*I wrote this when Maureen Faulkner was media touring for her book 'Murdered by Mumia.' I think it is relevant now because of the ruling that was just released regarding the case.
When the gavel hits the block it doesn't mean that justice has been served, rather it simply means that a human being has made—or authorized—a decision. As people, we are all inherently inclined to make mistakes and at times even purposely do that which is unjust. This is no abstract philosophy but a basic human understanding of our nature. Despite the simplicity of such reasoning, there are those who wish to manipulate a situation in order for it to cater to their given ideological adherence. Alternatively, there are those who wish to distort facts or make up "facts" entirely in order to satisfy their own personal agenda. Indeed, on both sides of the spectrum this is strongly evident in the now 26-year-old case of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the Pennsylvania man accused of murdering Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner in late 1981. This past December, Officer Faulkner's wife decided to coauthor a book with conservative shock jock Michael Smerconish entitled Murdered by Mumia, supposedly to set the record straight on this Hollywood cause celebre. Faulkner and Smerconish then went on a major publicity stunt frenzy, namely with their conservative media buddies, to promote the book. As a staunch advocate of Mr. Abu-Jamal in a trial I believe to be emblematic of the great injustices in our court systems, I decided to monitor as much of the publicity as I could. I was expecting deceit and propaganda but to my surprise I received a torrent of rhetoric that I never expected, even from the ideologically blind.
The first Faulkner appearance I caught was on day one of her media tour during which she was a guest on the popular conservative television show The O'Reilly Factor. A stranger to intellectualism and credibility (he claims that the liberal agenda involves prostitutes and serial killers), host Bill O'Reilly has never been one to back statements with concrete facts. The Faulkner interview proved to be no different, as O'Reilly simply stated basic mantras of his own phrasing for those opposed to Abu-Jamal. He introduced the story with a relatively lengthy rant about how every appellate court has thus far upheld the conviction before Faulkner went onto say that those who support Mumia Abu-Jamal "know he is guilty" but "want to put him on a pedestal for the Left." At this point the interview seemed like the mundane conservative perspective on the case. What followed was simply nonstop stupidity and lack of information about the case.
"There are no conservatives or even moderate people on this guy's side." Mrs. Faulkner had no problem with this statement of O’Reilly’s, although she certainly should have considering that she has orchestrated an international boycott of all those who support Mumia Abu-Jamal or at least suggest that his trial was unfair. A long list can be found on the website of the Fraternal Order of Police, inclusive of moderates and conservatives. Mr. O'Reilly must also be unaware of his fellow conservative Stuart Taylor, Jr., an individual who has written extensively on the injustices of the trial of Mumia Abu-Jamal. In spite of this utter blind ignorance, one might regard this as extremely intelligent were they to compare it with what O'Reilly would say later on (to which Maureen Faulkner once again agreed). Those who support Mumia Abu-Jamal, says Mr. O'Reilly, are "the anarchists, they're the people who want America to be defeated at every level." It isn't about Danny Faulkner, insists O'Reilly, "they hate the country."
According to Bill O'Reilly, these individuals support Mumia Abu-Jamal because they hate the United States or they are "these stupid movie stars" who are uneducated in relation to the case. In all honesty, O'Reilly is probably right about many of Abu-Jamal's advocates. However, there are those of us who have read the court transcripts, who have analyzed the case with an open mind from every angle. Furthermore, O'Reilly unveils his hypocrisy regarding this matter by stating, "I don't know what happened here but I have to go with the system." By such logic, those who are skeptical of the system–the very system which has consistently failed us—are fools, but those who blindly "go with the system" are legitimate and credible sources. Bill O'Reilly hopes that the current three-judge panel reviewing the case rules in Maureen Faulkner's favor, but why when he admits that he does not know what happened?
Prior to the insanity on The O'Reilly Factor, Faulkner appeared with Michael Smerconish on a far more balanced Today Show. At one point host Matt Lauer pressed Smerconish about his involvement with the book and the possibility of personal gain to which Smerconish barked that if one simply takes a look at the cover of the book it states that it is not-for-profit. Upon Mr. Smerconish's recommendation I took a look at the cover of the book myself. On the bottom of the back cover, Smerconish is described as a popular talk show host. On the front of the book Smerconish's name is in large print and while Maureen Faulkner went all over the media to advertise her side of the story, her little puppy Smerconish followed her, raving and ranting the same little slogans over and over again. Michael Smerconish is a nobody; I couldn't tell you who he was until this book came out and although some of my conservative friends may have caught him as a guest host on this show or that at one point or another, he certainly didn't have the publicity he does now. Big deal the book isn't for profit Smerconish; show me the ratings on your radio show during December. In fact, Smerconish himself mentioned the increase of visitors to his website while he paraded around with Maureen Faulkner on the major media networks.
