Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Asad112 (talk | contribs) at 20:39, 16 February 2006 (→Category:American murderers). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Moore's statements

I'm revising the statement about Michael Moore, but I want some discussion about where Moore's statements should go under. The site which is referenced (poor in their analysis at best, most is politically driven) takes a statement from Moore in "Dude, Where's My Country?" and misinterprets it to paint Moore as being in favor of Mumia's sentence. Moore suggests that Mumia probably killed the officer, but was mostly in favor of the common reasons for releasing Mumia, unfair trial, abhorrence of the death penalty, etc. In his book, it appears he mostly tries to emphasize the reasons why Mumia doesn't deserve the sentence he had, and not that Mumia was guilty, as it was portrayed. Besides that, Stupid White Men is very informal, and most of Moore's statements are meant to inject some humor into politics. Therefore, I don't necessarily believe Moore fits in the "Detractors" section. If people agree with this, please move it. 66.251.26.115 06:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the comments, which were taken from Moore's book Dude, Where's My Country?, page 189.

POV

"Although all five bullets in Abu-Jamal's gun were spent, the police didn't conduct forensic tests to ascertain whether the weapon had been fired in the immediate past (why would they neglect to carry out such a critical process in an alleged murder case of any kind?). However, there is no conclusive test to determine if a gun has been fired recently."

My problem is with the "(why would they...any kind)" statement. It is an obvious POV and a stupid one at that, the next sentence says the test doesn't exist! Which makes me wonder why the entire section on ballistics is there. Maybe it should just say something along the lines that it is unsure when the gun was fired, but no forensic tests exist to tell us what happened. I'll leave it up for discussion though.

--It's been a week or so and nobody has changed it or discussed it, so I am taking it down now.

"Jamal supporters claim that Jackson would later be disbarred for incompetence."

This is an example of wikipedia's npov policy being carried out too far, to the point where meaning gets muddled. Either this person was disbarred or he wasn't. If he was, saying so isn't biased, it's factual.

(Old discussion)

Acording to forensic evidence at the trial both Abu Jamal and Faulkner were shot with .45 calibre bullets. But the prosecution claimed the murder weapon was Abu Jamal's .38 calibre gun. (Faulkner also carried a .38).

"Forensic evidence at the trial". This was based off one of the forensic scientists notes next to the bullet. It was his best offhand guess at the caliber of the bullet.

I think there's some information worth looking at on the Amnesty International site. But I am a dyed in the wool commie pinko crazy longhair.  ;-) --KQ

This is a perfect example of an article that (1) people will love to fight about, (2) people will want to be biased, but (3) we can make unbiased. The article as it stands is clearly biased in favor of the view that Mumia is innocent (or guilt is unproven). For shame. --Larry_Sanger

One way to do this would be to demand things be cited. It drives me crazy to read bizarre allegations, like "somebody heard the judge say the n word" with 1) no name 2) no citation and 3) the original allegation itself is hearsay. This technique can be abused. Forcing at least a reference for where it came from would limit duplicity.

Well, it is worth noting that Amnesty International doesn't attempt to claim he's innocent; they just state that they do not believe in the death penalty. They also refuse to call him a political prisoner. Koyaanis Qatsi

I tried to make this NPOV and bent over backwards to change as little as possible. The article is still biased in his favor but now is a better encyclopedia article and less biased.

Things I changed. The description of the 2001 appeal did not mention the affirmation of the conviction, only the point about sending back for reconsideration (not overturning) the death sentence, for instance. I also added the facts of the case, 4 am, pistol registered to Abu Jamal by his side, brother being arrested, which were also not mentioned. I believe none of these facts is disputed. I also added one pro conviction web site, apparently the only one there is, but quite complete. Ortolan88 18:58 Aug 13, 2002 (PDT)

Worse than that, I don't think it does a good job of characterizing anyone's arguments. All the Free Mumia stuff seems to come out of that one linked article, nearly verbatim. DanKeshet

That's what comes of editing while bending over backwards. The article is much better now, improved by all three of us. Ortolan88

Yeah, I definitely think it's getting better. But jeez, there may be only one or two Daniel Faulkner memorial sites out there, but they're web design is far superior to all the Free Mumia sites put together. All the information on the case and on the man is buried deep beneath slogans. Can anybody find the man's birthdate? That seems like the most basic information to have in an encyclopaedia article. DanKeshet

As a bystander dropping by, I thought this was a pretty balanced introduction to the topic.

