Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Michael Moore Strikes Low Blow Against Mumia
In 1995 his name appeared prominently among signers of a full-page ad in the New York Times demanding a new trial for U.S. political prisoner and innocent death row inmate, African-American journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal...when a figure of Moore's standing decided to reverse his position and side with those who seek to murder Mumia...a major blow has been struck...
12/1/03
Michael Moore Strikes Low Blow Against Mumia
by Jeff Mackler and Laura Herrera, Co-coordinators, The Mobilization to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal
Until recently Michael Moore, actor, Academy Award-winning filmmaker, ("Bowling for Columbine" and "Roger and Me") muckraking author and popular lecturer, has been a respected figure whose political commentary appealed to a wide range of audiences.
In 1995 his name appeared prominently among signers of a full-page ad in the New York Times demanding a new trial for U.S. political prisoner and innocent death row inmate, African-American journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal. The ad Moore signed detailed violations of Mumia's democratic rights that led to his frame-up murder conviction and the associated worldwide movement for his freedom and/or a new trial where the repressed and new evidence proving his innocence could be presented.
Moore's public speeches have scored the Bush Administration's war policies and the corrupt dealings of Bush's corporate billionaire cabinet officials. His courageous use of the Academy Award stage to denounce Bush won him the admiration of millions and the enmity of supporters of the status quo. His stature is reflected in the astronomical sales figures of his books, past and present, in the U.S. and worldwide. Moore's "Stupid White Men" appeared on the New York Times "best sellers" list. His last two books are rated "one" and "two" in Germany, with similar results across the globe.
Thus, when a figure of Moore's standing decided to reverse his position and side with those who seek to murder Mumia, there is little doubt that a major blow has been struck against this innocent man's 22-year struggle for justice and freedom. Moore's attack comes at an especially difficult moment. On October 8 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected Mumia's appeal. The core of its decision was a refusal to consider critical evidence of Mumia's innocence. "Innocence is no defense," the courts have repeatedly stated in regard to Mumia, basing themselves on technicalities and obtuse interpretations of the law. Sadly, Moore seems to have fallen into a similar line of reasoning.
Moore's attack was published on page 189 of his best-selling and newly-released book, "Dude, Where's My Country?" It appears in a section advising his readers how to speak effectively to conservatives. Moore states:
"Mumia probably killed that guy [Officer Daniel Faulkner]. There, I said it. That does not mean he should be denied a fair trial or that he should be put to death. But because we don't want to see him or anyone executed, the efforts to defend him may have overlooked the fact that he did indeed kill that cop. This takes nothing away from the eloquence of his writings or commentary, or the important place he now holds on the international political stage. But he probably did kill that guy."
Moore's logic is terribly flawed and contradictory. His failure to present even the most minimal evidence to substantiate his assertion marks a fundamental break with his tradition of presenting facts to buttress his arguments. Readers should note the three "killing" references in Moore's statement.
Two, the first and last, assert that Mumia "probably" killed Faulkner. But the second reference is unqualified. It states that the efforts to defend Mumia may have overlooked "the fact that he did indeed kill that cop." (Emphasis added).
This is the most extreme and explicit statement in any book dealing with this subject. Mumia's most critical and analytical biographers all conclude at worst, like David Lindorff, in his sometimes irresponsible book, "Killing Time," that he "leans toward innocence." Dan Williams, Mumia's former attorney who was fired by Mumia for publishing a book on the case without Mumia's permission, "Executing Justice," concludes that Mumia is innocent. Both authors were compelled to conclude following their review of the evidence,, that Mumia was the victim of a frame-up and that a judgment of "guilty" cannot be sustained.
Having declared Mumia emphatically guilty, Moore's assertion that Mumia should get a "fair trial" is reminiscent of the old-fashioned cowboy movies where the bad guys control the town and the judge and proclaim, "Let's give him a fair trial and then hang 'em!" If Moore seriously believes that Mumia did not receive a fair trial, as he implies in his statement, one can only wonder how he could conclude that Mumia is guilty. It seems obvious that a fair trial is the minimum prerequisite for an objective judgment. The trial record and an extensive investigation convinced Amnesty International that Mumia did not receive a fair trial. Amnesty questioned most every aspect of the proceedings against Mumia and could only conclude that the verdict had to be fatally flawed.
