Frailty of the Ballistics Evidence in the Case Against Mumia Abu-Jamal


By Lori Allen

As it was told at the trial, the prosecution laid out an "open and shut"
case based on the theory that three men were on the scene at 13th and Locust
Streets on December 9, 1981: William Cook, Officer Daniel Faulkner, and
Mumia Abu- Jamal. Faulkner was shot in the back and in the face, the head
wound being fatal. Mumia was shot in the chest with the bullet traveling in
a downward trajectory from his lung to his liver, approximately a 30-degree
downward angle. William Cook was a motorist pulled over for reasons
undisclosed to him, and unexplained to the public, who wound up convicted
for assaulting Faulkner (a peculiar charge considering that event lead up to
the officer's death-usually prosecutors would go for, at the minimum, an
accessory to murder charge).

THE PROSECUTION'S THEORY

As it was told at the trial, Faulkner radios in at 3:51:08 about his traffic
stop and asks for assistance. He quickly changes his mind a requests a
police wagon (a strange request for a single passenger). Cook is reported to
have gotten out of his vehicle, a Volkswagen (VW), and, as he admits, get
into a verbal confrontation with the officer. Witnesses claim to have seen
Cook hit Faulkner, and Faulkner return blows with his flashlight to subdue
Cook.

As it was told at the trial, Mumia rides by and sees his brother's VW, pulls
into the parking lot directly across the street, and runs across to help aid
his brother. He runs up behind Faulkner as he was frisking Cook and shoots
him in the back from less than 2 feet away. Faulkner spins around, firing
one shot into Mumia's chest and falls backwards onto the pavement as he is
on his back, Faulkner is now reported to be debilitated. Mumia then
straddles the fallen officer, places both hands on his .38 caliber Charter
Arms revolver and unloads at the officer, one of the four bullets hitting
approximately between the eyes. Mumia stumbles a few feet away and slouches
on the curb where officers find him.

Again, the story goes that Mumia ran up behind Faulkner, shot him in the
back, straddled him, unloading his 5- chambered revolver, and killed the
officer with a fatal head shot.

CONFLICTING EVIDENCE OF HOW MUMIA AND FAULKNER ARE SHOT

First of all, according to the prosecution, Faulkner had just been in a
physical confrontation. It is police procedure to be alert to their
surrounding when they pull over a motorist. How could he have not heard a
man running towards him, on concrete, getting as close as two feet away
without him looking? Mumia weighed around 160-170lbs. and was tall. He was
not likely to have been a silent runner.

Secondly, it is highly improbable that Mumia would have shot Faulkner in the
back, allowed him to pull a revolver from his gun holster, spin around, and
then fire off a shot before attempting to shoot again. If he was so angry
that he would shoot in the first place, why would he give the officer an
opportunity like that to kill him?

Thirdly, if Mumia straddled Faulkner for the final blow, traces of lead
residue or blood should have been found on Mumia's pants and shoes.
According to the scenario presented at trial, Mumia should have stained just
about every garment he was wearing except his underwear in blood and lead
traces. As well, there should have been reports of fragmentation from the
sidewalk found on the body of Faulkner. There were no lead traces on the
sidewalk surrounding the officer's body. There were no divots in the
sidewalk. Lastly, there were no fragments or bullets found on the sidewalk,
or in Faulkner, despite these other shots supposedly being fired all around
him.

As for the tale of how Mumia was shot, it has been said that Faulkner shot
Mumia as he fell. That argument has been used time and again. It is,
however, not the best argument since the prosecution alleges that he spun
around, fired, and then fell. From there, plenty of points can still be
argued.

First of all, anyone who knows a police officer personally knows that they
love their guns. They carefully take them apart to clean them. They practice
their ability to shoot targets both stationary and moving. And boy do they
KNOW their guns. Faulkner was no exception to the rule. He was a hunting
enthusiast and he was aspiring for higher rank on the force. He was about to
take the detective's examination. Also, he worked the Center City area where
he needed to have a reliable weapon for his defense, the crime in Center
City is not to be taken lightly.

The prosecution and police department would have one believe, however, that
Faulkner carried a revolver in shameful condition. The weapon matched to
Mumia's wound, and presented as Faulkner's service revolver was a .38
caliber Smith and Wesson. The gun contained powder fouling, had dirt and
lint in the chambers, and it would not cock as designed in single action
because of oversized rubber grips. To top it all off, it even had a bent
hammer spur. This was hardly the weapon of an ambitious police officer who
was working for a position as a detective.

Even if one believes the gun was Faulkner's, there is still one MAJOR
problem. Three prosecution witnesses claim to have seen Mumia shoot Faulkner
with no obstruction to their views, as the Justice for Police Officer Daniel
Faulkner website claims. Michael Scanlon, Cynthia White, and Robert Chobert
all claim to have seen the shooting. Scanlon was in his car, Chobert was
directly behind Faulkner's squad car in his taxi cab, and White was
perfectly "placed" at the Southeast corner of 13th and Locust, close to the
scene. None of them saw Faulkner shoot Mumia. In fact, no one claims to have
seen it besides Arnold Beverly and Mumia.

