O'Reilly is attacking Mumia Abu Jamal and France!!! faux propaganda alert

[Taxi Driver]

Turn on Faux News now. French Parisian Mayor Bertrand Delano apparently made Mumia Abu Jamal (convicted "cop killer") an honorary citizen.

Faux is so balanced that they have the dead cop's wife on the show but no opposing viewpoint to that one!

The cop's wife is saying that it's appalling how French students are being taught the Mumia case.

Opinions?

[vi5]

1. I'll get flamed for this, but.......

Making him an honorary citizen does seem a move designed simply to piss Americans off. I'm against the death penalty. Always have been and I vehemently always will be. However, I think it's been a mistake for anti-Death Penalty advocates to have made Mumia a celebrity. There are many other graver and more blatant miscarriages of justice on death row throughout the country. I'm not saying there aren't inconsistencies in Jamal's case that deserve another look but there's also a compelling enough case against him that it's not the ideal case to hold up as exemplary of the flaws in the system.

[Taxi Driver]

2. Free Mumia. Good for France. N/T

[BBradley]

3. I think it's also because he's a political prisoner (n/t)

[DiverDave]

4. He is a murderer

Get the facts, the dude did the crime.

[BBradley]

5. Why don't you show me the facts?

Everything I've read has given me more than enough cause to have reasonable doubt.

[Scairp]

24. I've read up on this case

And I think he did it. I am against the death penalty, but on the other hand I don't think that killers should be lionized in this manner. He is no political prisoner.

[roguevalley]

6. Its enough for me to support someone or something if O'Lillylivered

hates them. <Caveat on per case basis, of course> :)

O'Reilly is just burned because people trashed his
crap book. Say Bill!?! WHO'S LOOKING OUT FOR YA!?!

[Ignis]

7. Get the facts?

That might be a tad bit difficult to do, considering how many messy little police fingerprints are cluttering the evidence, and how many messy little D.A. fingerprints are cluttering the depositions.

The 'facts' of a case are often highly influenced by the manner and timeliness of their presentation. The Law does not reside in a vaccuum.

[Red_Storm]

35. some other facts.........

the police coerced people into giving false testimony, key evidence was supressed, other evidence was fabricated, the presiding judge in the original case was a member of the fraternal order of police, and it goes on and on and on..........

[Taxi Driver]

8. Cops usually aren't that nice. So maybe he was framed for his politics. nt

[Red_Storm]

34. and possibly because ..........

of Mumia's political writings......the French love anyone that criticizes and exposes the U.S. government's war mongering,represive policies, corruption, etc............

[cprise]

10. Or its intended to innoculate EU against American propaganda

France does not want to make Americans angry, yet they are not going to become whores so they can be 'liked' for the wrong reasons.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

9. fair and balanced

as always

[shockingelk]

12. Parisian Mayor?

The Parisian Mayor doesn't balance the cops wife? Not defending FOX, but ... well, it does seem they have view A and view B represented.

[Taxi Driver]

13. The Parisian Mayor wasn't on. n/t

[Taxi Driver]

11. let's kick this shit n/t

[Nlighten1]

14. Transcript? Wonk? Video?

I would like to see this if anyone has it.

TIA

[jiacinto]

15. Mumia shot Office Faulkner

It's clear that he did.

[Ignis]

16. Right.

That just about sums up the prosecution's evidence in this case:

1) A black male shot the officer.
2) Mumia is a black male found near the scene.
Therefore:
3) Mumia shot the officer.

Granted, I oversimplify. But then, so did the prosecution...

[Terwilliger]

27. Clearly, he did not

http://www1.minn.net/~meis/basic.htm

The Incident
At 4:00 a.m. on December 9, 1981, Mumia, while moonlighting as a cab driver, came upon his brother William being pummeled with a flashlight by police officer Daniel Faulkner. Mumia stepped out of his cab, and within moments he had been shot in the chest by a bullet from Faulkner's gun. Faulkner himself was shot and fatally wounded. Eye-witnesses reported seeing one or two men (who did not match Mumia's description) shoot the officer and run from the scene. At that point Mumia had been critically wounded and was on the ground bleeding. When more police arrived, they kicked Mumia, savagely beat him, then pulled him up by the arms and rammed his head repeatedly into a steel utility pole.