A few basic facts need restating:
* Mumia was excluded from a majority of the proceeding of his own trial. He was excluded because he repeatedly requested permission to exercise his constitutional right to represent himself. He was denied this right.
* In violation of Supreme Court rulings in the Batson case, 11 of the 14 Black jurors available were excluded in a trial presided over by the notorious Judge Albert Sabo, who had sentenced more people to execution, 31, than any judge in the U.S. Twenty-nine of the 31 executed were Black.
* Philadelphia District Attorney Ronald Castille authorized a training tape for prosecutors, instructing them on how to exclude Black jurors, which they did. Castille, subsequently promoted to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, refused to recuse himself when Mumia's case was appealed to his court. He thus assumed the role of prosecutor and judge.
* Terri Maurer Carter, an award-winning court stenographer, overheard Judge Sabo state in his courtroom antechambers in reference to Mumia's case, "Yeah, and I'm going to help 'em fry the nigger." Carter's testimony was excluded by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on the spurious grounds that Sabo's "alleged" racism was litigated and rejected in proceeding that took place six years BEFORE, Carter's affidavit was submitted.
* The testimony of Cynthia White, the chief police witness against Mumia, has been thoroughly repudiated. None of the several witnesses on the murder scene ever saw White. White admitted to Evette Williams, according to Williams sworn affidavit, that White was not on the murder scene, did not see Mumia and was forced, via police threats of a long-term prison sentence, to implicate Mumia. William's testimony was excluded from court consideration. Police informant Pamela Jenkins testified that Philadelphia police pressured her to falsely state that Mumia was the killer. Jenkins refused to do so. Veronica Jones, a prostitute vulnerable to police intimidation, testified in 1995 at Mumia's Post Conviction Relief Act hearing that her 1982 court testimony that helped convict Mumia, was a lie, the direct result of police intimidation.
* The testimony of taxicab driver Robert Chobert, the prosecution's other supposed eyewitness, was repudiated by a defense investigator whose affidavit affirmed that Chobert admitted he had lied when he stated in court that he was present at the murder scene. Other witnesses present refute Chobert's claim that his cab was on the murder scene. No other witness saw the cab. Chobert, an arsonist, had been previously convicted of throwing a Molotov cocktail onto a schoolyard. He was allowed by Philadelphia police to continue driving his cab, even though his license had been revoked
* The alleged confession of Mumia has been proven to be false, refuted by a series of witnesses and other evidence excluded from jury consideration.
* And finally, Arnold Beverly, a mob hitman and police collaborator, confessed that he, not Mumia, killed police officer Faulkner. Beverly's testimony and his request to appear in court, have been rejected on the grounds that they were submitted too late for consideration!
These are but a few of the facts and constitutional issues that should have led Michael Moore to think twice before adding his substantial political weight to the prosecution's frame-up effort.
There is some evidence that Moore has reconsidered his damaging accusation. An artist at New York's Pacifica radio station, WBAI, states that she wrote to Moore to express her displeasure at his attack on Mumia. She reports that Moore responded as follows:
"hi, thanks for writing. i can see now that i was being too flip and was trying to make a larger point that had nothing to do with mumia. i have long supported his efforts for a new trial and will always oppose his and anyone's execution. please accept my apologies. mm"
A man of Moore's stature should understand that the damage he inflicted on Mumia's fight for justice and freedom cannot be undone by a personal and vaguely worded email expressing apologies. What is needed now, and what would clearly indicate that Moore has not departed from his previous commitment to exposing society's injustices, is for Moore to review his original statement and, at a minimum, publicly reassert his belief that Mumia's trial was a frame-up and that therefore no conclusion regarding his guilt can be properly drawn.
Leaders of Mumia's defense are in the process of contacting Moore to inform him of the wide range of evidence proving Mumia's innocence. They have every right and indeed an obligation to insist that a retraction by Moore be issued and that it be as widely circulated as the original false accusation.
We are hopeful that Moore will respond positively to the facts on record and rejoin the struggle to win justice and freedom. His failure to do so can only demonstrate that he cannot be counted on as a source of unbiased and objective judgment in the future.