To recap, shot #1: Mumia shoots Faulkner in the back, which is reported by 2
prosecution witnesses, shot #2: Faulkner shoots Mumia as he spins around,
then he falls, which NO ONE sees, and shots #3-6: Mumia is standing over
Faulkner and unloads at his face, all 3 prosecution witnesses say they saw
this. One witness for the defense, Dessie Hightower, reported that
Faulkner's gun was in its holster as police removed his body from the scene.

As well, Mumia's lung was punctured from that shot to his chest. Both he and
his brother reported that he was gasping for air. It would be rather
difficult to have finished the officer off the way he did in that condition.
Also, none of the witnesses reported seeing him having any sort of trouble
breathing as he stood over Faulkner's body. It is highly unlikely, medically
speaking, that such would not be reported by witnesses.

Although the prosecution presented the theory that no one else was at the
scene to the jury, there was one unmistakable piece of evidence linking
another person to the scene in the form of a driver's license application.
Arnold Howard's application was found on Faulkner's person at the scene.
Howard was arrested and held for an extensive amount of time in question. He
reported to have loaned it to his friend Kenneth Freeman that night. So
another person, Freeman, is now linked to the crime scene.

As most people have been informed, there was no test of Mumia's hands or his
gun to determine when the gun was last fired. The prosecution dismisses this
by saying there was a struggle and that would have caused the evidence on
his hands to have been contaminated and make the test unreliable, as well as
the claim that the test kits were not available. The kits were apparently
available for the police to do lead residue tests of the entrance way to
1234 Locust Street, though.

The track record of the Philadelphia P.D. also does not support this claim.
When Howard and Freeman were held for questioning, both of the were
subjected to hand swabbing, despite the fact that they were not arrested at
the scene and the police had no knowledge of what kind of evidence
contamination could have taken place in the time lapse between the shooting
and their being picked up. Also, on August 8th, 1978, the headquarters of
the MOVE Organization was attacked in a police raid. Members of MOVE were
all given hand swab tests after having thousands of gallons of water
thrusted at them from 2 deluge hoses, after wading in muddy waters, having
to crawl out of basement windows, climb over debris, and being subject to
malicious beatings (Delbert Africa's beating was caught on tape and the rest
of the MOVE 9 arrested that day claim to have received the same treatment
from arresting officers). Does all of that not count as contamination?! Yet,
Mumia's hands were not swabbed.

An intriguing point is the description of Mumia having both hands on the gun
as he straddled Faulkner. Supposedly, he placed both hands on the revolver
and fired the rest of his rounds at the officer's face. Interestingly
enough, neither Faulkner's alleged gun, nor Mumia's had any fingerprints
lifted from their guns.

So where did this all take place? According to the Justice for Faulkner
website, it was in front of Faulkner's squad car, behind the VW. The crime
scene photos do not illustrate this, but, rather they back the account given
by Cook in his affidavit. The large doorway of 1234 Locust Street is
decorated with trim. This doorway was almost directly between the VW and the
squad car. The doorway of 1232 Locust Street was located at the very front
of the VW. It was here that the blood stain ran from slightly further in
than the center of the sidewalk downward towards the curb.

THE SO-CALLED EYE-WITNESSES

As was stated before, 3 prosecution witnesses claim to have seen the actual
shooting. The Faulkner website, whose creators would not comment on the
inaccuracies of their site, says they had "unobstructed" views.
Unfortunately, that is a lie, even by some of the eye-witnesses'' own
statements. All of their views were very much obstructed. The crime scene
was close to 4 am-in the dark, only lit by the flashing lights of the squad
car.

The easiest to discredit is Robert Chobert. He was sitting in the driver's
seat of his cab behind the squad car, 2 cars back. It is impossible to have
no obstruction to his view while having to look through two parked cars at
night and no street lights. According to Officer James Forbes in a report
about the scene, he describes Chobert as being drunk and wandering around
the crime scene, which was supposed to be secured. Chobert also had 2 major
reasons to change his testimony and lie: 1) he had a suspended licence for
driving because of a DUI, and 2) he was on probation for throwing a Molotov
cocktail into a schoolyard for pay. When those 2 reasons are put together,
the equivalent is jail time for violating his probation for driving a cab
with a suspended licence, especially while he was reported to have been
drinking. The jail time would have been substantial.

Cynthia White was the prosecution's star witness. She claims to have seen
the gun in Mumia's hands, firing at the officer. Oddly enough, by her own
statement reported to the police, she said that she never saw Faulkner shoot
Mumia because Mumia obstructed her view. If she is standing west of the
scene, one quarter of a block away, Mumia would have never crossed the path
between her and Faulkner, according to the prosecution. For, as it were,
Mumia ran across the street, shot Faulkner, and he fell on his back with his
feet facing towards the street either directly or at an angle. If Mumia
straddled him, she would have had a clearer view, not an obstructed one, as
she claimed to be the reason for her not seeing Mumia get shot. Dessie
Hightower, the only witness to come to court and stick by his original
statement that someone fled the scene, said that he spotted White at least
half a block away between 13th and Juniper. White was also reported running
up to the scene after the shooting, to ask people what had happened.