Looks NPOV at this point, and I think he's guilty, or at least he did something within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's definition of murder (I also think he was railroaded). I do wonder if "one of the few" in that first external link makes the Establishment look a little more beleaguered than they actually are --Charles A. L. 01:18, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

Hi, some points that occurred to me, which I will work on as I can unless someone beats me to it:

• Association of Black Journalists or Black Journalists Association?
• The whole paragraph about the "facts of the case" is unattributed. Did this all come from the trial transcript? Did either side dispute any of it during the trial, or does either side do so now? In particular, the text about an "ensuing struggle" does not strike me as very NPOV. I think we should at least throw in an "alleged" or two.
• Was Faulkner shot between midnight and 4 am of December 9, or was he shot before midnight and Abu-Jamal arrested the next morning? Pistol "at his side" - in his possession, or was he unconscious, or what?
• Was Jackson disbarred? When, under what circumstances, for what reason?
• Witness statement item has no counterclaim; do Abu-Jamal's detractors offer one?
• One item says the prosecution gave "specific, relevant reasons" for each challenge. Reasons need not be given for peremptory challenges (hence the name). Were they peremptory or not?
• "Faulkner was shot with a .38" item refers, three times, to "the bullet". How many times and where was Faulkner shot, and how many bullets were found in his body? This article implies he was shot at least twice; the Faulkner article says 5 times.
• How many times and where was Abu-Jamal shot? Were bullets found in him, and if so, did they match Faulkner's gun?
• What happened to William Cook while all this shooting was allegedly going on?
• More details and/or examples of the non-conflicts and non-holes would be good to have; the item is rather sparse as it stands.
• Federal judge ordered in 2001: what was the judge's name? What was the result? It was nearly two years ago, something must have happened by now.
• I seem to recall reading somewhere that Abu-Jamal never denied having committed the murder. Any hard data on this?

Tualha 01:41, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

I do not know what the article looked like when you read it and found that it was biased in favor of Jamal. As I read it now it is exactly what I would expect from people who write that there are "only one or two Daniel Faulkner memorial sites out there", "but they're (sic!) web design is far superior to all the Free Mumia sites put together". Interesting that you still managed to provide more links propagating the case against Jamal and even took the amnesty page out. I especially disliked the ending, so I changed it. I still think that it is pathetic to bring up the pro-Jamal arguments first only to refute them one by one afterwards. I added some more, maybe you can try and counter them as well. Does it make sense to give every idiot the right to change encyclopedia entries? Where do you usually get your information, at "free" republic.com? SONG PARODY: Crying (frying Abu-Jamal) http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/147714/posts What should happen to Mumia Abu-Jamal? ('Fry Mumia,' Freep this Poll) http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/593435/posts Mar 4, 2004

"I do not know what the article looked like when you read it and found that it was biased in favor of Jamal." Excuse me? Were you replying to my comments, anonymous one? I did not say I found it biased in favor of Jamal. Tualha 01:04, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I like this article a lot as being about as non-POV as you can be. I try to make as many of my contriutions as non-POV as I can, but don't know as I have ever done this well. Rlquall 3 June 04

____________

Just found this page today. I have updated it adding details concerning some of the specific objections the defense has concerning conflicting witness statements, and have added detail to the summary of the alleged confession, including note of the William Pate affidavit.

Political prisoner

As far as the evidence goes, Mumia Abu-Jamal is a political prisoner if there ever was one. Please don't forget that political prisoners for example in the USSR did also get trials – trials in which typically evidence for them (like Pamela Jenkins and Veronica Jones) wasn't admitted; judges ruled partial; and so on. Highly typical for such cases, his involvement with a political organisation (the "Black Panthers") were held against him. In addition, the police officers involved are known to have fabricated evidence in other cases.

Mumia himself was obviously shot, but obviously not after the crime by the victim (as the bullet-path shows), so there either has to be another killer involved or Mumia has been shot by the police officer before he shot himself, in which case it couldn't be murder (but more likely, self-defence). In either case, there's no plausible scenario for Mumia murdering the officer. In addition to that, another man has pleaded guilty to the murder Abu-Jamal was „convicted“ for – if such a trial deserves the name „conviction“.

I think a case like this would be called a „political imprisonment“ of a dissident everywhere in the world – only in the U.S., there don't seem to be „political prisoners“, just as there are no "dissidents" .... I will introduce a sentence in that direction if there are no salient objections made here next week or so. --Fountaindyke 19:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of lack of evidence, where is evidence that he is a political prisoner? Not only is there nothing to back this up, but it isn't even logical. Other black journalists and activists have criticized the government. Why would there be a conspiracy against this one man? And why would he be targeted in such a way that left a police officer dead and him alive and well enough to publish articles from prison? This is absurd. A political prisoner would never be conducting radio shows from his cell and you know it.

I remember something about Mumia not being political active at the time of the shooting - he was just a taxi driver, not a journalist any more. Hmm, I'd need to look that one up. Flammifer 14:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the issues raised by this person (and related information) do lend atleast a partial case for the argument that Abu-Jamal is a political prisioner. To say this is "absurd" because other domestic critics of the U.S. government are not jailed is a non-point. Other countries (I won't name name's) which are almost universally cited as holding many (even thousands) of political prisioners often have some critics who are not in jail for various reasons. Conviction of political prisioners for non-political offenses is extremely common (if not the norm).