We urge supporters of Mumia's freedom to contact Michael Moore at: mike [at] michaelmoore.com
The Mobilization to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal
298 Valencia Street, San Francisco, CA 94103
415-255-1085
alerts [at] freemumia.org
12-1-03 labor donated
Also:
January 17, 2004 - SF, CA
First SF planning meeting for the April 24 bi-coastal marches:
(see below for march info)
Saturday, January 17, 10:30 am
Centro del Pueblo
474 Valencia Street (between 15th and 16th Streets)
San Francisco, CA
Be there! Bring your friends!
Philadelphia info available soon: 215-476-8812, or e-mail icffmaj [at] aol.com
http://www.mumia.org
Michael Moore Strikes Low Blow Against Mumia
by Jeff Mackler and Laura Herrera, Co-coordinators, The Mobilization to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal
Until recently Michael Moore, actor, Academy Award-winning filmmaker, ("Bowling for Columbine" and "Roger and Me") muckraking author and popular lecturer, has been a respected figure whose political commentary appealed to a wide range of audiences.
In 1995 his name appeared prominently among signers of a full-page ad in the New York Times demanding a new trial for U.S. political prisoner and innocent death row inmate, African-American journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal. The ad Moore signed detailed violations of Mumia's democratic rights that led to his frame-up murder conviction and the associated worldwide movement for his freedom and/or a new trial where the repressed and new evidence proving his innocence could be presented.
Moore's public speeches have scored the Bush Administration's war policies and the corrupt dealings of Bush's corporate billionaire cabinet officials. His courageous use of the Academy Award stage to denounce Bush won him the admiration of millions and the enmity of supporters of the status quo. His stature is reflected in the astronomical sales figures of his books, past and present, in the U.S. and worldwide. Moore's "Stupid White Men" appeared on the New York Times "best sellers" list. His last two books are rated "one" and "two" in Germany, with similar results across the globe.
Thus, when a figure of Moore's standing decided to reverse his position and side with those who seek to murder Mumia, there is little doubt that a major blow has been struck against this innocent man's 22-year struggle for justice and freedom. Moore's attack comes at an especially difficult moment. On October 8 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected Mumia's appeal. The core of its decision was a refusal to consider critical evidence of Mumia's innocence. "Innocence is no defense," the courts have repeatedly stated in regard to Mumia, basing themselves on technicalities and obtuse interpretations of the law. Sadly, Moore seems to have fallen into a similar line of reasoning.
Moore's attack was published on page 189 of his best-selling and newly-released book, "Dude, Where's My Country?" It appears in a section advising his readers how to speak effectively to conservatives. Moore states:
"Mumia probably killed that guy [Officer Daniel Faulkner]. There, I said it. That does not mean he should be denied a fair trial or that he should be put to death. But because we don't want to see him or anyone executed, the efforts to defend him may have overlooked the fact that he did indeed kill that cop. This takes nothing away from the eloquence of his writings or commentary, or the important place he now holds on the international political stage. But he probably did kill that guy."
Moore's logic is terribly flawed and contradictory. His failure to present even the most minimal evidence to substantiate his assertion marks a fundamental break with his tradition of presenting facts to buttress his arguments. Readers should note the three "killing" references in Moore's statement.
Two, the first and last, assert that Mumia "probably" killed Faulkner. But the second reference is unqualified. It states that the efforts to defend Mumia may have overlooked "the fact that he did indeed kill that cop." (Emphasis added).
This is the most extreme and explicit statement in any book dealing with this subject. Mumia's most critical and analytical biographers all conclude at worst, like David Lindorff, in his sometimes irresponsible book, "Killing Time," that he "leans toward innocence." Dan Williams, Mumia's former attorney who was fired by Mumia for publishing a book on the case without Mumia's permission, "Executing Justice," concludes that Mumia is innocent. Both authors were compelled to conclude following their review of the evidence,, that Mumia was the victim of a frame-up and that a judgment of "guilty" cannot be sustained.