Wrong Gun
The bullet that killed Officer Faulkner was identified by the medical examiner as a .44 caliber. Such a bullet could not have been fired from the .38 caliber gun that Mumia had a permit to carry in order to protect himself while driving a taxi. The bullet, along with other evidence, has since disappeared, thus eliminating the defense's ability to prove this inconsistency.

Prosecutors claimed during Mumia's trial that Faulkner was shot first, then he fired at Mumia while falling. Ballistics experts have pointed out that the downward angle of Mumia's wound makes this scenario impossible.

Bogus "Confession"
Mumia has always maintained his innocence. But a full two months after Mumia's arrest, at a meeting called by the prosecutor, several cops amazingly "remembered" Mumia "confessing" to the murder of Faulkner. This meeting occurred following Mumia's filing of a complaint of police brutality. In fact, the officer who arrested Mumia and was with him until he was taken into surgery had written in his original report that night that Mumia "made no statements." Dr. Anthony Coletta said, "I would make it clear that I was with Jamal from within a moment or two of him being brought in the emergency room...and he neither made any confessions to me, nor did he say anything that would be even remotely in the way of a confession to any other individuals."


ALSO


http://www.refuseandresist.org/mumia/disinfo.html


ALSO

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/07/0222237&mode=thread&tid=5

[jiacinto]

38. Get a clue

I put you on ignore, so stop responding to my threads. Someone in this thread mentioned your name and since a reply to me said "ignored" I assumed it to be you.

Before I put you back on ignore, realize that I don't read any of the drivel you write here. And that you are probably wasting your time writing to me as I will not be taking the time to deal with your idiocy.

[Terwilliger]

45. awwwwww....

he wuvs me :* :loveya:

[forgethell]

17. What opposing viewpoint

could have any credibility. the man was a murderer. We don't need to make heroes of cop-killers. God! no wonder we lose elections.

[jiacinto]

18. A Balanced Viewpoint on the case

http://www.courttv.com/archive/casefiles/mumia/guilty.html

Basically the author admits that his trial had lots of problems, but that Mumia is most likely guilty.

And I think that he did shoot Officer Faulkner. I don't see him as a "victim". While I do think that his trial was less than fair I do think he is guilty of the crime.

I don't understand why this man has been elevated to "hero" status.

And here are the pro-Faulkner and pro-Mumia sites.

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

http://www.freemumia.org/

[Ignis]

19. That's not justice.

If the trial had ANY 'problems' whatsoever--let alone the bloody mess that was the Mumia trial--then the defendent deserves a retrial. I don't care how horrible you think the crime is, or how guilty the defendant is. The foundation of the American legal system demands innocence until the person is proven guilty BEYOND reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt exists in this case (and then some), so the very least that justice calls for is a retrial.

Do you realise that the Mumia case makes the US legal system the laughingstock of the international legal community? It has been used as a prime example of how justice is NOT served by the law when the law is wielded by those who abuse their powers.

Using dirty prosecution to convict a person is as morally reprehensible as using dirty policework to arrest a person. The ends do not justify the means.

[wuushew]

20. The biggest problem is the inconclusive ballistics evidence

they couldn't even match the bullets to the gun. That is not enough to sentence a man to death.

[not systems]

22. If the trial had "lots of problems" then...

he should get a retrial and be take off death row.

How do believe that he should stay on death row
in light of what you just wrote?

"Mumia is most likely guilty", WOW that is a very high
burden of legal proof to end the life of a very smart
person who claims to be innocent and appears to many to
have been framed.

[jiacinto]

36. He wasn't "framed"

Even the author of the Court TV article, who supports a new trial for Mumia, admits that he is most likely guilty.

[not systems]

44. "most likely guilty"

Is this really your standard for the death penalty.