The fact of the matter is that at the time (although maybe not as much as in the years preceeding) Abu-Jamal had belonged to groups which it has since been proven were persecuted and targeted by government agents working in secret. While this does not directly imply some sort of government conspiracy behind his Abu Jamal's jailing, it is undeniable that there is a case that it could have been and to ignore this would be inconsistant with the many other Misplaced Pages articles about political prisioners of other nations whose innocence of an accused crime cannot actually be proven either.

What I wanted to say is: I think he would have got another trial and another sentence if he wasn't a "Black Panther". Remember that, according to Amnesty International, quotes from his early days as a political activist were held against him (see the last sentence of the following Amnesty International statement: http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/usa/document.do?id=7FC249A275DAADCA8025687F00428638). This quotes may have been militant (stating his desire to fight against the police) but are not any kind of evidence in a murder trial.

I don't think the case is clear-cut (and therefore, I take back the "if there ever was one" of my first statement). Surely there's no political conspiracy against Abu-Jamal, but I think he would have been aquitted if there had not been the will to find him guilty. Remember that no-one can be convicted for murder if there's a "reasonable doubt" as to him being guilty. In Abu-Jamal's case, there certainly is reason for doubt.

--Fountaindyke 10:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please don't confuse your ability to doubt - based material from media presentations developed over many years and under various standards and motivations with the legal standard of "reasonable doubt" based on the legally admissible evidence presented at a specific point in time, his trial. Rmhermen 16:41, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that if he had not been a black panther, nobody would have heard of the affair and there would be no media coverage like what he got. No Misplaced Pages article, for a start :) Flammifer 18:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Object to seeing him punished for killing a police officer"?

Who is this "third group of activists" that "object to seeing him punished for killing a police officer"? Sounds made-up to me. Taco Deposit 02:03, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

Surely this is a reference to groups that object to special laws regarding the killing of police officers, making the punishment more stringent than for the same offence against someone else. Having said that, as far as I know Pa. also has a death penalty for the first degreee murder of private citizens, and I don't know of any punishment more stringent than that.

My reading of the transcript was that Mumia wanted John Africa as his defense counsel, not as a witness. Can anyone refute this? Excellent NPOV writing, I'm sure it wasn't easy.

Points re the current version:

• What is the source for the stenographer's claim? Who is she?
• The paragraph beginning "Conflicting testimony and missing witnesses" sounds like a quote from an Amnesty International report, because of this part: "However, neither of these statements have been seen by Amnesty International". Is it? It should be quoted and attributed, if so.
• Many of the questions I raised last November still have not been addressed.

Tualha 01:04, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Registered firearm?

"Abu-Jamal was arrested at 4 a.m. with a pistol registered in his name at his side."

What's the source for this? The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania doens't have firearm registration. -- Spock

It shows up on sites supporting Abu-Jamal. Perhaps a concealed weapon permit. Rmhermen 15:47, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

what is meant by the quoted statement anyway? I read it and was confused as to whether the (persumably legally owned firearm) was simply in his house/nearby when arrested or whether he actually had it on his person when arrested. Also, is it claimed (or proven) that this gun was the one which shot the police officer? some clarification in the article might be desirable.

What about Anthony Jackson? The 'Objections to Jamal's trial' section and the 'Support for Jamal's trial section have information that is completely opposite.

• "Sabo appointed lawyer Anthony Jackson, who had never defended a client in a murder case, to defend Jamal."
• "Abu-Jamal's lawyer (Anthony Jackson) was in fact highly experienced, having served in twenty murder cases..."

Shouldn't it be possible to resolve this? Shouldn't there be reliable background information about Anthony Jackson somewhere? Apol0gies 17:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Sabo appointed lawyer Anthony Jackson, who had never defended a client in a murder case, to defend Jamal. Jackson, who was allowed only $1500 to analyze evidence and to hire expert witnesses, was later disbarred." conflicts with "Abu-Jamal's lawyer (Anthony Jackson) was in fact highly experienced, having served in twenty murder cases, with only six convictions and no executions prior to the Abu-Jamal case. Furthermore, he was chosen by Abu-Jamal after specific recommendation by his friends at the Black Journalists Association. Receipts indicate his defense spent $13,000, not $1500."

Chopped things up and reorganized

I chopped up the long lists of objections and points in support. OK, it's a big change on a debated page, but I think it makes things easier to read. I have hardly touched the actual text of the points made, I just moved them around.

The titles would probably need changing, I'm not that happy with them. Ideally, everything should be melted down in something not as pro- and con-. Adding more granularity would be good, but that would require actually reworking the points.

