July 06, 2008

May 17, 2008

Mumia Abu-Jamal: Still Guilty!

By Henry P. Wickham, Jr.
The engines of the "Free Mumia Abu-Jamel" movement continue to drone on.  The Framing of Mumia Abu-Jamel by J. Patrick O'Connor is the latest installment of the movement's efforts to free the convicted murderer of Philadelphia police officer, Daniel Faulkner.  While proclaiming the innocence of Abu-Jamal, O'Connor damns him with feint pleas.

This book and the movement that it supports are part of what has become a perverse American tradition.  A person rabidly contemptuous of the values of this country commits a serious or even heinous crime against a person or symbol of American authority or prosperity.  The crime itself generates an orgy of rationalization or even satisfaction from those sharing this contempt. 

The perversities of the crime are then compounded as a campaign is waged to undermine justice and free the criminal.  This campaign usually entails construction of elaborate conspiracies, the usual charges of police brutality and racism, the creation of a circus at trial, and the ridiculous exaggeration of the virtues of the victim of all this supposed oppression.

To ponder the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal and this campaign to free him is to watch summer television reruns. The script is so familiar; the Hollywood faces so predictable; the angst so contrived. To know that we have seen this show before, one has only to recall the campaigns for Huey Newton, Bobby Seale, Leonard Peltier, and Tookie Williams to name a few of our canonized criminals. 

Nothing can be more exhilarating for the terminally alienated than for the criminal actually to prevail.  One commits the crime and walks free, which simultaneously subverts the very concept of justice that sought a proper accounting. The scales remain unbalanced. As unrepentant American terrorist, Bill Ayers, once succinctly put it, "Guilty as sin: free as a bird."  And the Abu-Jamal re-runs play on; this time, J. Patrick O'Connor in charge of programming. 

For those who do not know the basic facts, here is a brief synopsis.  At roughly 3:50 a.m. on December 9, 1981, Officer Daniel Faulkner stopped the car of William Cook [corrected]  on a street in Philadelphia.  Cook is the brother of Abu-Jamal.  Coincidently, Abu-Jamal was parked nearby in a taxi he was driving.  Upon seeing an altercation between Faulkner and Cook, Abu-Jamal ran across the street and shot Faulkner in the back.  Faulkner was able to get a shot off at Abu-Jamal, seriously wounding him.  With the wounded Faulkner on the ground, Abu-Jamal shot him in the head, killing him instantly. 

At the time there were only three people in the immediate area of the crime:  Faulkner, Abu-Jamal, and Cook.  But others were nearby. Within minutes there were statements taken by separate police officers from several different witnesses who identified Abu-Jamal as the shooter.  There were only two guns on the scene, Faulkner's and Abu-Jamal's.  Ballistics show that the bullet in Abu-Jamal came from Faulkner's gun, and that those in Faulkner came from a gun like Abu-Jamal's.  In the presence of a hospital security guard, Abu-Jamal shouted "I shot the m__f__r, and I hope the m__f__r dies." 

It did not take much deliberation for the jury to convict Abu-Jamal, and he was sentenced by the jury to death on July 3, 1982.  His conviction for the crime has withstood the seemingly endless appeals, post-conviction hearings, and massive publicity campaign.

O'Connor's book is replete with selective use of testimony, distortions, unsubstantiated charges, and a theory that has failed Abu-Jamal in the past.  Space does not permit a complete discussion of O'Connor's efforts, so what follows are some representative examples. 