I am against the death penalty and not a Mumia
crusader but the standards for the death penalty
are higher than "most likely guilty" to the average
death penalty supporter.

Why do you think Mumia deserves less than average
consideration?

[ctex]

51. The jury found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

The fact that some of us not on the jury have doubts is absolutely immaterial.

[not systems]

52. How many juries get it wrong?

Enough that month after month year after year
innocent people are released from death row.

Month after month year after year others go to
their death proclaiming they are innocent without
the luck to have DNA proof or someone else confess
to the crime.

Having blind faith in juries is no reason not
to have higher standards than "most likly guilty"
for the death penalty.

They get it wrong sometimes.

[0rganism]

58. Go back and re-read the case history

Not just the evidence, but the events at the trial. Read about the incompetent defense lawyer who slept through the proceedings.

That was a mistrial, no mistake about it. Problem is, Judge Sabot is a hanging judge, who just loves those death sentence convictions, and wasn't about to let up just because the DA was railroading the case through for his buddies at the FoP.

Our doubts and disagreements may be immaterial to the case itself, but they are exactly what we're discussing in this thread. Don't like it? Too bad.

[KharmaTrain]

21. Interesting...Scarborough Has The Same Story/Spin

His byline was "Fry The Frenchie"...real professional.

Hmmm...think he and O'Reilly just happened on the same story and "thoughts" at the same time?

...hang on a sec, the fax is going again... :evilgrin:

[wuushew]

23. Free Mumia!

[0rganism]

25. If I were the Faulkners, I'd want a new trial for Mumia too

After reviewing the case, I've formed an opinion that there IS enough evidence to potentially convict Mumia FAIRLY. However, it's so deeply buried in a pit of blatant police misconduct, tainted evidence, mishandled witnesses, and other myriad miscarriages of justice that you practically need a legal backhoe to find it.

Faulkner's backers are making a big mistake by supporting the execution of Mumia after a seriously flawed trial. Sure, they may have the result they prefer right now, but they essentially stole it when they could have won it "fair and square". Above all it is in the victims' best interest to have a defendant tried fairly and without copious errors, because the chances of jailing the real criminal are thus maximized.

By accepting the results of a sickened process, Faulkner's friends and family risk tainting the memory of officer Faulkner at the same time they enable the transformation of Mumia into a poster child for opposition to the death penalty. This should be well worth avoiding for the victim's relatives. Otherwise, well, they have what they have right now: possible revenge and a feeling of persecution from those who disagree.

[Ignis]

29. Now that's an excellent point.

Horrible abuses of justice during mistrials do not uniformly and solely disenfranchise the defendant.

Even the most staunch defender of the death penalty (no matter how misguided such a position may be) should recognise that it does no good to convict someone and sentence them to death--only to have the case thrown out in a few years/decades and the suspected killer freed because the conviction was the result of a mistrial.

[0rganism]

30. Not just because of mistrials, either

For every false conviction, there's a real criminal running loose. Having a fair trial minimizes the chance of false convictions.

When the police push too hard to get their conviction, they risk two misfortunes compounding the original crime: punishing an innocent, and letting the perp go free. Just think, for every one of those convicted rapists and murderers who were later able to prove their inncocence through DNA analysis, there's a real rapist or murderer walking the street while an innocent person did their time.

Fair trials which go the distance in proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt aren't just for the defendant's protection; they protect the whole of society.

[Ignis]

40. Again, a very good point.

I'm amazed at the fact that persons who claim to favour 'law and order' so often rush to convict a person--any person--for a crime as soon as possible, rather than ensuring that time is taken to ensure that REAL criminals are removed from society.

Another point worth mentioning is the damage that every wrong conviction does to the citizenry's belief in the validity of the Lockean social contract between civilians and police officers. This effect is even more dramatically damaging to minority populations when a minority is falsely convicted, of course. Why on earth would a supporter of 'law and order' wish to erode the general belief that Justice will be served?

[LeahMira]

62. They don't really care...

By accepting the results of a sickened process, Faulkner's friends and family risk tainting the memory of officer Faulkner at the same time they enable the transformation of Mumia into a poster child for opposition to the death penalty. This should be well worth avoiding for the victim's relatives.


I agree, but I don't think anyone in the Faulkner family or with the Philadelphia police really cares. A policeman was killed. They got a suspect. Someone has to pay for the death of a policeman. That's about it. That's the thinking.

It sounds incredible, but recall that the FBI now admits that they aren't at all sure that Leonard Peltier killed Agents Coler and Williams. In fact, they have admitted that they have no idea who actually did the deed. They know that Leonard was on the scene, and for any number of other reasons, including his history of involvement with AIM, he is the one chosen to suffer the penalty.

I think that it's the same sort of thinking with Mumia. And I'm afraid that any exculpatory evidence has long since been destroyed.

I think, like you, that he did shoot Faulkner, BTW. I simply don't think that a lot of circumstances involved in that case should be ignored. Really, though, our laws are sometimes crazy about evidence that can be admitted and how long a time an appeal can be made, etc.

[timbo]

26. It is not because I live a few hundred

feet from the scene of the crime, nor that I was a lawyer in this city for many years, but I have spent a lot of time reviewing the history of this case because I am opposed to the death penalty.

It occurs to me that should we wish to effectively promote an anti-death penalty agenda, our cause would be enormously strengthened were we to demonstrate to the public that the death penalty is ineffective as a deterent, that it is arbitrarily and capriciously applied, and that, as such, unconstitutional.

To do that, it would be effective to utilize as examples persons who have been wrongfully convicted and whose legal and factual innocence is readily apparent.

There is no question that there were considerable procedural errors in Mumia Abu Jamal's trial. On the other hand, there really is no question of his factual guilt. To use this case as an example of a wrongful conviction is just stupid, makes our case against the death penalty painfully weak, and just simply makes us look silly.

Why don't we look for examples of wrongful convictions and death penalty judgments where the defendant's innocence is obvious to anyone. That would help our cause, and not, as does the lionization of Mumia Abu Jamal, destroy our credibility.

Flameshield: I am not suggesting that he should be murdered by the Commonwealth. The death penalty is wrong.

[Terwilliger]

28. really?

On the other hand, there really is no question of his factual guilt.

Really? How do you "know" that?

[timbo]

31. Terwilliger, please re-read my post.

First, I believe that I rather carefully stated that I have carefully reviewed the facts of the case. And, I shall continue to state that amongst those people who have carefully reviewed those facts, "there really is not question of his factual guilt". Please note that a careful review of the facts here, as in most places, means a review of the primary sources and excludes a simple review of opinion pieces. Further, I said, carefully, factual guilt, not legal guilt.

Second, and more importantly, the point of my post was to suggest that it does us, those of us who are interested in ending capital punishment, absolutely no good to make Mumia Abu Jamal our poster child. That you and I, and I have no idea what actual sources you may have relied upon for your assertion of his innocence, are having this discussion proves my point. It would be far more prudent to present the cases of people of individuals in which there is no legitimate question of innocence.

[Terwilliger]

47. ok, you're just dancing on the head of a pin

You can claim all day that he is factually guilty. Problem is, too many people believe that the whole thing is a fabrication...

so....

have you got any proof of his "factual" guilt?

I believe someone came forward last year and said they killed Faulkner. Does that make Jamal factually innocent?

[jafap]

56. what about proof of his innocence

So I followed one of the links you posted, looking for some proof. The only thing they seem able to prove is that many "witnesses" give conflicting accounts and have conflicts of interest. In fact, I read this quote:

"The American Lawyer is the most prestigious and widely read law journal in the United States, and the author, Stuart Taylor, Jr., is a widely known and respected television commentator on legal issues. His is entitled "Guilty And Framed," and after studying the transcripts, Taylor concludes that Mumia most like shot Faulkner, but that Faulkner quite likely shot him first. Thus Taylor cannot be accused of having a pro-Mumia bias."