Having declared Mumia emphatically guilty, Moore's assertion that Mumia should get a "fair trial" is reminiscent of the old-fashioned cowboy movies where the bad guys control the town and the judge and proclaim, "Let's give him a fair trial and then hang 'em!" If Moore seriously believes that Mumia did not receive a fair trial, as he implies in his statement, one can only wonder how he could conclude that Mumia is guilty. It seems obvious that a fair trial is the minimum prerequisite for an objective judgment. The trial record and an extensive investigation convinced Amnesty International that Mumia did not receive a fair trial. Amnesty questioned most every aspect of the proceedings against Mumia and could only conclude that the verdict had to be fatally flawed.
A few basic facts need restating:
* Mumia was excluded from a majority of the proceeding of his own trial. He was excluded because he repeatedly requested permission to exercise his constitutional right to represent himself. He was denied this right.
* In violation of Supreme Court rulings in the Batson case, 11 of the 14 Black jurors available were excluded in a trial presided over by the notorious Judge Albert Sabo, who had sentenced more people to execution, 31, than any judge in the U.S. Twenty-nine of the 31 executed were Black.
* Philadelphia District Attorney Ronald Castille authorized a training tape for prosecutors, instructing them on how to exclude Black jurors, which they did. Castille, subsequently promoted to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, refused to recuse himself when Mumia's case was appealed to his court. He thus assumed the role of prosecutor and judge.
* Terri Maurer Carter, an award-winning court stenographer, overheard Judge Sabo state in his courtroom antechambers in reference to Mumia's case, "Yeah, and I'm going to help 'em fry the nigger." Carter's testimony was excluded by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on the spurious grounds that Sabo's "alleged" racism was litigated and rejected in proceeding that took place six years BEFORE, Carter's affidavit was submitted.
* The testimony of Cynthia White, the chief police witness against Mumia, has been thoroughly repudiated. None of the several witnesses on the murder scene ever saw White. White admitted to Evette Williams, according to Williams sworn affidavit, that White was not on the murder scene, did not see Mumia and was forced, via police threats of a long-term prison sentence, to implicate Mumia. William's testimony was excluded from court consideration. Police informant Pamela Jenkins testified that Philadelphia police pressured her to falsely state that Mumia was the killer. Jenkins refused to do so. Veronica Jones, a prostitute vulnerable to police intimidation, testified in 1995 at Mumia's Post Conviction Relief Act hearing that her 1982 court testimony that helped convict Mumia, was a lie, the direct result of police intimidation.
* The testimony of taxicab driver Robert Chobert, the prosecution's other supposed eyewitness, was repudiated by a defense investigator whose affidavit affirmed that Chobert admitted he had lied when he stated in court that he was present at the murder scene. Other witnesses present refute Chobert's claim that his cab was on the murder scene. No other witness saw the cab. Chobert, an arsonist, had been previously convicted of throwing a Molotov cocktail onto a schoolyard. He was allowed by Philadelphia police to continue driving his cab, even though his license had been revoked
* The alleged confession of Mumia has been proven to be false, refuted by a series of witnesses and other evidence excluded from jury consideration.
* And finally, Arnold Beverly, a mob hitman and police collaborator, confessed that he, not Mumia, killed police officer Faulkner. Beverly's testimony and his request to appear in court, have been rejected on the grounds that they were submitted too late for consideration!
These are but a few of the facts and constitutional issues that should have led Michael Moore to think twice before adding his substantial political weight to the prosecution's frame-up effort.
There is some evidence that Moore has reconsidered his damaging accusation. An artist at New York's Pacifica radio station, WBAI, states that she wrote to Moore to express her displeasure at his attack on Mumia. She reports that Moore responded as follows:
"hi, thanks for writing. i can see now that i was being too flip and was trying to make a larger point that had nothing to do with mumia. i have long supported his efforts for a new trial and will always oppose his and anyone's execution. please accept my apologies. mm"
A man of Moore's stature should understand that the damage he inflicted on Mumia's fight for justice and freedom cannot be undone by a personal and vaguely worded email expressing apologies. What is needed now, and what would clearly indicate that Moore has not departed from his previous commitment to exposing society's injustices, is for Moore to review his original statement and, at a minimum, publicly reassert his belief that Mumia's trial was a frame-up and that therefore no conclusion regarding his guilt can be properly drawn.