A near universally recurrent theme of the mentioning of appeal after appeal being turned down and the notion that he must be guilty if he is still incarcerated 26 years later was echoed over and over again by right wing media hosts. Several issues are prevalent in relation to these statements. Primarily, these hosts were ignoring—or more likely were unaware of—the fact that progress has been made. Yes, Mumia Abu-Jamal is still in prison, however he was sentenced to be executed by the state in 1982. 26 years later Abu-Jamal is still alive; a clear indication of the courts acknowledging that they at least cannot be certain that the initial ruling was the correct one. In the 1995 appeals case, the same judge who sentenced Mumia Abu-Jamal to death in 1982 granted a stay on his execution. In 2001, his death sentence was overturned. Currently, those who follow the case desperately await the aforementioned three-judge panel's decision regarding the initial trial. One who is well-informed with regard to the case can hardly say that it is as simple as appeal after appeal being turned down. It is not often that justices are willing to condemn their fellow justices. In turn, any progress is hardly something to merely shrug our shoulders to.
Unfortunately, the age of a case has little do with justice. Geronimo Pratt serves as a prime example to this. Pratt spent 27 years in prison after being accused of multiple murders under the FBI's COINTELPRO operation. In 1997, his convictions were overturned after inaccuracies in the case were revealed alongside the exposure of the COINTELPRO papers. Of course many people will not have the luck of Pratt, despite their innocence, but his case is evidence that 26 years does not mean it is time to give up.
"Appeal after appeal," interestingly the same quote that Abu-Jamal's initial prosecutor Joseph McGill used, excessively simplifies a very complicated judicial process. I am not suggesting that everyone, or even most people, incarcerated are innocent of the crime that they have been accused of committing but one reason appeals processes are so faulty is because new information cannot be introduced. In Abu-Jamal's case, this means that although a barrage of new evidence and information has been revealed and exposed, this must be kept out of the appeals process and can only be heard in a courtroom in the event of a new trial. That being said, there were of course plenty of problems with the initial case yet one must bear in mind that this limits that which can be discussed on the basis of ludicrous legal procedure.
There were other consistencies in the conservative media that only added to their lack of concern for their truth as well as their transparent lack of knowledge pertaining to the case. Most notable were Smerconish's continuous tirades of Abu-Jamal declaring "I shot the M-Fer and I hope the M-Fer dies!" (sic) in addition to the numerous witnesses who testified against Abu-Jamal on behalf of the prosecution. Glenn Beck, some random guy with a show called "Morning Joe" and others never pressed Smerconish about the alleged confession although the job of the media is to expose the truth. What is interesting about this explicit and belligerent supposed confession is that it essentially screams "bullshit!" The hospital security guard to which Smerconish repeatedly alluded to supposedly hand-wrote the statement down on December 9, 1981, the very same night that Mumia apparently screamed it in the emergency room. However, this guard waited until February to say anything about it to the police and, when pressed for the handwritten note in court, the prosecution presented an unsigned, typewritten note. The verbatim words of Abu-Jamal's arresting officer who remained with him at the hospital that night: "During this time, the negro male made no comments." The first mention of this "confession" was in February by another Philadelphia police officer. Strangely, none of the other 15-20 officers present at the time ever mentioned it and the officer who did waited two months to do so.
Michael Smerconish is an attorney who knows the power of confessions while simultaneously being educated in the power of an attorney to distort facts to those who are unfamiliar with a case. He also knows that witnesses who support the prosecution's argument make everything seem cut-and-dry, even when the truth is anything but. On November 26, 2007, one of the prosecution's witnesses, Veronica Jones, sent a letter to The Today Show, the first show to cover Murdered by Mumia, declaring her belief that Abu-Jamal is innocent. Jones, like other "witnesses" was a prostitute who magically watched a lengthy rap sheet disappear in exchange for her testimony against Abu-Jamal in 1982. In the 1995 PCRA hearings, she was arrested while testifying on the stand, this time on the side of the defendant, for an unrelated charge.
Michael Smerconish is repeatedly telling a story to the media that was sketchy in 1982 and has since been completely discredited, even on the basis of science (although conservatives conveniently don't believe in science, as evident in issues such as global warming and evolution). Smerconish decided to tell those who would listen that Abu-Jamal stood over Daniel Faulkner shooting him. "The ballistics match," says Smerconish. "Four eyewitnesses." Actually, the ballistics don't match. The bullet found in Daniel Faulkner's body was that of a .44, Abu-Jamal's registered gun was a .38. Based on where the bullets were lodged in the two mens' bodies, if Abu-Jamal did indeed shoot Officer Faulkner then he fired in self defense. Four eyewitnesses, briefly discussed before, said they saw the shooter run down an alley. He was described in a noticeably different physical manner and stature than that of Mr. Abu-Jamal. Mumia Abu-Jamal was arrested right at the scene of the crime, tending to his wound.
The conservative media found it most convenient to simply ignore the latest revelation in the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal: crime scene photos that have only recently surfaced to the availability to the public eye. These photos display tampering of evidence, such as improper procedure in handling the guns at the crime scene as well as Officer Faulkner's hat being purposely misplaced. Perhaps most troubling is the lack of bullet marks that should be on the sidewalk were the prosecution's idea of the scenario to be true. Both Faulkner and Smerconish were somewhat stumped and comical when prompted by the less ideologically bound media. Faulkner stated nothing more than "where have these photos been for the last 26 years?" while Smerconish of course had to go into more explosive shock-jock rhetoric, like "Every year it's something new." Of course, much like their book, they just kind of ranted without any solidifying explanation to contrast advocates of Abu-Jamal.
Dana Pico, a conservative political writer, wrote in response to a fellow writer’s endorsement of Abu-Jamal's cause "Sorry, but there is no doubt: Mumia Abu-Jamal is guilty." Like most of her conservative comrades, Pico displayed her ignorance about the case when discussing the inconsistencies between the bullet found in Faulkner's body and the type of gun that Abu-Jamal was licensed to own. Pico's response: "In a city which has seen 370 murders this year alone, the vast majority of which were committed by people who were carrying firearms illegally... perhaps Mr. Abu-Jamal might have been packing something other than that which he was licensed to carry?" Evidently, Ms. Pico has little regard for her reputation as a credible journalist, since the gun that the prosecution claims Abu-Jamal had emptied was his licensed .38.
In mid-2006 a man named John Hayden wrote a book entitled Mumia Abu-Jamal: The Patron Saint of American Cop Killers. You might not be able to judge a book by its cover but, like Murdered by Mumia, the cover of this book speaks wonders about the book's credibility and misinformation. On the front cover, a supposed quote from this "patron saint" is referenced: "I shot the motha fuckah and I hope the motha fuckah DIES!" (sic, emphasis his). Not only have we already dismissed that this confession was never stated, Hayden's decision to write in a poorly constructed style of Ebonics displays his racist sentiment, especially pertaining to a very articulate man.
What Hayden did is terrible but it is no less terrible than the rest of the conservative slander, including from Mrs. Faulkner herself. Faulkner has stated that Abu-Jamal sneered at her when her husband's bloody shirt was held up in the courtroom. The only problem was that he was not present in the courtroom on the day that she claimed this occurred. Having read excerpts from her book, I have discovered purposeful distortions, such as her taking the quote "political powers grows from the barrel of a gun" completely out of context by no case of accident. Prosecutor McGill's purposeful misrepresentation of the quote stated by Abu-Jamal has long been exposed and Faulkner's personal use of it simply indicates that she does not have any concrete or reliable evidence to sway people to her side.
I find it both impractical and inappropriate for one to blindly formulate a perspective on the basis of an ideological agenda. Those who hate police officers should not simply endorse Abu-Jamal because he was accused of killing a cop, we shouldn't just play the race card and this isn't about anarchy. It is not so much an admission as it is an acceptance that most of Mumia Abu-Jamal's supporters could not tell you two reasons why he should not currently be sitting in a prison cell. With that in mind, the same is true on the side of the opposition. The vast majority of those who are against Abu-Jamal are the blind Right, police officers and their staunch advocates.
Michael Smerconish likes to boast that Abu-Jamal's supporters haven't read the trial transcripts while he has. So have I. And if Smerconish can say that about Abu-Jamal's supporters then I can say the same about most of his opponents. Smerconish makes the statement because he knows that most people won't take the time to read the transcripts, regardless of their political standpoint, but some of us will. I have followed this case closely for years. I have read all the material from the farthest Right to the farthest Left and everything in between. My question is, if Smerconish and Faulkner really believe Abu-Jamal is guilty (which I don't think they do) then why do they keep spreading this proven misinformation? I firmly believe that Mumia Abu-Jamal is innocent and I could still construct a better argument that he is guilty than they have. I followed Smerconish and Faulkner's media rally because I thought I could expose the conservative conglomerates for what they really are. But I uncovered something much deeper: if we observe what Abu-Jamal's critics are saying, it will do nothing more than be further proof of his innocence. While there are many shortcomings and domestic problems in the contemporary United States, we have also made a great deal of political progress. Here's to hoping the new year finally brings about justice for Mumia Abu-Jamal.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