So can you have it both ways? That is, I am asked to believe this person's analysis when he says the trial was bogus, and yet I am asked to doubt this same person's analysis when he says that Mumia killed Faulkner. Or am I expected to care if someone who kills another is "unfairly" convicted? Not me, in fact, I would insist that all guilty people are properly "framed". To me it would be a greater tragedy if he ended up like OJ (and I was a big fan of OJ, when I heard that his wife was murdered and he was in Chicago, I was happy because I figured that meant he did not do it.)

So I am in the middle. I do not want to see him executed, but I do not want to see him freed either. If you want me to take to the barricades, you need to find someone who is actually innocent.

[not systems]

57. guilty people are properly "framed"

I disagree with this ends justify the means position you have stated.

I believe that this is an idea that undermines the concept of
justice and due process.

It transfers the roll of the judge and jury to the police and prosecutor.

I wonder how this differs from lynching the "guilty" without trial?

After all the results are the same and why bother with trials if
the police know who should be "framed".

[jafap]

59. I am not making it a Kantian principle

However, if you look at a spectrum and ask my reaction. It would be:
Guilty person properly convicted - hurrah for justice
guilty person framed - shrug, too bad they couldn't have been properly convicted
innocent person properly convicted - that sucks
innocent person framed - man the barricades!!!

It is just not the same type of outrage. I should be so upset about his lack of a fair trial? Sorry, but I have more sympathy for Faulkner who was convicted of police brutality by Mumia who served as judge, jury, and executioner. Mumia's treatment was far better than the treatment he gave to Faulkner. If you want me to care about his case it is not enough to show me he did not get a fair trial, you need to show me he is innocent. I am not talking about lynching because that, unlike life imprisonment which I think Mumia deserves, lynching is final, brutal, and sadistic.

Delmer (I cannot remember his name, although I found it on the Nation's "Deathwatch" and sent an email on his behalf) was on death row in Texas, scheduled to die a couple months ago for a crime he did not commit (I researched his case before I sent the email). A far greater outrage than Mumia's case. For some reason he did not get near the publicity even though I heard his case went to the Supreme Court. What was the outcome? Does Paris care? Does the rest of "the left"? Where is the publicity?

[Terwilliger]

61. If Faulkner shot Mumia first, then it's self-defense

and this whole thing goes out the window

One link described Mumia com,ing on the scene of his brother being beaten, he gets out of the taxi and get's shot seconds later.

This whole thing stinks to high crimes and misdemeanors. Mumia was a black panther and a journalist. He wrote extensively about the corrupt Philadelphia government. He was an activist and a speaker.

OHHHHHHHHHHH yeah...he just thought he'd go murder some whitey cop for the hell of it....RIIIIIIIIIIGHT :eyes:

[birdman]

60. Exactly

I'm unalterably opposed to the death penalty but this guy
is the wrong person to make the case with because he's clearly
guilty.

He's attracted attention and support because he's eloquent,
writes well and worked as a journalist. If you take the same
case and make the defendent a penniless individual with borderline
intelligence he would have been executed years ago and the activists
and Hollywood celebrities wouldn't have even noticed.

[Gringo]

32. Mumia is an Ultra-Fringe case

Mainstream dems and dem politicians couldn't give a damn about Mumia, who is, as far as I can tell, likely guilty. Just because he is an eloquent advocate of far-left causes does not make him innocent.

If "Free Mumia" is your deal, maybe a socialist web site would be more your speed.

I suppose O'Really should have a Mumia advocate on, but you KNOW that O'Really would tear him up and cut off his mic anyway.

I hate O'Really, but I'm not shedding any tears over poor little Mumia. If I were looking for convicts to free, I'd start with Leonard Peltier, personally.

[jiacinto]

37. What is his story?

nt

[Taxi Driver]

39. Democratic politicians couldn't give a damn

because even though it's a center-left party, it's still partly bought by corporations and has to pander to the centrist image.

What's wrong with socialism? You say it as though it's a bad word.

Mumia was framed.

What's funny about the O'Reilly interview is that he didn't even MENTION that Mumia's case is controversial because some think he's innocent. He tried to make it look as though France praised him for killing a cop.

