. You're telling me Texas only managed to do like 140 people in 6 years of Bush? That's pathetic. They should have done at least 250.

That's not sarcasm either. The death penalty is not used enough. Do like what George Carlin said: Televise the executions during halftime of Monday Night Football, I'd watch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShaneGR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-03 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Nah
But I'd make an exception for Ted Bundy. I wish they could have fried him twice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
prolesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-03 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #6
14. Do you realize how utterly SICK
that statement is?!?!?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terwilliger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-03 11:06 PM
Response to Original message
8. And for information on Democrats, please visit Free Republic
:nuke:

And all the usual suspects are here, I see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IranianDemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-03 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. I guess you can add supporting cop killers...
to your list of accomplishments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terwilliger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-03 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. you still here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShaneGR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-03 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Aww shucks.....
Had to turn off ignore to make sure it was you Terri. What, no Nader rallies tonight?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
solinvictus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-03 11:47 PM
Response to Original message
12. Mumia
He's simply a cause celebre of the Hollywood and music industry types. I'm certain there are many more deserving cases that should be considered, but every indicator is that Mumia is both guilty and unrepentent with his killing of Officer Faulkner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AnnabelLee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-03 11:47 PM
Response to Original message
13. Locking
Edited on Mon Oct-27-03 11:49 PM by AnnabelLee
5. You may not start a new discussion thread in order to continue a current or recent flame war from another thread. The moderators have the authority to lock threads in order to contain flaming on a particular topic to only one thread at a time.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=463744

Please post in this thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=596412

Thank you
AnnabelLee
DU Moderator
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Jan 22nd 2022, 07:28 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC