Hans Bennett photoessay: JULY 4 PHILLY DEMONSTRATION FOR MUMIA ABU-JAMAL! (PT.1)

Please, please, fry that cop killing criminal Mumia already.

CONSIDER THE FACTS THAT CONVICTED MUMIA ABU-JAMAL

Before, during, and after the moment he fired the fatal shot on
December 9, 1981, Mumia Abu-Jamal's actions have been
consistent with his guilt, and have been consistent with nothing
else but his guilt. He has done nothing that an innocent person
would do if accused and convicted of murder. All the evidence
points to Jamal as the killer. You be the judge.

FACT

As a young man, Jamal had a long history of hatred against the
law enforcement officers. While he was a Black Panther, Mumia
Abu-Jamal wrote, "I for one feel like putting down the pen....LET'S
WRITE EPITAPHS FOR PIGS." Jamal has stated that he used his
position in the Black Panthers to call for a "black revolution in
America" and that "political power grows from the barrel of a
gun."

FACT

A total of five eyewitnesses have testified that they saw Mumia
Abu-Jamal run from a parking lot and shoot Officer Faulkner to
death as the officer attempted to arrest Jamal's brother. None of
these eyewitnesses knew each other. Each gave their accounts
within minutes of the shooting, and the accounts agreed with each
other in every significant detail. Several of these individuals
stated that -- in some cases from less than 30 feet away -- they
watched as Jamal repeatedly fired at the fallen and unarmed
officer from point blank range. One even stated that Jamal took
the time to bend down and fire the final shot into the wounded
officer's face from less than a foot away and that the officer's
"whole body jerked" when the shot hit his face. Was each and every
one of these eyewitnesses - including a man called by Jamal's own
lawyers in 1995, Robert Harkins - "confused" about what they
saw, as Jamal and his attorneys allege?

FACT

Within a few minutes of the shooting, three of the eyewitnesses
personally identified Mumia Abu-Jamal to police at the scene as
the man who had shot Officer Faulkner. Again, none of these
individuals knew each other. They had no time to find what other
witnesses were going to say. Nor was there time for police to
"coerce" or "intimidate" them prior to making their
identifications. The police had no way of knowing what story to
"coerce" witnesses to tell even if they had wanted to. Each witness
watched from a different vantage point, and several stated that
they never lost sight of Jamal from the moment the shooting
stopped, until the police apprehended him and placed him in the
van. Were these eyewitnesses all "mistaken" about what they saw,
as Jamal and his attorneys now argue?

FACT

Jamal was apprehended only 10 feet away from Officer Faulkner's
body. In his chest, Jamal had a bullet fired from Officer Faulkner's
gun. If the officer was shot by a "phantom killer," as Jamal's
lawyers contend, he would have shot the gunman, not Jamal. The
eyewitnesses all said that Jamal shot the officer in the back
before the officer even knew Jamal was there.

FACT

The gun found next to Jamal was owned by Jamal and registered in
his name. Does an "innocent man" run to the scene of an arrest
with his gun in his hand if he doesn't intend to use it?

FACT

Jamal's gun contained five spent casings from unique high velocity
special +P ammunition. These casings were the exact brand
(Federal), caliber (.38) and type (high velocity +P with a hollow
base) of ammunition retrieved from Officer Faulkner's brain. Is it
reasonable to believe that an "innocent man" just happened to
load his gun with exact same ammunition that the "real killer"
used in his gun?

FACT

The rifling characteristics of the bullet removed from Officer
Faulkner's brain showed that it was fired from a barrel with 8
lands and grooves and a right hand direction of twist. This is
identical to the rifling characteristics of the barrel of Jamal's
gun. Is it a coincidence that an "innocent man" just happened to
load his gun with the same unique ammunition as the "real killer"
AND have the same riffling pattern in the barrel of his gun as the
"real killer"?

