Customer Reviews

Mumia Abu-Jamal: A Case for Reasonable Doubt?

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

As a [Edit: FORMER] hardcore progressive activist (involved in the peace movement, oppose the death penality, etc.), I've followed the Mumia situation for quite some time. However, I've been troubled, not by the pro-death penality advocates, but by the Pro-Mumia movement itself which has repeatedly relied upon lies and manipulation to make a case for Mumia.

There are claims made in this documentary that don't hold up to scrutiny.

The caliber of the gun "not matching" the murder weapon: This claim is based on a hand written note of the initial doctor who saw Faulkner's body who had very little training in ballistics. Afterwards this doctor retracted his statement and stated quite bluntly that he was just guessing. Those trained in ballistics have stated that the bullet that killed Faulker did indeed come from the gun owned by Mumia. It was in fact Mumia's gun which killed officer Faulkner. Did Mumia pull the trigger? We can't be 100 percent sure.

Mumia's brother has not testified on his behalf nor made ANY - EVER - public statement in defense of Mumia. And Mumia's brother was at the scene of the crime. Mumia activists state that the brother won't come forward because of fear of reprisals. This just doesn't make sense. Mumia has been on death row! Couldn't he make a video statement taped in another country which won't extradite him should there be any ramifications from his actions?

Mumia's confession: Pro-Mumia activists claim that the police officer who quotes Mumia confessing to the killing only came forward months after the fact. The argument is that a confession of this importance should have been reported immediately and that this kind of behavior indicates a possible fabrication given the delay. This seems to make sense on its face. However, there was another witness to this incident. A hospital security guard reported within a day or so that Mumia had confessed to the shooting. Pro-Mumia activists point out that the guard was a "friend" of Faulkner. OK, maybe that creates bias, but the fact of the matter is, the guard's statements destroys the attack on on the delayed police report - because there was no delay. This doesn't mean that no one is lying, of course.

The trial: There is in fact evidence to show that Mumia did not receive a fair trial. However, as pointed out by others, Mumia certainly didn't help his case by being disruptive. The man seemed almost intent upon angering the judge and doing everything possible to have himself removed from the court room.

Eyewitnesses: This is perhaps the most problematic portion of either side. Some say Mumia did it, some say he didn't. Some say there was a running man from the scene of the crime. Just about all the witnesses have ulterior motives and could be dismissed as lacking credibility.

Many people don't realize this, but Faulkner had on his body a driver's license which had not been called into the police department. The obvious conclusion is that this license belonged to a third suspect (Mumia, his brother, and someone else). Tracing this license, the police discovered that it belonged to a man with a solid alibi - but he had loaned it to another man who was a friend of Mumia's brother. Voila. Now you have the "running man." Unfortunately, this man has been dead for many years now, killed in an apparent gang shooting.

So did Mumia do it? And did he receive a fully fair trial? The evidence points straight to Mumia as the shooter. However, none of this means he got a fair trial or that the police didn't lie to make their case.

The problem is, Mumia has come to represent much more than a single event. Progressives of all stripes bring this case up as evidence of police lies and manipulation. This is unfortunate. Mumia's case is not as clear cut as activists make it out to be. Even worse, the constant arguing of his innocence damages the credibility of an entire movement which opposes the death penalty and the rampant racism within the US justice system. More than any other case, Mumia has come to represent to death penalty advocates the overall "lies" of the progressive left.

This documentary only contributes further to the damage.

Mumia Abu-Jamal is an innocent man that has been violated in every way possible by the Philadelphia Police, DA, and F.O.P. This film exposes some of the ways the system gets-its-man. Mumia Abu-Jamal's case is a complete failure, and travesty of justice. This film is compelling, and it will greatly inform viewers of the facts that aren't reported on by the commercial news media. MUMIA ABU-JAMAL MUST BE FREED!!!

I did a paper and presentation on Mumia back about 13 years ago for 9th grade. I was very interested in the case at the time because it was so... strange and shadowy.

This documentary is quite old and doesn't shed too much light on the case than I knew 13 years ago from my research but it is compelling and quite engaging.

Was/is race an issue in this? Yes. They never explained why Mumia's brother was getting attacked by the police and it does appear he did not get a fair trial or appeal process. The other interesting fact is that the FBI was watching him for his Black Panther Party involvement and activity. Racism aside, did Mumia do it?

In the end, we may never know what happened that dark and shady night. All we know is that one man is dead and another is locked up on death row and no one's story completely makes sense given any and all of the evidence.

For crime and mystery buffs, this is worth watching and taking a long time to process and think about.

God, bring justice for what really happened because only You know...

...I covered the Mumia trial. He did everything he could to sabotage his own defense. Mumia insisted again and again to a weary Judge Sabo that John Africa, founder of MOVE, represent him in the murder trial...even though John Africa was not a lawyer. A shooting that takes place in the wee hours of the morning in a shady center city neighborhood will NOT have very savory or perfect witnesses. This one did not. But if Mumia was defending his brother from Officer Daniel Faulkner, why didn't Mumia's brother testify on Mumia's behalf? Why was Faulkner shot in the head with Mumia's gun at point blank range? This documentary is a one sided mess. Mumia and Officer Faulkner deserve better.

As a die hard supporter of the West Memphis Three, Marty Tankleff, Ryan Matthews, Tim Matthews, and others, I'm generally very open to the idea that our criminal justice system erred and concerned about innocent convicted.

While I'm still open to the idea and agree that more investigation should be done, but, the tape left me unconvinced that this is another such case. There's almost always "some doubt", but the question is whether it rises to the level of a "reasonable doubt."