White was a prostitute that was named by FBI informant Donald Hersing (whose
testimony largely led to the indictment and conviction of well over a dozen
police officers and officials for corruption in Center City Philadelphia) as
being a prostitute who turned tricks for corrupt police (Inspector Giordano,
the ranking officer on the scene, was part of the indictment and resigned
his position the first business day after Mumia's trial....he was never
called to the stand to testify during the trial). Another witness against
corrupt police whose testimony put away several officers in the 39th
Precinct Scandal, Pamela Jenkins, testified that she was a friend of White's
and that White confided in her that she feared for her life around Mumia's
case.

Michael Scanlon did not have a perfect view either, which explains his
confusion about what he says he saw. He was in his car heading east on
Locust Street. At the time the first shot rang out, he was on the west side
of the intersection, well over 30 feet behind Chobert's parked cab. He
testified that the driver of the VW was wearing a green army coat
(6/25/82;8.26). In the statement he gave on 12/12/81, he said "the next
thing I know, I saw the officer laying there, then one of the males was
standing over the officer. I don't know which one it was. Then I saw two or
three flashes and heard shots." When he was asked to identify Mumia in back
of the wagon, he said he thought that the man whom he saw was the man who
was driving the VW (the one wearing a green army coat, as he stated before)
(6/25/82;8.46). Neither Mumia, nor Cook, had on a green army jacket, but
Kenneth Freeman was reported to have been wearing one and Arnold Beverly
says he was wearing one in his affidavit.

So, if Mumia was not shot by Faulkner, than who did and when was he shot? In
Mumia's affidavit, he says that he was in a cab filling out his fares log
when he heard the shots. He scanned the scene in his rear-view mirror from
where his car was parked on 13th Street, north of Locust. He spotted his
brother stumbling with blood on his head. He crossed the street towards
where Cook was screaming and was shot by a uniformed police officer. He went
down on his knees, struggling to breathe.

Cook states that he did not see who shot his brother. He says that he saw
him running across the street after Faulkner was shot. Next thing, he heard
a shot and saw his brother drop.

Arnold Beverly states in his affidavit that "I ran across Locust Street and
stood over Faulkner, who had fallen backwards on the sidewalk. I shot
Faulkner in the face at close range. Jamal was shot shortly after that by a
uniformed police officer who arrived on the scene."

The homicide office also gives credence to this claim that Mumia was shot by
an arriving officer. Stefan Makuch, an investigator in the Medical
Examiner's office, called homicide to ask who had shot Mumia. Documented in
any entry in the contemporaneous Medical Examiner's Log is a recorded
statement made by Sergeant Westerman, a homicide detective, at about 9 am on
12/9/81, an hour after he came off duty. According to Makuch, Westerman
first consulted the other officers before responding. He said, amongst other
things, "the assailant himself was shot subsequently by arriving police
reinforcements."

In an in camera hearing during the course of the trial on 6/28/82, Sgt.
Westerman denied that he had said by whom Mumia was shot (6/28/82;18-19).
This evidence plainly suggests, however, that the general belief in the
Homicide office some five hours after the shooting is that Mumia was shot by
a uniformed cop who arrived after the shooting.

THE BALLISTICS EVIDENCE

The physical evidence at the scene, as reported by the police ballistics
report, does not support the prosecution's scenario, either. Lead traces,
blood, the lack of divots in the sidewalk, and the handling of the evidence
does not support an open and shut case that proves Mumia was the shooter. In
fact, it more so points to the description Arnold Beverly gives in his
confession.

According to the prosecution's scenario, 6 total bullets were fired: one
entered Faulkner's back and exited out the front, the second was shot into
Mumia's chest, and the other four were fired towards the sidewalk, one
lodging itself in Faulkner's brain. The physical evidence does not support
this, however, because of the location of lead traces, broken glass, and a
projectile that was tested and removed from 1234 Locust Street. The blood
stain on the sidewalk is located in front of 1232 Locust Street.
At the trial, Police Officer Land testified that he found various bullets
and bullet parts in or about the doorway of 1234 Locust (6/19/82;70-72). So
it can be easier to follow, the following is listed from the closest to the
actual crime to farther away. Without a map, these measurements are harder
to envision. He found a copper jacket nine feet west of the east property
line. He found a hole in the westerly door of 1234 Locust, from which a lead
projectile was taken. A piece of glass in the upper right portion of the
door was broken. He also found both traces of lead residue [subsequently
confirmed to be lead residue by a lead residue wipe test (6/12/82;35)] and
lead fragments three feet west of the front door of 1234 Locust Street.

Even if the copper jacket can be accounted for on the basis that it was part
of the bullet that entered Faulkner's back and exited his neck, this still
leaves the evidence of the three separate bullets, which were found in or
about the doorway of 1234 Locust to be accounted for. They were found too
far away from the shooting to be the same bullets.