  • O'Connor's theory of the crime is based primarily upon a passenger that nobody credibly saw in Clark's car, and who supposedly did the shooting. If there were a fourth person at the scene who shot Faulkner, as O'Connor contends, William Cook and Abu-Jamal could have taken a stand and so testified. They both refused to offer any account of what happened that early December morning. Cook refused to testify for his brother at the trial and at three post-conviction hearings. Instead he waited until 2001(roughly 20 years after the crime) to sign an affidavit where he lamely and conveniently blames the crime on a man who died in 1985. O'Connor actually finds this account convincing.
  • The heart of O'Connor's case is the supposed vendetta of the police against Abu-Jamal because of his radical views and associations. O'Connor tells us that because of Jamal's chest wound that morning he was "blacking out from trauma and loss of blood." Later he tells us that Abu-Jamal's condition was "critical" and that the doctor said that "if he hadn't gotten treatment right away, he would have died." But if police were so intent on "getting" Abu-Jamal, to the point of orchestrating this massive, carefully coordinated conspiracy, then why take Abu-Jamal to the hospital at all? A little more delay in the police van and he would have died. Officer Faulkner would have been the agent of his own justice, and we would have avoided what has become a costly 27 year circus.
  • O'Connor condemns the police for not immediately conducting a test of Abu-Jamal's hands to see if he had recently fired a gun. An honest account would have included the extensive testimony at trial as to why such a test could not be performed and be credible in this case. (It's in the transcripts.) Had the test been performed and had it shown that Abu-Jamal fired a gun, O'Connor no doubt would be complaining about the racist prosecutor's use of a test that could not have credible results.
  • O'Connor dismisses the testimony of the hospital security officer who heard Abu-Jamal admit the shooting by quibbling over whether or not the document was the original. He does not credibly explain why she would lie and has never wavered in her testimony. Nor does he explain how the hospital administrator, to whom she reported Abu-Jamal's statement the next morning, could have been induced on such short notice to participate in this portion of the police "frame-up." O'Connor often tries to undermine the credibility of the police by referring to those police who subsequently were disciplined for unrelated wrongdoing. Here, O'Connor depends on an affidavit secured from an imprisoned, convicted felon more than 20 years later, who supposedly heard the security officer recant her testimony. For O'Connor, testimony of those with bad character can be convincing only when they support Abu-Jamal. As we attorneys say, "Res Ipsa Loquitur." ["the thing speaks for itself"]
  • O'Connor dismisses ballistics evidence against Abu-Jamal. He does not disclose to his readers that the rounds taken from Faulkner's body had a base unique to the relatively rare, high-powered ammunition in Abu-Jamal's gun. He does not disclose that these bullets came from a gun barrel with the same lands, grooves, and right-hand twist of Abu-Jamal's gun. There were no other guns found at the scene.
  • O'Connor refers to Abu-Jamal as "an articulate, compassionate righter of wrongs." But he does not mention the death threat to Judge Sabo made on the record by the "compassionate" Abu-Jamal at his sentencing hearing. I have no doubt that Abu-Jamal felt that he was "righting a wrong" when he shot Officer Faulkner.
O'Connor's agenda is to "Free Mumia."  For this campaign, whether conducted by O'Connor or others who support Abu-Jamal, the agenda always trumps the truth.  In fact "truth" is defined as any statement or circumstance that furthers the agenda.  O'Connor's book contains no footnotes or citations directed to any of the official transcripts because his notion of "truth" does not rise to a full reading of the record.  All the better to cherry-pick favorable excerpts or to distort them when verification is made difficult.

Before that early morning of December 9, 1981, Abu-Jamal spent many years nurturing his hatred for the society in which it was his misfortune to live. No doubt his time at what O'Connor calls "ultraprogressive Goddard College" helped nurture his hatred at least as much as his time in the Black Panthers. So that morning he decided to gamble.  Abu-Jamal bet that he could brazenly kill a Philadelphia policeman, bully a judge, turn his trial into a circus, hoodwink a jury, and walk away "free as a bird" as Bill Ayers put it.  He bet his life on an O.J. jury and an O.J. verdict.  He lost his bet, and for that law abiding citizens can be thankful. Only true believers and the ill-informed will find this book compelling.

(Readers can Google "Daniel Faulkner" and examine all the transcripts.)

Contact the author at HWickham@LNLattorneys.com

Comments

DF: Thanks for telling the truth about this murderer. I did not know the whole story, but now it is clear.

Posted by: jeff | May 17, 2008 07:26 AM

William Clark? William Cook? Same person? Are you getting the name mixed up?

Posted by: C Knudt | May 17, 2008 08:52 AM

I think we are missing the boat here. If the radical liberal leftist have a "Free Mumia" campaign why don't those on the right have a "Put Terrorist Bill Ayers in Jail" campaign.

Posted by: Ralph Woods | May 17, 2008 09:49 AM

They should have hanged him. Not only would justice been served but it would have ended this group of insane leftist from tormenting the officers spouse for the rest of her life. Do the free they guy crowd ever consider her feelings, I serious doubt it.
After all, OJ is innocent as well, right?

Posted by: DaveT | May 17, 2008 10:30 AM

The only pages deserving this much ink about the "Free Mumia" mob should be the obituary section.

Posted by: Rob | May 17, 2008 02:39 PM

That's a lot of words for a small brain. Mumia is innocent. Another man--Arnold Beverly--admitted to killing officer Faulkner. End of story.

Posted by: CG | May 17, 2008 06:45 PM

Yes you can google, or you can also get another recent book telling the WHOLE story (and the truth); "Murdered by Mumia" by Maureen Faulkner and Michael A. Smerconish. Ms. Faulkner is Officer Faulkner's widow and Michael Smerconish is a Philadelphia Radio talk show host and attorney who has done much pro bono work in this case for the faulkner family and may be one of the foremost experts on the case. Recommended reading if you are at all interested in this case.