Leaders of Mumia's defense are in the process of contacting Moore to inform him of the wide range of evidence proving Mumia's innocence. They have every right and indeed an obligation to insist that a retraction by Moore be issued and that it be as widely circulated as the original false accusation.
We are hopeful that Moore will respond positively to the facts on record and rejoin the struggle to win justice and freedom. His failure to do so can only demonstrate that he cannot be counted on as a source of unbiased and objective judgment in the future.
We urge supporters of Mumia's freedom to contact Michael Moore at: mike [at] michaelmoore.com
The Mobilization to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal
298 Valencia Street, San Francisco, CA 94103
415-255-1085
alerts [at] freemumia.org
12-1-03 labor donated
Also:
January 17, 2004 - SF, CA
First SF planning meeting for the April 24 bi-coastal marches:
(see below for march info)
Saturday, January 17, 10:30 am
Centro del Pueblo
474 Valencia Street (between 15th and 16th Streets)
San Francisco, CA
Be there! Bring your friends!
Philadelphia info available soon: 215-476-8812, or e-mail icffmaj [at] aol.com
http://www.mumia.org
For more information:
http://www.freemumia.org
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
October 17, 2003
There He Goes Again!
Michael Moore Proclaims Mumia "Did It"
By DAVE LINDORFF
Michael Moore, the Academy Award-winning filmmaker ("Bowling for Columbine") and general muckraker, has done it again.
A few weeks back, while Gen. (ret.) Wesley Clark was still holed up at his Arkansas headquarters ostentatiously mulling whether to enter the Democratic presidential nomination race, Moore made a public plea for him to run, calling him a peace candidate. Moore hadn't done his homework though: Gen. Clarke, it turns out, had been a supporter of the war until very recently, and also has an unsavory history as a military commander that includes actions that should be considered war crimes, such as the deliberate terror bombing of civilian targets in Serbia during NATO's Kosovo campaign. The general also risked getting the U.S. into a shooting war with Russia when he ordered NATO troops to push Russian troops from an airport in Kosovo (a rash and stupid move that was only foiled by the insubordination of a British officer who refused to comply with the order).
Now Moore has ignored the facts again, this time saying long-time Pennsylvania death-row prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal "probably killed" Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner back on Dec. 9, 1981.
Moore's comment appears on page 189 of his hot new book, "Dude, Where's My Country?", and it is expressed with typical Moore flippancy, and with no evidence to support it.
Here's the quote in full:
"Mumia [the campaigning Pennsylvania journalist who was sentenced for the shooting of a police officer and has been on death row since 1982] probably killed that guy. There, I said it. That does not mean he should be denied a fair trial or that he should be put to death. But because we don't want to see him or anyone executed, the efforts to defend him may have overlooked the fact that he did indeed kill that cop. This takes nothing away from the eloquence of his writings or commentary, or the important place he now holds on the international political stage. But he probably did kill that guy."
It would be interesting to know how or why Moore--who back in 1997 wrote in the Nation magazine, " I want Mumia to live, I've signed the petitions, I've helped pay for the ads -- hell, I'll personally go and kick the butt of the governor of Pennsylvania!" and who in 1995 signed an ad in the New York Times saying Abu-Jamal was "probably sentenced to death" because of his political views--came to this peculiarly incongruous conclusion.
As the author of the only independent book to investigate this controversial case (Killing Time: An Investigation Into the Death row Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal, Common Courage Press, 2003), I can state with conviction that the evidence that was used to convict Mumia Abu-Jamal of first-degree murder was weak at best, and in some cases probably falsified (while other evidence that might have exonerated him was hidden from the defense). I've concluded that the only two witnesses who claimed at the trial to have seen all or most of the actual shooting of Faulkner were probably (and unlike Moore I use this word advisedly) not even at the scene of the shooting as they claimed.