At least he's off death row.

The tape itself was in perfect condition, arrived timely, etc.

Maybe not the most unbiased presentation of facts, but there are numerous loopholes and obvious ploys by the FOP in Chicago to make sure Mumia took the fall. Enough pieces of evidence are so inconsistent that one would think any sane man, let alone any man in a position of power, would look into re trying the case. The big question in my mind after seeing this is "Where is Mumia's brother? " Surprising (not really!), too, that this case is hardly mentioned in mainsteam media yet is fairly well known in alternative press, even with consistent marches, protests, and rallies. Doesn't clearly define Mumia as guilty or innocent, but DEFINITELY makes one question the mechanics and political (both professional and personal) hand holding of media, government, and the justice system. PLEASE watch it, especially if your mind is already made up about the state of justice and personal security in the U.S.

also reccommended: Bob Roberts, w/ Tim Robbins.

Very informative video. Gave insight on a case that I knew relatively nothing about. Also raised the question of whether jurors in US Courts really know how high a standard 'Guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt' really is. As a lawyer, I know that the standard means that there is absolutely no rational explanation for the occurrence of a crime, except that the defendant did it. Under the facts as presented in the video, had jurors applied the standard fairly, there is no way this man would have been convicted.

This is one of the best sources of information on Mumia Abu-Jamal's case. It details the new evidence that has come out since the original trial, which 20/20 failed to do on their more recent segment on the case. In Sam Donaldson's letter to the prison where Mumia sits, Donaldson said he was working with the FOP (Fraternal Order of Police), and that makes it quite clear that he had no intention of providing a fair and balanced story. 20/20 stole footage from this very video for their segment, and may even be sued for it. Check out a fair treatment that does exactly as the title suggests: makes a case for reasonable doubt.

Anyone who has the ability to read comprehensibly can go through the court transcripts to see what actually happened. Jamal never once tried to defend himself in court, he mearly tried to sabatoge his own trial in an attempt to make himself appear to be the victim of what he percives to be a racist judicial system. Don't be fooled by the half-truths and double-speak that his supporters will try to sell. They try to say Faulkner was shot by a .44 cal gun, while Jamal's gun was a .38 cal. Even Jamal's defense ballistics expert has stated that the slug recovered from Officer Faulkner's body was a .38 cal. As for new witnesses, none of Jamal's witnesses that have appeared so long after the original trial had ever seen the killing occur, they arrived minutes afterward, and can only testify to seeing people "running away". It is assumed by Jamal's supporters that one of these people was the killer, when four witnesses to the actual killing testified that Jamal was the man who repeatedly shot Officer Faulkner. This man is no martyr, no Martin Luther King. To compare the two as so many Jamal supporters have is appalling. Look at all the information objectively, pro & con, and you will have no trouble seeing through the twisted spin that Jamal's supporters have put on this situation. Thankfully, the appellate courts have seen through it all.

This video is essential for those who believe in justice, its independance and its fairness. In our countries, the USA, France, Great Britain, and a few others, who invented civil rights (Declaration of Independance, Constitution, Bill of Rights, French revolutionary bill of rights or civil rights declaration, etc) we are running into some difficulties in the judicial system : the rights of the defendee, of the defense, the right to a fair trial, the various procedures that are supposed to guarantee these rights, and of course, even in very democratic countries like ours, police brutality leading to suspicious deaths, police mediatization of inquiries and other investigations leading to suicides of suspects (who should be treated as innocent people as long as they are not convicted), abuse of the freedom of the press publishing names and addresses of convicted and sentenced people who have served their sentences and should be henceforward considered as innocent people, leading to lynching and suicides. Some courts start reacting, but slowly. The latest case of the type in France is a so far three week long trial entrusted to a court chaired by a judge that had already taken part in another trial about another set of facts and that had examined, without any witnesses and defense possibilities, the facts now examined by this new trial, and the old trial had actually concluded a verdict of guilt about the facts examined now, yet at the time the facts had been examined illegally (that is to say without any relevance since they were marginal about the case tried at the time, in fact they should not have been examined at all) and with no possibility for the people concerned by those marginal facts to defend themselves (the conclusion of guilt is hence unjustified and the judge in the present case can only be considered as biassed since she had access to information that was not communicated to the present defense team. Luckily the defense asked for the judge to be removed, for the case to be taken away from this court and they won within twenty-four hours. This case should not have been given to this court, due to that prior knowledge of the facts, and the judge should have refused the case for the same reason. Negligence on the side of the judicial authorities who appointed that court for that case, but a lot more than negligence on the part of the judge who knew that she was going against european civil rights and French procedure rules and civil rights. Mumia Aby Jamal is exactly such a case : fabrication of evidence, pressurizing and manipulation of witnesses, insufficient means given to the defense, systematic appointment of the convicting and sentencing judge for the various appeals and other procedures from Mumia : hence this judge was involved in the case, so much and so personally that his further decisions cannot be considered as fair and balanced, unprejudiced and benevolent. Many witnesses contradict one another and at times themselves. There is more than a reasonable doubt and in fair justice if there is any kind of a doubt the accused is supposed to benefit of it, to be the only benefactor of this doubt. None of these guarantees were given to Mumia and this video has to be watched and even shown to young people in schools and colleges to show how justice is supposed to work and how at times it does work. We have here a practical application of the same logic that is behind the beautiful film « The Death of a Mocking Bird ». If lynching seems to be out today, justice is far from being as fair as it should be. And we have to remember that one and only one case of injustice is jeopardizing our fundamental rights and anyone of us may be the victims of such procedures one day. Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, Paris Universites II and IX.