Posted by: Ron | May 17, 2008 07:06 PM

I think it's time for the police forces all across the country to resurrect "The Blue Flu".

Posted by: Pam Littleton | May 17, 2008 09:41 PM

Thank you to C Knudt for pointing out the confusion in names. The mistake was mine as I was transcribing the article from my notes.

With respect to Arnold Beverly's "confession," this ludicrous account surfaced in the late 1990s. Radical lawyer Leonard Weinglass and Dan Williams represented Abu-Jamal at his post conviction hearings. One only has to look at the transcripts of these proceedings to see that they would make almost any argument or assert any supposed "fact," no matter how distorted, far-fetched, or absurd. Yet, the Arnold Beverly "confession" was even too ridiculous and embarrassing for them to assert. CG evidently values this "confession" even more than Abu-Jamal's own attorneys, with their remarkably low standards. The reference to a "small brain" is what passes for a reasoned argument in the Abu-Jamal camp, and that speaks volumes about its intellectual level. And note that this pompous insult was made anonymously, which is telling in its own way.

Ron is correct. The Faulkner/Smercomish book is compelling and well worth everyone's time.

Posted by: Henry P. Wickham, Jr | May 18, 2008 11:02 AM

Thank you, Henry. As a former NYPD detective, I, and many of my former colleagues remember reading of this case and its aftermath. I've written about this American tragedy for several years; a few of those columns appeared in AT. As you emphasized, there could scarcely be more evidence proving Abu Jamal's culpability. If we truly had a "justice system," he would have been executed about a week after his conviction. Instead, he was allowed to disseminate his anti-white dogma and be cast as a martyr for the Hollywood leftists to rally around. In a country that had not lost its way, this murderous lowlife would be just a bad memory and Maureen Faulkner, the officer's widow, would be able to carry on with her life without the constant reminder that her beloved husband's killer may yet walk the streets again.

Posted by: Bob Weir | May 18, 2008 01:19 PM

ts interesting...

Most forgot who this mans original name was before he went from black national socialist fame to islam.

H "RAP" Brown...

The man whose book "die ni**er, die", is the footprint for gansta rap today...
[of course it took the son of founding panther members, and his friends then to make a new music. That son was tupac]

People just don't know their history... its sad when they think that something that is going on is natural, when its been visited on people by manipulating the markers that cause a natural thing to move forward. (an example is to have a fake record store keep ordering the music in high volume, that then makes it seem like there is a market while then funding things from behind illegally while looking legal. Eventually, like payola, you create it. it takes years of priming the engine before it goes by itself, but once on its own run, it will continue on in perpetuity even if the original funders die and their ideology becomes defunt)

Posted by: artfldger | May 20, 2008 02:59 PM

Do I understand correctly? Mumia abu-jamal was born H. Rap Brown and his offspring was Tupac?

Posted by: Tom York | May 24, 2008 12:15 AM

Thank you very much for this article. From what I read about the case in your and other articles, his guilt seems to be quite obvious. All this campaign in defense of him (a murderer) is really a very sad phenomenon. However, his supporters talk a lot about the absence of Abu-Jamal fingerprints on the gun, and I could not find any _unbiased_ information about it. Could you possibly suggest something as to why there were no his fingerprints on the gun? With best regards, Mikhael.

Posted by: Mikhael | June 9, 2008 09:17 PM

Ever heard of the fairy tale "The Emperor's New Clothes?"

If Officer Falkner was terrrorizing Billy, Mumia's twin brother who Mumia never muses over like he does his mother, Faulkner trying to ingratiate himself with his corrupt buddies, then the prosecuter would be embarrassed to prosecute. And Billy wouldn't have wanted to be arrested, or his brother to risk it happening.

Mumia claims to be doing cab paperwork heard a shot in the distance, saw his brother headed toward the scene, a cop shot him and he blead into unconscienceness, then somehow concluded that an officer was sacrified to shut up Mumia's writings. Rather awkaard if he didn't see his brother shoot Faukner, then amazingly to see Faukner finished off by someone else. Doing paper work when the After hours Bar clothed was awkward as well.

By the way you and Mumia agree somewhat about Obama, and you and Move when it comes to morality.
www.phillyimc.org/en/node/68867.

But perhaps the pesky little kid was bissed out on traquelizers and everyone went on to believe as before.

RichardKanePA

Posted by: Richard Kane | June 24, 2008 05:03 AM

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

ATsupport2.jpg