25 years ago this day.

[senorpogo]

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

That's a strawman.

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

 

[Elizabeth I]

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

[bolding mine]

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

Yep, a regular George Washington.

 

[Elizabeth I]

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

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

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

Please note that Abu-Jamal hired the attorney himself.

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

 

[fuelair]

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

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

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

Sigh. We sure do love our myths.

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

 

[CFLarsen]

Then read the court transcript.

No. The claim is yours.

Which claims are you having difficulty with?

• That the AIUSA report was a deliberate, planned dishonesty.
  
• That AIUSA went out of their way to avoid getting information that might point to Mumia being guilty.
  
• That AIUSA essentially just parroted what Mumia's lawyers were claiming with a bit more dramatic license.
  
• That AIUSA didn't manage to interview anyone on one side of the argument.
  
• That AIUSA specifically parrot comments by Mumia's then lawyers.
  
• That AIUSA deliberately wrote a deceptive article.
  
• That AIUSA quote mined.
  
• That AIUSA poisoned the well.
  
• That AIUSA ignored or minimized vast amounts of evidence that actually point to the crime in question.
  
• That Mumias trial lawyer was not a hack foisted on him by the courts.

You have not provided evidence of any of these claims.

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

http://danielfaulkner.com/indexmyth10.html

The AIUSA report, thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for clarifying.

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

What political agenda are you talking about?

OK. Which ones?

...

I gave you examples of mine.

...

I gave you examples already.

See above.

 

[CFLarsen]

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

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

Please note that Abu-Jamal hired the attorney himself.

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

 

[kookbreaker]

No. The claim is yours.

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

• That the AIUSA report was a deliberate, planned dishonesty.

• 
  
  I cannot prove this.
  
  

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

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

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

  
  A simple reading of the AIUSA claims alongside the claims of Mumia's lawyers reveals this. Examples include the claim that Mumia's lawyer was incompetent and unwanted, and that he had no funds for his trial. No documents reveal this, as it is very much the opinion of Mumia's lawyers. Other comments include the false claims about racist jury selection, which the trial documents show to be completely wrong, yet AIUSA repeated them.
  
  A quick, and not even the strongest example is (incidently one made by Mumia's Lawyers)
  
  "Although all five bullets in Abu-Jamal's gun were spent, the police failed to conduct tests to ascertain whether the weapon had been fired in the immediate past. The test is relatively simple: smell the gun for the odour of gun powder, which should be detectable for approximately five hours after the gun was fired. Compounding this error, the police also failed to conduct chemical tests on Abu-Jamal's hands to find out if he had fired a gun recently."
  
  This ignores the testimony of Jamal's appeal ballistic attorney who says the sniff test has 'no scientific validity'. As for the chemical tests? Useless, given that Mumia's hands would have been in contact with police officers and others after he struggled with them (a detail ignored by AIUSA). This information was available to AIUSA, but they chose to ignore it.
  
  Far more critical was the fact that AIUSA, rather than address the critical issue of the bullets matching those in Mumia's gun as well as his chamber, whines about the defense not having their own ballistics expert. Actually, they did, but they elected not to use him in 1982. AIUSA outright ignored discussion between Jackson and Sabo about this. Somehow AIUSA thinks that it is the state's fault that they didn't get someone to lie on Mumia's behalf
  
  

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

  
  See above.
  
  

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

  
  See above.
  
  

  [*]That AIUSA deliberately wrote a deceptive article.

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

  [*]That AIUSA quote mined.

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

  [*]That AIUSA poisoned the well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[fuelair]

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

 

[CFLarsen]

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

Yes, I am interested in evidence. Show me.

I cannot prove this.

Then, you shouldn't claim it was.

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

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

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

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

Show me.

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

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

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

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

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

As being true? Show me.

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

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

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

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

Waaaait a second.

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

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

Show me.

, but they elected not to use him in 1982.

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

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

Show me.

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

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

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

Show me.

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

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

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

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

øeh...what?

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

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

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

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

Foisted? You bet.

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

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

 

[kookbreaker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As being true? Show me.

I did. Stop breaking up my comments.

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

See above.

Waaaait a second.

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

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

Show me.

Quit interrupoting and pay attention for once.

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

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

Show me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Foisted? You bet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[gumboot]

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

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

-Gumboot

 

[CFLarsen]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I did.

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

Stop breaking up my comments.

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

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

What does AIUSA have to do with that?

Quit interrupoting and pay attention for once.

Again, this isn't a spoken debate.

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

Again, "implies".

Did you even read the article you are defending?

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

Here:

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

Thank you. Remember to link to the source.

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

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

You are reading way too much into this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[kookbreaker]

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

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

Goodbye.

 

[Elizabeth I]

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

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

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

 

[WildCat]

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

That guns were involved, therefore he has to take a silly position and stretch this thread to 50+ pages.

 

[CFLarsen]

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

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

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

 

[Yahzi]

I am, however, interested in evidence.

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

 

[Donal]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Beleth]

Mumia got a lawyer he didn't want.

Was he treated justly and within the law?

 

[CFLarsen]

Was he treated justly and within the law?

That's not the point.