FACT

Jamal's brother, William Cook, saw the murder unfold. When police
arrived at the scene -- less than one minute after the shooting --
they found Cook against a wall a few feet away from the dead
officer's body. Cook's only comment was, "I ain't got nothin to do
with this." Would not the brother of an "innocent man" say
something like, "The guy who shot the cop ran away." or "My
brother didn't do it"? In fact, to this day, Cook is the only known
eyewitness (other than Jamal himself) who has never testified to
what he saw. He has never so much as suggested that his brother
might be innocent.

FACT

The jury knew that William Cook was the closest person to the
murder. Yet the jury never heard Cook testify on his brother's
behalf. It does not require a degree in rocket science to
understand the significance of the fact that Cook would allow his
brother to be sentenced to death rather than testify to his
supposed innocence. Is it believable that an "innocent" Mumia
Abu-Jamal would simply accept his brother's silence and not
demand to have him testify to his innocence in order to save him
from conviction?

FACT

On June 21, 1982 , Officer Faulkner's blood stained shirt was
displayed in the courtroom. Jamal deliberately turned around and
grinned at Officer Faulkner's widow as her husband's shirt was
displayed. Several witnesses saw this. Such a calculated act of evil
is not characteristic of an innocent man.

FACT

Throughout the trial and at the sentencing hearing the jury saw
Mumia Abu-Jamal explode with loud violent outbursts,
obscenities, verbal threats and diatribes against the judge, the
prosecutor, his own attorney, and even the jurors themselves.
Were these the acts of an "innocent man"?

FACT

Jamal insulted and refused to speak with the lawyer he himself had
selected prior to trial. He then refused to be represented by any
lawyer at all. Instead, he demanded to have John Africa, the leader
of a radical cult called MOVE, act as his lawyer. Would an
"innocent man" concerned with keeping his freedom, as opposed to
making his trial a political forum, make such absurd demands? Or
would an "innocent man" work to provide his highly qualified and
experienced attorney -- an attorney he hand picked -- with
every bit of information and evidence he could muster that
supported his innocence?

FACT

Though given two chances (the trial in 1982 and the PCRA hearing
in 1996) to take the stand and explain his alleged "innocence,"
Mumia Abu-Jamal has refused to do so. In fact, he has refused to
tell anyone what really happened on the morning Officer Faulkner
was murdered; including the legion of reporters from around the
world who line up to interview him. Would an "innocent man" keep
the facts that prove his supposed innocence a secret?

FACT

At his sentencing hearing, Mumia Abu Jamal threatened Judge
Albert Sabo in front of the entire courtroom when he said, "I'm
going to tell you one thing: You have sentenced yourself, just like
Judge Malmed, just like Malcolm, just like Merna Marshal, and
every other Judge who dares to sit up there and act like you got
some justice. You are wrong. You have just been sentenced to
death. You have just been convicted!" (N.T. 5/25/83, 165)

Are these the words of an "innocent man"?


"Justice cannot be achieved until those who are not injured by
crime feel as indignant as those who are."

King Solomon

http://www.danielfaulkner.com/index2.html

>The rifling characteristics of the bullet removed from Officer Faulkner's brain showed that it was fired from a barrel with 8 lands and grooves and a right hand direction of twist. This is identical to the rifling characteristics of the barrel of Jamal's gun.

But were they the same caliber?

Did you read the above paragraph:

FACT

Jamal's gun contained five spent casings from unique high velocity
special +P ammunition. These casings were the exact brand
(Federal), caliber (.38) and type (high velocity +P with a hollow
base) of ammunition retrieved from Officer Faulkner's brain.

However, I know exactly what you are referring to. You have probably heard that the bullet that killed Faulkner was a .44; this is a complete myth fabricated by Mumia's supporters.

Mumia is no longer "hip" anymore, its supporting Islamic terrorists that is the "in" thing now among the lefties.

Hey Dave... if its so clear, why didn't the police ever test either Mumia's gun or his had to see if a gun had been shot? maybe they did, and didn't get the facts they wanted, eh?