At 01:26 24/06/98 -0400, you wrote: >This response from Mumia's attorney to a NYT ad surveys the deficiencies >of the state's case for killing Mumia and provides a basis for >understanding a demand for Mumia's immediate release. > >Paul Zarembka ______________ What can a person like me, who is not a citizen and does not live in the US, do, apart from donating money? I haven't send any money yet either, because sending check in foreign currency would probably be not acceptable. Any ideas? ajit > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 10:23:09 EDT >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Leonard Weinglass' answer to NYT Ad > > > Leonard I. Weinglass > Attorney At Law > Suite 10 A > 6 West 20th Street > New York City, NY 10011 > Phone: (212) 807-8646 > Fax: (212) 242-2120 > >17 June 1998 > >To: Editor, _New York Times_ > > In a startling, and even disgraceful, effort to hasten and >insure the execution of an innocent man whose substantial legal >claims that he never received a fair trial are just now being >reviewed by the highest court of Pennsylvania, a previously >unknown group speaking for the Fraternal Order of Police, and >apparently headed by a slain police officer's widow, took out a >full page unsigned ad on the most prestigious page of the Sunday >New York Times of June 14th entitled, "Justice for Police Officer >Daniel Faulkner." The target of this attack, Mumia Abu-Jamal, a >renowned journalist from Philadelphia who has been on death row >for 16 years for the alleged shooting of Officer Faulkner, and >who was known as "the voice of the voiceless" for his award >winning reporting on police abuse and other social and racial >ills that afflicted the minority communities of Philadelphia, had >received worldwide support in his effort to overturn his unjust >conviction. At the time of his arrest in 1981 Jamal was serving >as the President of the Association of Black Journalists and had >previously been a founder of the Black Panther Party in >Philadelphia and a supporter of the Philadelphia MOVE group. > > The advertisement for death, taken out at the cost of tens >of thousands of dollars, selectively quotes from witnesses at >Jamal's 1982 trial, all of whom have been thoroughly discredited >in subsequent court hearings beginning in 1995. Omitted are the >evidence and witnesses who have come forward to establish facts >which were kept from the jury during the 1982 trial. The ad >claims as a "fact" that two police officers heard Jamal confess >to the shooting of officer Faulkner the night of the killing. Yet >the police officer who guarded Jamal reported that very morning >that Jamal had made "no comments." That officer reportedly was on >vacation and unavailable at trial, when in fact, he was at home >waiting to testify. > > Similarly, the charge that the shot which killed Faulkner >came from Jamal's legally registered .38-caliber weapon >contradicts the medical examiner's report--first entered into the >official record in 1995--that the bullet removed from Faulkner's >brain was a .44-caliber. That fact was also kept from the jury. >Moreover, a weapons expert found it incredible that the police at >the scene of the shooting failed to test Jamal's gun to see if it >had been recently fired or to test his hands to see if he had >fired a weapon. > > The testimony cited in the ad of "eyewitnesses" who claimed >to identify Jamal as the shooter was equally flawed, coming from >witnesses whose testimony has now been exposed as false. One of >these witnesses, a white cab driver named Robert Chobert, first >reported to police that the shooter was 225 pounds and "ran away" >from the scene. This couldn't have been Jamal, who weighed 170 >pounds and was found by the police sitting on a curb at the scene >of the shooting, bleeding profusely from a shot fired by >Faulkner. Why Chobert changed his story did not become clear >until 13 years later when, at a court hearing in 1995, he >admitted that at the time of the shooting he had been driving his >taxicab without a license while still on probation for felony >arson--throwing a Molotov cocktail at a grammar school. The jury >which presumably found Chobert truthful never heard these facts. >Furthermore Chobert revealed in 1995 that he had asked Jamal's >prosecutor to help get his driver's license back. Years later he >was still driving, unhindered by the police, without a license. > > The main witness cited in the ad, Cynthia White, was someone >no other witness even reported seeing at the site. In return for >her testimony that Jamal shot Faulkner, White was allowed to >continue to work the streets as a prostitute for years, >apparently with police protection. In a 1997 hearing, another >former prostitute, Pamela Jenkins, who was a friend of White at >the time, testified that White was acting as a police informant, >a fact not given to the defense, and that she had testified only >after the police had threatened her life. > > Other sworn testimony revealed that witness coercion was >routinely practiced by the police as they pursued their >investigation against Jamal. In 1995, eyewitness William >Singletary testified that police repeatedly tore up his initial >statement--that the shooter, not Jamal, ran away from the scene-- >until he wrote something acceptable to them. The following year, >another former prostitute, Veronica Jones, courageously came >forward to testify that she had also been coerced into changing >her initial true eyewitness account that two men had fled the >scene of the killing; again, not Jamal. To anyone familiar with >the notorious practices of the Philadelphia Police Department, >this pattern of police misconduct is not unique to Jamal's case. > > At the 1982 trial and every subsequent hearing in Jamal's >case information was withheld from the defense by the prosecution >in a court room presided over by Judge Albert Sabo. In an >unrelated proceeding, six former Philadelphia District Attorneys >swore under oath that no accused could receive a fair trial in >Sabo's court. Jamal presented over a score of separate >constitutional violations to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, from >the withholding of evidence to the racial exclusion of jurors. >Eleven qualified African Americans were rejected by the >prosecution, a standard practice as was recently revealed in the >exposure of a "training tape" for excluding blacks from juries >prepared by the Philadelphia District Attorney's office in the >mid-1980s. On this basis alone, Jamal should be given his >freedom. > > In a country where the racial bias inherent in the death >penalty was recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987 (even as >it ruled that such bias provided no basis for appeal!) >Philadelphia reigns as the "capital of capital punishment." A >1998 study by the Death Penalty Information Center, titled "The >Death Penalty in Black and White," notes that blacks make up 84 >percent of those on death row from Philadelphia and that black >men from that city are almost four times more likely to receive a >death sentence than other defendants. > > Since this sinister ad only repeats old, discredited tales >and completely ignores the evidence presented in Jamal's appeals, >one is left to ask, "Why now?" The Pennsylvania State Supreme >Court is about to render a decision on Jamal's appeal of Judge >Sabo's predictable denial of a new trial for Jamal. Pennsylvania >Governor Tom Ridge, who signed Jamal's death warrant in June >1995, has vowed to once again order Jamal's execution should he >lose his appeal. Anticipating the possibility of a repeat of the >massive protests that succeeded in saving Jamal's life in August >1995, the pro-death penalty and law enforcement forces now seem >more determined than ever to defeat and deflect the strength of >that movement. > > In a country awash with commodity advertising, the many >thousands of dollars spent in this false and misleading ad will >not subvert or detract from the public outcry in support of >Jamal. The rush to judgment back in 1982, fueled by sensational >media reporting that echoed police demands for the death of Mumia >Abu-Jamal irrespective of the evidence, has produced an historic >injustice which has kept an innocent man in prison most of his >adult life. The effort to now seal his fate through advertising >is equally reprehensible and must be rejected in favor of >immediate freedom for Mumia Abu-Jamal. > > > > LEONARD I. WEINGLASS > Attorney for Mumia Abu-Jamal > >