This means that if the prosecution scenario is combined with the physical
evidence found at the scene and the evidence contained in the postmortem
report, there were more bullets fired than can be explained by the
prosecution's case against Mumia. On this basis, 8 bullets were fired at
Faulkner: one recovered from the heard wound, one from the back shot, three
that were fired into the sidewalk near the officer's head or body, and three
that were fired towards the area around the front door of 1234 Locust
Street. Mumia's gun could only have fired five shots since it is five
chambered.

Another piece of evidence that doesn't factor into the equation is how three
holes were identified in Officer Faulkner's jacket (Memorandum from the
Laboratory Division, Criminalistics Unit, to Homicide Division dated
1/7/82). Hole 'A' is an entrance hole in the center of the back of the
jacket, 19 cm down from the collar seam. Hole 'B' is an exit hole at the
upper right, back collar area, through the collar and fabric, but not
completely through the garment. Hole 'C' is an entrance hole at the right,
front shoulder area, through the collar and fabric of the jacket, but not
completely through the garment. Holes 'B' and 'C' are the entrance and exit
holes respectively for yet another bullet that entered hole 'C' at the right
shoulder area, traveled inside the lining of the jacket, under the outer
fabric, and exited the upper right, back collar area at hole 'B.'

The police ballistics report states that the bullet taken from Faulkner's
brain was "extremely mutilated and distorted.... destroying the major
portion of the rifling markings" such that its general characteristics are
"indeterminable." The ballistics report, which was unsigned, concluded that
a comparative examination of the evidence bullet against the test fired
bullets "has shown insufficient characteristic markings to permit a positive
comparison." However, a photograph taken of this alleged bullet discloses a
largely intact lead bullet with pronounced filing impressions.  This
indicates that a comparative analysis with the original exemplar bullets
fired from it could have resulted in a determination as to whether or not
the bullet was fired from Mumia's Charter Arms revolver.

In addition, the relative widths of the lands and grooves on the bullet
reportedly taken from Faulkner's head wound is opposite of all, but a few
percent of the Charter Arms revolvers produced. Thus, the prosecution's
ballistics evidence (or lack thereof) itself raises a strong likelihood that
the bullet in evidence from Faulkner's head wound was not fired by Mumia's
gun. The police ballistics tests were admittedly "inconclusive" because
properly and competently performed ballistics would exclude Mumia's gun as
the murder weapon.

The autopsy report was also lacking severely in competency. It is standard
practice for the body of a shooting victim to be x-rayed to locate all the
bullets and bullet fragments in the body. Since Faulkner was shot while
laying on a sidewalk, the ricochet from the other three shots were quite
likely to fragment and lodge into the officer's body. To date, no x-rays
have been located or produced from Faulkner's autopsy. This raises questions
about the number of bullets, and their caliber, in Faulkner's body, as well
as the problem of evidence suppression. It does not make sense that such
poor investigative work would be carried out in the case of a police officer
being killed, that is, unless there was something to conceal.

THE GUNS

Mumia's gun was a .38 caliber Charter Arms revolver with a two inch barrel.
As described before, the gun turned over to the investigators as being
Faulkner's service revolver was a damaged and dirty .38 caliber Smith and
Wesson with a four inch barrel. The gun Cook claims that is passenger
Kenneth Freeman was carrying was identified simply as being a .38 caliber
revolver. And, last, but not least, Arnold Beverly claims to have been given
a .38 caliber Policeman's Special, as well as his own .22 caliber revolver.

At 3:52:36, one minute and 28 seconds after Faulkner's final radio
transmission and 9 seconds after the first radio call in that a police
officer was shot, Officer's James Forbes and Robert Shoemaker reported from
the scene. They claim that Mumia was sitting on the sidewalk with his gun
just inches away.  Shoemaker claims Mumia reached for the gun, he kicked
Mumia in the throat, and then he kicked the gun six inches to a foot away.
He then claims to have told Forbes to watch Mumia while he assisted to
Faulkner (6/19/82;116-117;145).

Forbes reported things differently. He claims to have picked up two guns,
which he says he found within feet of Mumia almost immediately after
arriving on the scene (6/19/82;154;162-163). However, at the suppression
hearing, Forbes said that, when he picked up Mumia's gun, it was only a foot
away from Mumia (6/2/82;2.4), that he did not see Shoemaker kick Mumia or
the revolver (2.5). Forbes also testified that Mumia was on the curb in
front of the VW with Faulkner about two or three feet behind him (2.13).
Forbes also testified at the suppression hearing that he found a four inch
barrel revolver (supposedly Faulkner's) about five or six feet away from the
bottom of Faulkner's body (6/2/82;2.7).

According to radio police transcripts, Forbes and Shoemaker's account of
what happened was inaccurate. After their arrival transmission, flashes and
inquiries came over the airwaves about suspects fleeing the scene with the
police officer's gun. It wasn't until some 14 minutes after Shoemaker's and
Forbes' arrival on the scene that the first report of the suspect being in
custody came and that the weapon was recovered.

Another major problem was that Forbes did not turn the weapons over at the
scene to investigators. Instead, he went to the Roundhouse at 5:25 am, a
full two hours after he claims to have recovered them, he turns in the guns
(8/2/95;124).