[jafap]

42. the unfortunate thing about Democratic politicians

is that they have to be elected. So they cannot be as radical and pure as us academic fringe types.
What is wrong with socialism is that probably 75% of the country believes that socialism = soviet system. Any politician that can be smeared with the S word has as little chance of being elected as Eugene Debs. Calling a program 'socialist' is a substitute for real analysis, but also likely to generate public opposition.
I would love to be able to put Mumia up there with Sacco and Vanzetti, but my study of his case does not support the "framed" hypothesis. Even the writer on Counterpunch who wrote a book on Mumia admits that Mumia most likely killed Faulkner. To me that makes him far less innocent than that fellow in Texas whose case went to the Supreme Court. Point is that there are far more deserving cases on death row for Paris to make honorary citizens.
I think O'Reilly would make the point that the Paris mayor and those on the left believe his is innocent because they have not studied the case, or they are looking at their own leftist spin, rather than at facts. Sorry, but I have to agree with him. I hope that never happens again.

[Terwilliger]

48. No, Pelletier killed those FBI men

don't you know??? he's "factually" guilty too

[LeahMira]

66. Don't YOU know...

That proof exists that he did not murder.

With all that's out on the internet as well as what's out in print, I'm surprised that you can still think as you do, Terwilliger.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

65. Bingo

Loathing O'Reilly and believing Mumia is guilty are not mutually exclusive....


These are the stupid boxes conservatives want to put liberals in....


Life doesn't fit tidily into a little box ....

[Nailzberg]

33. Interesting similarity between O'Reilly and Mumia

Both falsely claimed to have won a Peabody.

In case anyone wants a connection.

[Terwilliger]

50. oh?

when did Mumia claim to have won a Peabody?

[FredScuttle]

63. I also hear....

Mumia claims to be from the working-class section of Leavittown

[qb]

41. Guilt or innnocence aside, Mumia is a poster child around the world

because of the gross misconduct of the officials associated with his case. It won't die because it stinks to high heaven. All of the shenanigans and the rabid call to kill him now and avoid a new trial at all costs gives the impression that they're hiding something. This misconduct bolsters the opinion that Mumia is innocent.

[jiacinto]

43. I don't think he's innocent

nt

[not systems]

46. judge jury and executioner

And that should out weigh the opinion of a huge
number of civil rights monitors from around the
world?

Why?

What information has led you to be sure at the
level that you are willing to have a man killed
in your name?

[beavis]

49. so what, he's a glorified murder!

He's a poster child for the self-loathing left, and of course, the frogs! If he were executed tomorrow, it wouldn't be soon enough!

[not systems]

53. Perhaps with your teeth?

You seem to have a lot of hate pent up about this.

Are you in someway directly connected?

Frogs?

Is that slang for freedom?

Self-loathing left?

In contrast to the other-hating right?

[Terwilliger]

55. UHHH boy

Another "Fairly Uninformed" viewer, no doubt

[Dr Fate]

54. Mumia is not ian important issue with me or most voters...

I went to an anti-war rally in San Francisco and all I heard was "Mummy this and Mummy that"- Jeezus- what about ISSUES???

Lots of folks are in jail, some are innocent, others are not. I hope he either has recieved, or gets justice SOON, so that the far left can start talking about issues that are a little more important...

[LeahMira]

64. What is more important...

Lots of folks are in jail, some are innocent, others are not. I hope he either has recieved, or gets justice SOON, so that the far left can start talking about issues that are a little more important...

My thinking is that if one innocent person can be sentenced to death by mistake, then any innocent person can be sentenced to death.

I also think that we are all related in this sense. No, Mumia is not my brother or cousin or whatever, but he is part of the "family" and is entitled to my concern, at the very least.

We have now people in Guantanamo who are being held and tortured. Some of them are undoubtedly innocent. So, I think that if we turn away from Mumia, it becomes easier to turn away from the next person who is unjustly accused, and also it emboldens the ones who would unjustly accuse as well.

People are entitled to a fair trial. All people. Even you and me.