On what do I base this damning claim? Nobody who was a witness at the trial, including police officers testifying for the prosecution, said they saw prostitute Cynthia White on the sidewalk where she claimed she was standing when the shooting occurred or afterwards. And nobody except for that same White claimed to have seen taxicab driver Robert Chobert, or even his taxi cab, which he claimed he had parked directly behind Faulkner's squad car (a taxicab is a hard thing to miss!). And even White only said she saw the taxi there after the shooting was over (a crime scene drawing she provided to police, which included cars not involved in the incident at all, and which I included as an illustration in my book, did not include a taxi). Adding to suspicions about White, she was the only alleged witness to the shooting that police did not bring to the paddy wagon to identify the wounded Abu-Jamal. Curiously, though she was the prosecution's star witness, she was rushed off directly to Homicide without being asked to ID him as the shooter. Subsequently, the prosecutor argued strenuously (and successfully), based upon a false assertion to the pre-trial judge, that White was not going to be an identification witness, against her having to ID Abu-Jamal in a line-up. Yet at the trial, White was asked by the prosecutor to point him out.
As for the claim that Abu-Jamal had shouted out a confession at the hospital, I make clear in my book that this testimony by a police officer and a hospital security guard reeks of being a perjured story manufactured weeks after the shooting. Neither the cop nor the guard who testified about the confession had mentioned it to police investigators for months after the shooting (a wholly incomprehensible lapse, especially for a police officer), and indeed in two interviews with police investigators, one done the day of the shooting, the police officer who had been assigned to stay with Abu-Jamal from the time he was arrested at the scene to the time he was operated on for a bullet lodged near his spine, stated flatly that during that entire period, "The negro male made no comment.".
The truth is that this trial stank from the beginning, with the trial judge, Albert Sabo (who sent 31 people, 29 of them non-white, to death row), actually being overheard (by a fellow judge and his court stenographer) to tell his court crier, while exiting the courtroom at the end of the first day of Abu-Jamal's trial, "Yeah, and I'm going to help them fry that nigger."
Sadly Moore, who I guess is trying to be funny, or perhaps to make a case he's been working at for several years now that the left is "out of touch" with mainstream America, has joined a short-list of other purported leftists like Todd Gitlin and Marc Cooper, who seem ready to bolster their "independent" credentials by trashing Mumia supporters.
It matters little that these people, like Moore, generally hasten to add that they don't support the death penalty. Even the fact that Moore, unlike Cooper, at least concedes that Abu-Jamal "shouldn't be denied a fair trial," a backhanded way of implying that he didn't get one the first time, hardly compensates for the damage he does with his ill-founded assertion of Abu-Jamal's "probable" guilt.
If he didn't get a fair trial--and he surely didn't, as I document clearly in "Killing Time"--then on what possible grounds does Moore come to his conclusion that he "probably did kill that guy"? If the evidence presented at the trial was weak, cooked and hidden, how can he or anyone come to any kind of "probable" conclusion based upon it?
I actually sent Moore a review copy of my book back last fall, when I was seeking prominent readers to provide me with blurbs for the back cover. He never responded to my request.
Judging from his comments in his own new book, it seems clear that he never cracked mine.
His apparent lack of curiosity is unfortunate. It is also inexcusable in a journalist.
People like Michael Moore owe their readers more than to spout this kind of uninformed and ignorant drivel while posing as journalists. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but unless it's just barroom argumentation, those opinions ought to be based upon the facts.
Abu-Jamal deserves a new, fair trial, not this kind of ignorant passing of judgement by people who should know better.
http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff10172003.html
There He Goes Again!
Michael Moore Proclaims Mumia "Did It"
By DAVE LINDORFF
Michael Moore, the Academy Award-winning filmmaker ("Bowling for Columbine") and general muckraker, has done it again.
A few weeks back, while Gen. (ret.) Wesley Clark was still holed up at his Arkansas headquarters ostentatiously mulling whether to enter the Democratic presidential nomination race, Moore made a public plea for him to run, calling him a peace candidate. Moore hadn't done his homework though: Gen. Clarke, it turns out, had been a supporter of the war until very recently, and also has an unsavory history as a military commander that includes actions that should be considered war crimes, such as the deliberate terror bombing of civilian targets in Serbia during NATO's Kosovo campaign. The general also risked getting the U.S. into a shooting war with Russia when he ordered NATO troops to push Russian troops from an airport in Kosovo (a rash and stupid move that was only foiled by the insubordination of a British officer who refused to comply with the order).