Forbes also testified at the 1982 trial that the five spent casings from the
Charter Arms revolver he says he found at the scene had been four Winchester
.38 +P's and one Smith and Wesson. The Firearms Identification Unit report
dated 1/5/82, however, recorded that the casings removed from the Charter
Arms revolver were four Federal fired cartridge cases, caliber .38 Special,
and a Smith and Wesson fired cartridge case, caliber .38 Special.

CONCLUSION

The physical evidence, along with police and ballistics reports, do not
match the prosecution's theory of how the shooting occurred. The witnesses'
testimony and police statements do not match with the physical evidence. The
excuses of the prosecution and police officials does not account for the
actions of the officers involved, nor does it justify the incompetence of
the investigation itself. And, the sloppiness of the police handy work is
not consistent with the great concern expressed by the prosecution over the
death of one of their own.

It is a sad affair when a police department, backed by a crooked D.A.'s
office and the Fraternal Order of Police, will go to such lengths to bury
the facts in a case where a police officer is murdered. The true assassin
has come forward and admitted to his egregious actions, but it is dismissed
by the courts as being too late.

This is not the first time that the Philadelphia Police Department has been
involved in sordid affairs. It is not the first time that the city's
judiciary has done all it could to conceal the crime. It is not the first
time that the D.A.'s office has turned a blind eye to the corruption of
those sworn to protect and uphold the law.

***********************************************************

Importance of the Arnold Beverly Confession to the Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal


by Lori Allen


Mumia Abu-Jamal has been on death row since he was convicted of murdering
Police Officer Daniel Faulkner in the early morning hours of December 9,
1981. This conviction came after a very one-sided story was presented to a
stacked jury by a corrupt prosecutor before a racially biased judge. The
evidence in this report is not mere accusations, but a corroborated and
documented account of the events that unfolded because of the criminality of
the most notorious police force in the United States. It also serves o
expose the people who, either deliberately or out of fear, helped to keep
the truth hidden about the innocence of Mumia Abu-Jamal.
EVIDENCE OF THE REAL KILLER
The man who shot and killed Officer Faulkner, along with another man-Kenneth
Freeman, is Arnold Beverly. Beverly was hired by the mob and corrupt
elements in the center city Philadelphia Police Department to shoot and kill
Faulkner. Here is his confession:

I, ARNOLD R. BEVERLY, state that the following facts are true and correct:
I was present when police officer Daniel Faulkner was shot and killed in the
early morning hours of December 9, 1981 near the corner of Locust and 13th
Streets. I have personal knowledge that Mumia Abu-Jamal did not shoot police
officer Faulkner.
I was hired, along with another guy, and paid to shoot and kill Faulkner. I
had heard that Faulkner was a problem for the mob and corrupt policemen
because he interfered with the graft and payoffs made to allow illegal
activity including prostitution, gambling, drugs without prosecution in the
center city area.
Faulkner was shot in the back and then in the face before Jamal came on the
scene. Jamal had nothing to do with the shooting.
Before the shooting, I was shown a picture of Faulkner and told that
Faulkner was supposed to check something at Johnny Ds (at 13th and Locust)
sometime in the early morning hours of December 9.
Two of us were hired for the shooting so that either of us could take the
opportunity to make the hit, get the job done, and leave. The other guy gave
me a .38 caliber policeman's special and I was also carrying my own .22
caliber revolver.
I waited at the speedline entrance at the north east of corner of Locust and
13th at the parking lot, I was wearing a green (camouflage) army jacket. The
other guy waited on the south side of Locust street east of 13th Street
towards Camac Street.
While I was waiting at the speedline entrance for Faulkner to arrive at the
location, I saw police officers in the area. Two undercover policemen were
standing on the west side of 13th north of Locust. Also a uniformed police
officer was sitting in a car in the corner of the parking lot, They were
there while the shooting of Faulkner took place. I was not worried about the
police being there since I believed that since I was hired by the mob to
shoot and kill Faulkner, any police Officers on the scene would be there to
help me.
After a while I saw Faulkner get out of a small police car parked behind a
VW parked on Locust Street, east of 13th St. Faulkner was alone. He got out
of the police car end went up to the vw.
I heard a shot ring out coming from east on Locust Street, Faulkner fell on
his knee on the sidewalk next to the VW. I heard another shot and it must
have grazed my left shoulder. I felt something hard on my left shoulder. I
grabbed at my shoulder and got blood on my hand.
I ran across Locust Street and stood over Faulkner, who had fallen backwards
on the sidewalk, I shot Faulkner in the face at close range. Jamal was shot
shortly after that by a uniformed police officer who arrived on the scene.
Cop cars came from all directions. Foot patrol also arrived. I saw a white
shirt getting out of a car in the middle of the 13th & Locust intersection
just as I was going down to the speedline steps.
I left the area underground through the speedline system and by
prearrangement met a police officer who assisted me when I exited the
speedline underground about three blocks away. A car was waiting for me and
I left the center city area.
The foregoing is stated subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904
relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
ARNOLD R. BEVERLY 6-8-99

This is not the first time that someone was reported wearing a green army
jacket. On the scene that morning, Mumia was wearing a red and blue quilted
waist-length jacket (property receipt 854920) and William Cook was wearing a
dark blue nehru style coat with silver buttons (property receipt 854919).
According to William Cook's affidavit, Kenneth Freeman was a passenger in
his Volkswagon and was wearing a green army jacket. William Singletary
testified during the 1995 PCRA that the passenger of the VW was wearing a
long army overcoat and was the shooter (8/11/95; 235).
As well, two police officers on the scene and two prosecution witnesses also
reported that a person or people was/were wearing (a) green jacket(s) at the
scene of the incident. Police Officer James Forbes along with another
Officer was first on the scene. In his initial statement on 12/9/81, Forbes
stated that Mumia "...was wearing a green jacket. I could see blood on the
right side of his shirt." In his statement dated 12/16/81, Forbes continued
to claim that, upon arrival at the scene, he saw a black male (purportedly
Mumia) sitting at the curb wearing a green army jacket.
The second officer to buttress the story of a black male in a green army
jacket was Officer Trombetta. In his initial statement on 12/9/81, he said
"while we had him sitting in the waiting room he said he was shot. That was
when we discovered he was bleeding. He had one of those heavy green army
jackets on and you couldn't see any blood at the time because of it." In his
second interview dated 12/17/81, he again suggests Mumia was wearing a green
army jacket.
The two prosecution witnesses were Albert Magilton and Michael Scanlon. In
1995, Magilton wrongly described Mumia as wearing a green army field jacket
when he was questioned by defense investigator Michael Newman. Scanlan
described the driver of the VW as wearing a green army coat (6/25/82; 8.26),
but he was confused about who shot Officer Faulkner. When he was asked to
identify if the shooter was in the back of the police wagon, he said he
thought that the man whom he saw was the man who was driving the VW
(6/25/82; 8.46).
The confusion about the green jacket becomes much clearer when aligned with
Arnold Beverly's statement and the witnesses' descriptions of the incident.
Beverly stated that he crossed south on Locust St. from the speed line
entrance in front of the infamous parking lot and finished the job he was
sent to do. Cynthia White and Albert Magilton, both were prosecution
witnesses and stated that they saw a black male crossing the street from the
same direction moments before shooting broke out. Mumia's own recollection
of the events that unfolded 12/9/81 in an affidavit released in spring of
2001, places him in his cab parked on 13th St. adjacent to the parking lot,
not in it, writing in his fares log book when the shooting broke out. He was
not facing the scene, so he used his mirrors to scan the scene. This is when
he spots his brother, goes to the scene, and is shot by a uniformed Police
Officer who was already there.
There is even more corraborating evidence to Arnold Beverly's detailed
confession. An entry in the medical examiner's log recorded a statement made
by Sergeant Westerman, a homicide detective, to an investigator in the
Medical examiner's office by the name Stefan Makuch at about 9am on 12/9/81,
just 5 hours after the shooting. Amongst other things, Sgt. Westerman was
asked by Makuch about who had shot Mumia. According to Makuch, Westerman
first consulted other officers in the homicide unit before answering "the
assailant himself was shot subsequently by arriving reinforcements."
At an in-camera hearing during the course of the trial on 6/28/82, Sgt.
Westerman denied that he had said by whom Mumia was shot (6/28/82; 18-19).
This evidence plainly suggests that the general belief of the Homicide
office some 5 hours after the shooting was that Mumia was shot by arriving
officers. This evidence was excluded from the original trial of an in-camera
session: so Beverly could not have been aware that this evidence existed
when he came forward and confessed.
At the trial, Dr. Hoyer, the Assistant Medical Examiner, shed even more
light to the dark, vagueness of the prosecution's tale, although not brought
to light until recent times. He gave testimony to the fact that the injury
sustained to Faulkner's left knee was consistent to Faulkner falling on his
left knee as was described by Beverly's affidavit (6/25/82; 181). It should
be noted here that the prosecution described Faulkner being shot in the back
and then he spun around to fire off one shot at Mumia as he fell backwards
onto the pavement.
The police radio transcripts also serve great purpose in giving detail as to
the inconsistency of the scenario presented by prosecution at the 1982
trial. Faulkner's call for a wagon, his last radio transmission came at
3:51:08.  At 3:52:27, a report comes in from police officers Wakshul and
Trombetta that a passer by reported a police officer had been shot. Officers
Shoemaker and Forbes radio in from the scene at 3:52:36. Flashes and
enquiries come over the airwaves that the suspects had fled the scene and
they had the police officer's gun. Some fourteen minutes after the arrival
transmition of Officer Forbesand Shoemaker, the first report came in that
the suspect was in custody and that the weapon was recovered at the scene.
It is easy to see how this reaction could happen when it is testified to by
Alphonso Giordano at the suppression hearing that a white cab driver (by
default, Robert Chobert, a prosecution witness) stated that "the man that
shot the policeman ran away, and he was a MOVE member" (6/1/82; 70). William
Singletary also told Highway Patrol Officer Vernon Jones about the shooter
having fled the scene.
When the information is compiled of the police discussing a shooter wearing
a green army jacket, when the police radio is reporting a shooter has fled