Now Moore has ignored the facts again, this time saying long-time Pennsylvania death-row prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal "probably killed" Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner back on Dec. 9, 1981.
Moore's comment appears on page 189 of his hot new book, "Dude, Where's My Country?", and it is expressed with typical Moore flippancy, and with no evidence to support it.
Here's the quote in full:
"Mumia [the campaigning Pennsylvania journalist who was sentenced for the shooting of a police officer and has been on death row since 1982] probably killed that guy. There, I said it. That does not mean he should be denied a fair trial or that he should be put to death. But because we don't want to see him or anyone executed, the efforts to defend him may have overlooked the fact that he did indeed kill that cop. This takes nothing away from the eloquence of his writings or commentary, or the important place he now holds on the international political stage. But he probably did kill that guy."
It would be interesting to know how or why Moore--who back in 1997 wrote in the Nation magazine, " I want Mumia to live, I've signed the petitions, I've helped pay for the ads -- hell, I'll personally go and kick the butt of the governor of Pennsylvania!" and who in 1995 signed an ad in the New York Times saying Abu-Jamal was "probably sentenced to death" because of his political views--came to this peculiarly incongruous conclusion.
As the author of the only independent book to investigate this controversial case (Killing Time: An Investigation Into the Death row Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal, Common Courage Press, 2003), I can state with conviction that the evidence that was used to convict Mumia Abu-Jamal of first-degree murder was weak at best, and in some cases probably falsified (while other evidence that might have exonerated him was hidden from the defense). I've concluded that the only two witnesses who claimed at the trial to have seen all or most of the actual shooting of Faulkner were probably (and unlike Moore I use this word advisedly) not even at the scene of the shooting as they claimed.
On what do I base this damning claim? Nobody who was a witness at the trial, including police officers testifying for the prosecution, said they saw prostitute Cynthia White on the sidewalk where she claimed she was standing when the shooting occurred or afterwards. And nobody except for that same White claimed to have seen taxicab driver Robert Chobert, or even his taxi cab, which he claimed he had parked directly behind Faulkner's squad car (a taxicab is a hard thing to miss!). And even White only said she saw the taxi there after the shooting was over (a crime scene drawing she provided to police, which included cars not involved in the incident at all, and which I included as an illustration in my book, did not include a taxi). Adding to suspicions about White, she was the only alleged witness to the shooting that police did not bring to the paddy wagon to identify the wounded Abu-Jamal. Curiously, though she was the prosecution's star witness, she was rushed off directly to Homicide without being asked to ID him as the shooter. Subsequently, the prosecutor argued strenuously (and successfully), based upon a false assertion to the pre-trial judge, that White was not going to be an identification witness, against her having to ID Abu-Jamal in a line-up. Yet at the trial, White was asked by the prosecutor to point him out.
As for the claim that Abu-Jamal had shouted out a confession at the hospital, I make clear in my book that this testimony by a police officer and a hospital security guard reeks of being a perjured story manufactured weeks after the shooting. Neither the cop nor the guard who testified about the confession had mentioned it to police investigators for months after the shooting (a wholly incomprehensible lapse, especially for a police officer), and indeed in two interviews with police investigators, one done the day of the shooting, the police officer who had been assigned to stay with Abu-Jamal from the time he was arrested at the scene to the time he was operated on for a bullet lodged near his spine, stated flatly that during that entire period, "The negro male made no comment.".
The truth is that this trial stank from the beginning, with the trial judge, Albert Sabo (who sent 31 people, 29 of them non-white, to death row), actually being overheard (by a fellow judge and his court stenographer) to tell his court crier, while exiting the courtroom at the end of the first day of Abu-Jamal's trial, "Yeah, and I'm going to help them fry that nigger."
Sadly Moore, who I guess is trying to be funny, or perhaps to make a case he's been working at for several years now that the left is "out of touch" with mainstream America, has joined a short-list of other purported leftists like Todd Gitlin and Marc Cooper, who seem ready to bolster their "independent" credentials by trashing Mumia supporters.
It matters little that these people, like Moore, generally hasten to add that they don't support the death penalty. Even the fact that Moore, unlike Cooper, at least concedes that Abu-Jamal "shouldn't be denied a fair trial," a backhanded way of implying that he didn't get one the first time, hardly compensates for the damage he does with his ill-founded assertion of Abu-Jamal's "probable" guilt.