the scene, and when a homicide detective is recanting his statement about
who shot Mumia, the question begs to be answered: Why would the police have
the need to switch up so much and what were they trying to hide?
A police officer is dead and his fellow officers are making screw up after
screw up in the investigation. It is apparent that Beverly's statement is
true: Center City police were corrupt and there were police on the scene
when Daniel Faulkner, their fellow officer, was executed. It wouldn't be the
first time or the last time Philadelphia's men in blue would be accused,
indicted, or convicted for corruption.
Weinglass and Williams sabotage the case
It is one thing to be set up by strangers; it is quite another to be
betrayed by those you trust. When there is a man whose very life is on the
line, who has mountains of evidence not only pointing to, but proving his
innocence, there is but one defense: Mumia Abu-Jamal is innocent. Indeed,
expose the biased nature of the railroded trial, expose the lies of a
corrupt police force and city judiciary, expose the incopetence of
court-imposed representation, but say the man is innocent!
To Mumia's face, to all of his supporters, to the family and loved ones,
Weinglass and Williams claimed belief in his innocence, but their JOB was to
convey it and offer it's proof to the courts. Instead, in the last acts that
Williams claims to be in defense of Mumia, a book was published... Executing
Justice. This book was so harmful to Mumia that those who quote its pages
most are in the District Attorney's office, the office of the Fraternal
Order of Police, and most unfortunately, in the decisions denying the
acceptance of the explosive offer of proof, Arnold Beverly's confession, by
the appelate judges as to why they deny relief for Mumia in light of these -
to the public - new revelations.
The book has worked as a tool of the state, the exact opposite of what
Williams purports its purpose to have been. There is little confusion as to
why it is so valuable to the prosecution after reading just this small
portion of the introduction:
"Ah, ambiguity, West's proclaimation (of Mumia's innocence) begs the
question: is Mumia's stature as a writer, the 'truth' of his message,
unworthy of attention if he is guilty of firing a bullet into the brain of a
young police officer? Does guilt for such an act necessarily muffle this
voice for social justice? Or can such a guilty man nonetheless still speak
to us, clearly and credibly? Indeed, even if his guilt somehow justifies
extinguishing his right to remain alive, does it extinguish the worth of his
message? Does Mumia's worthiness, in short, as a voice for the voiceless
depend upon his innocence? If so, why?" Daniel R. Williams, Executing
Justice (St. Martin's Press, 2001).
From cover to cover, it only expresses assumptions, for the author of this
book, along with Weinglass, failed to get one important thing from their
client in the history of their defense in this case, Mumia's account of what
happened to him on December 9, 1981. They never bothered to find out what he
saw, where he was, or even when he arrived on the scene. The whole case was
an assumption. The whole book was an assumption. Every argument about the
events that unfolded 12/9/81 were based on what they assumed happened. And
to make such assumptions when representing a client who sits on death row,
on top of two stayed death warrants, is more than assinign, it is homicidal.
The nature of this book was not disclosed to Mumia. As Williams states in
the final pages of Executing Justice, this was supposedly "to avoid even the
insinuation that he (Mumia) had a hand in it." When Mumia did find out and
asked Weinglass if he had known about it, he denied it, but added that he
thought the book would be beneficial for Mumia's plight. Due to the fact
that Mumia relied upon Weinglass and Williams legal guidance, he was unaware
that his own legal team was sending him down stream.
Much of the book contained priveleged information that Mumia had not given
authorization for its release. In an attempt to halt the publication of
Executing Justice, Mumia filed a lawsuit based on many of the innacuracies
and misgivings, such as the assumption of how events unfolded 12/9/81 (layed
out to the public with detail as fact when Williams had no idea of Mumia's
account of what happened), as well as the breech in the attorney client
priviledge (Mumia Abu-Jamal V. St. Martin's Press and Attorney Daniel R.
Williams, USDC (WD PA) Case No. 01-540). The book, however, suceeded in
getting published.
The publishing of Executing Justice was not nearly the only incident that
Mumia had to deal with, for the relationship with the legal team was already
detioriorating. The book was merely the final blow.
Even more damning was the "strategy" that was offered to the courts, as many
have offered as a defense for Weinglass and Williams as Mumia's defense
counselors. This legal team had knowledge of Arnold Beverly's existence
since they were hired according to Rachel Wolkenstein's affidavit filed by
Mumia's new legal team (Wolkenstein assisted Mumia by investigating leads in
the case since the late 1980's, who later joined Weinglass and Williams
around the time of the 1995 PCRA). As William's stated on page 329 of his
book, Weinglass and Williams never intended to further investigate the
information provided by Arnold Beverly, but instead manuevered things from
the beginning "to push this witness on to the trash heap". Mumia however,
was lead to believe that it was being further investigated when it was not.
Beverly's confession was not the only evidence of innocence that had been
pushed onto the trash heap though. They discouraged Mumia from taking the
stand at the 1995 PCRA, thus suppressing his version of the incident and
raising suspicion, justifiably, as to why an "innocent man" would fail to
testify in post conviction proceedings when the burden of proof would then
fall upon the condemned. Mumia is a very careful, insightful, and
knowledgable defendant. He has not been swayed in his insistence of
innocence. He deals extremely well under pressure. There is no rational
expanation as to why Mumia would be a bad person or witness to put on the
stand.
Another witness discouraged from testifying was Mumia's brother, William
Cook, who, according to the prosecution, was the only other person involved
in the incident. In 1995, Cook had already given his account to the defense
that both he and his brother had nothing to do with the shooting of Officer
Faulkner and that his friend and business partner Kenneth Freeman or
"Poppi", was a passenger in the Volkswagonand later confided in Cook that he
was part of a hit to take out Faulkner. Weinglass also discouraged Cook from
taking the stand. As well, Weinglass told the court that Cook has
"disappeared" because he was fearful of being arrested on outstanding
warrants. This was a blatant lie, Cook and Wolkenstein both state in their
affidavits that Weinglass always had contact information for Cook.
Discouraging witnesses from testifying was not their only trick. They also
diverted witnesses whom they did put on the stand from detailing evidence
pointing to Beverly and Freeman as shooters. William Singletary had given
his account of seeing Faulkner get shot and the shooter fleeing the scene.
When Singletary was called to the stand, however, Weinglass told the court
that his recollection of the shooting was innaccurate. Weinglass then
proceeded to only question  him about the police threats and intimidation,
nothing more.
Arnold Howard testified in 1995 that he loaned his driver's license
aplication to Kenneth Freeman on 12/9/81. That license was found on Officer
Faulkner's person. Weinglass had alredy discovered that Howard and Freeman
had been detained and that Cynthia White picked Feeman out of a line up
twice. But Weinglass never questioned Howard about this on the stand.
Why would Weinglass and Williams choose to avoid presenting direct evidence
that Freeman was involved? Why would they not get an affidavit from Beverly
if it could free their client? They were fearful for their lives. In
Wolkenstein's affidavit , along with an investigator who worked briefly on
the case before the 1995 PCRA by the name of Mike Newman, it was revealed
that Weinglass had received a death threat from Ron Freeman, Kenneth
Freeman's brother, that he would be "dead meat" if he pursued evidence that
Freeman was a shooter. This death threat came from the warden's office of
the prison where Ron Freeman was incarcerated.
It also does not take a rocket scientist to understand that a proven corrupt
police force involved in an assassination of a fellow officer would go to
great lengths to hide what they'd done. It was very clear to many of the
individuals who are close to Mumia and knew Weinglass that he was scared, to
say the least.
The defense presented by Weinglass and Williams was not a special strategy
they comprised to get Mumia a new trial or to overturn his conviction. It
was a straegy to go through the motions of a defense, pray to get him off on
a technicality without having to present evidence of innocence, and hope to
save their reputations by presenting evidence of innocence to the public,
while hiding it from the courts. Their strategy was to save their own necks
while tying to find some legal loophole to help their client. They put their
own self interests before that of their clients. In a letter to Mumia about
Executing Justice written by Weinglass, he says "He (Dan Williams) also,
unbelievably, goes into the witness who we blocked from coming forward (I
really objected to this since it has not surfaced; Dan thinks it will and
this is a pre-emptive strike)".
When the new legal team came in and filed the confession of Arnold Beverly,
the "pre-emptive strike was used against Mumia. That book has done nothing
but harm to Mumia. As a matter of fact, it has proven to be one of the
greatest assets the prosecution has had. It is a tool of the state. It has
been used to divide the movement to fee Mumia between those who fight for
Mumia and those who fight to save Weinglass' reputation.
Although indulging in the opportunity it afforded the courts to keep the
death machine steadily rolling on Mumia, they did agree that the book proved
Weinglass and Williams to have defaulted their obligation to their client
based on rule 1.8 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct that one
cannot publish materials about a client they are representing. Thus, after
that final blow, the legal team was fired.
Conclusion
Mumia Abu-Jamal was available. In this system, that is all you need to be
locked up. On December 9th, 1981, in Center City Philadelphia, being a vocal
advocate of justice against police brutality, being a former Black Panther
with an 800-plus-page FBI file, and being an unapolegetic supporter of the
MOVE Organization made Mumia all too tempting of a victim to pin the murder
of a cop on, especially when his brother was the one pulled over at the
scene.
Time and time again, Mumia is used as a scapegoat, first by the police, then
by the courts, and now by his own defense representation. He was locked up
and framed because the police needed to pin this murder they stained their
hands with blood on. They needed an open and shut case to throw off the
scent of the blood trail. And Mumia is still in jail because two lawyers bit
off more than they could chew and feared for their lives and their quality
of living.
The only problem is that when a lawyer takes a client's case, his client is
#1. In this case, Weinglass and Williams had a #1 client and they blew it.
Their only strategy was to get your sympathy.


__________________________________________________

TacticalMedia mailing list
Archivio TM List http://squat.net/tmc/maillist.html
TacticalMedia@squat.net
https://squat.net/mailman/listinfo/tacticalmedia
__________________________________________________