If he didn't get a fair trial--and he surely didn't, as I document clearly in "Killing Time"--then on what possible grounds does Moore come to his conclusion that he "probably did kill that guy"? If the evidence presented at the trial was weak, cooked and hidden, how can he or anyone come to any kind of "probable" conclusion based upon it?
I actually sent Moore a review copy of my book back last fall, when I was seeking prominent readers to provide me with blurbs for the back cover. He never responded to my request.
Judging from his comments in his own new book, it seems clear that he never cracked mine.
His apparent lack of curiosity is unfortunate. It is also inexcusable in a journalist.
People like Michael Moore owe their readers more than to spout this kind of uninformed and ignorant drivel while posing as journalists. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but unless it's just barroom argumentation, those opinions ought to be based upon the facts.
Abu-Jamal deserves a new, fair trial, not this kind of ignorant passing of judgement by people who should know better.
http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff10172003.html
Who would take a millionairs's word on something like this, anyway?
Fools, that's who.
Fools, that's who.
That's it ... that's the end of the ambiguity on this ... the cop that was killed in the shootout where Mumia did go to see what happened to his brother was killed by a 44 bullet ... Mumia had a 38 on him in his cab. It is impossible to fire a 44 caliber bullet from an unmodified 38 (such as the one Mumia had.) This evidence was suppressed in the trials. So, come on Micael - your work to date is great - the TV Nation, the books, and of course the movies - all real good stuff. So, why chime in like a stupid white guy now and get on the band wagon with the "frame-up-the-black-radical-let's-get-someone-in-jail-for-killing-this-cop-friend-of-ours-before-they-find-out-in-a-real-hearing-that-Mark-was-killed-by-another-cop-out-there-that-night" people. They are cowards who don't want to discover the truth and they are happy with easy, scapegoating answers. Mike - it's time to revisit this man and then to renounce your mistake - your credibility is on the line here. You may alienate your entire audience with this support for an eroneous position.
while there is no evidence to support the theory that the bullet that killed Ofc. Faulkner was a .44 caliber (except a scribbled note by the M.E. written prior to the examination), there is proven evidence that the slug was a .38 caliber. Don't make stuff up. If you don't have any evidence to support your claims...it aint the truth.
http://freemumia.org/intro.html
"Facts about Mumia's 1982 trial:
* The policeman was killed with a 44 caliber gun. Abu-Jamal's gun which he was licensed to carry as a night-time taxi driver, was a 38 caliber.
* The police never tested Abu-Jamal's gun to see if it had been recently fired. They never tested his hands to see if he had fired a gun. They have never shown Abu-Jamal 's gun to be the fatal weapon."
"Facts about Mumia's 1982 trial:
* The policeman was killed with a 44 caliber gun. Abu-Jamal's gun which he was licensed to carry as a night-time taxi driver, was a 38 caliber.
* The police never tested Abu-Jamal's gun to see if it had been recently fired. They never tested his hands to see if he had fired a gun. They have never shown Abu-Jamal 's gun to be the fatal weapon."
the bullet has never been found to be a .44 and if it has, show some proof other than your own theories. Also, why hasn't Mumia's attorney's tested the bullet to prove it is a 44 and not a 38? The bullet was proven to be a .38 by the Philadelphia DA's office..why not do your own tests on it? Because then the truth comes out...Mumia did it.
The police checked the hands of the dead police officer to see if he had recently fired a gun....the police checked black males within a mile, who fit the general description, to see if they had recently fired a gun....but the police FORGOT to test Mumia to see if he had recently fired a gun. They tested the dead cop and forgot to test Mumia ? The man they supposedly thought had just shot the dead cop ? I was born at night....but it wasn't last night....INNOCENT
they didn't need to check his hands because he was lying next to the gun that killed the cop. jis fingerprints were on the gun. go back to school, lance.
I have no sympathy for hypocrties like Mumia who are against the death penalty in their own case (surprise, surprise) but support the death penalty in totalitarian nations like Cuba. What a jerk...
Too bad Mumia didn't shoot Michael Moore.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$110.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network