Hmm, I'll go back and do exactly that :) Flammifer 15:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, did just about that. This page still needs some serious reworking, how about a "needs attention" flag ?

I generally left the original statemetns as they were, only moving text around and adding some "supporters claim that" and "detractors answer that" here and there. I don't want to start an edit war =) However, as the page is now, there is some redundant information, and things could take some rewriting.

I also feel the "index" table is a bit too long now, but I think the content is more navigable that way. ny ideas on how better to organize it ? I don't know what's the best way to present controversies :-P Flammifer 16:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Peabody Award

I'm unsure of the status of Mumia's Peabody Award: as far as I have known, it is not just an urban legend, though the article says that it is a common misconception that he won one; is this true? I googled Mumia +"Peabody Award" and got several hits, including many that seem rather definitive. For this reason, I took out the (seemingly POV) sentence about this being untrue, and added as much info about the peabody he allegedly won (1980, for covering the Pope's visit). Any further elucidation would be appreciated. jglc | t | c 14:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A search in the peabody awards archives ( - hmm, should we have a list on wikipedia ?) doesn't find him. Since I find some claims on the net that "some claim he won a peabody, but it's crap", and no claims of "some say he didn't win a peabody, but he did", I'll assume that most such claims are just people repeating what they heard without checking things up (or, in some cases, probably expecting the readers to believe them). I'll say in the article he didn't receive one. Flammifer 14:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bullet points, "supporters say", "opponents say"

I'm trying to break up the format of lotsa bullet-point statements starting with "Jamal's supporters claim" and "Jamal's opponents say", etc. I don't think it makes the article very readable; plus we shouldn't just put "opponents say" in front of every statement that's harmful to Mumia's case, and "supporters say" in front of every one that supports it. It should be possible to have something as factual as possible.

I think that http://www.danielfaulkner.com/ contains a lot of information and as far as aI can tell it's the most complete resource on the trial, and has many references to the transcripts, though it's not exactly NPOV.

Maybe we should integrate direct links to the trial transcripts ? Flammifer 11:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

COINTELPRO

This seems to be quite a good NPOV article on a controversial topic. Bravo! I've changed the wording re COINTELPRO from this

Jamal's supporters claim that the FBI ran the COINTELPRO program whose purpose was to harass, disrupt and destroy unpopular political groups such as the Black Panther party. Since Jamal had taken a high profile position with the party as a teenager, he could have been a target.

to this

Jamal's supporters say that since Jamal had taken a high profile position with the Black Panther Party as a teenager, he could have been a target of the FBI's COINTELPRO program, whose purpose was to harass, disrupt and destroy unpopular political groups such as the BPP.

In the original version, the implication was that there's a lot of controversy about about COINTELPRO's purpose, but in fact I don't think there's any such controversy. Sure, there's controversy about a lot of aspects of COINTELPRO, but not about its basic purpose.--Bcrowell 04:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Good move, it makes much more sense that way. Whatever controversy there is around COINTELPRO, it should be on the COINTELPRO article. Here the question is how much this has to do with the present case. Flammifer

Mumia denial

For what it's worth, I think this article is excellent, about as neutral as can be. Two points: 1) I have seen a lot of discussion online claiming that Mumia has consistently refused to maintain his innocence. That is, he has never said, "I did not shoot Faulkner. It was/must have been somebody else." But I have seen other sites that claim this is bs, and that Mumia has claimed he is innocent, rather than somehow not guilty on the basis of a technicality. I would love it if someone with more knowledge than I could get to the bottom of this. 2) I think there should be a bit more mention of who shot Mumia earlier in the article, and whether it is clear that Faulkner shot him. I would do it myself but I'm a newbie and I don't want to mess it up.

- IronDuke

Updates?

Does anybody know the current status of the appeals about his resentencing?

needs a summary

Nowhere in the article does it actually summarize what happened at the murder of daniel faulkner. IT reports the witness statements, and plenty about the trial, but there's no summary of the crime itself. Could someone write one up, identifying which facts are in dispute along the way? Night Gyr 03:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:American murderers

This category, for the purpose of this article, is POV. Whether or not he is a murderer is a highly controversial claim, and for this article to be NPOV we shouldn't be passing judgement through the use of this category. -- LGagnon 04:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

He was convicted of murder. For all legal purposes, this defines him as a murderer. Even were one to set that aside, in his own statements, he has essentially admitted to murder (specifically of police officers, in threats against jail guards), if not the murders he is convicted of. -RannXXV 04:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This would make it sound like wikipedia subscribes to a Federal Government idea that, they are absolutely correct, which is something I see strongly that seprates wikipedia from other sources. With as much international outcry for Mumia Abu-Jamal, I see it absoutely ridiculous to place him on a list of "American Murders". This seems like a very biased attempt to further label Abu-Jamal based on opinion. I recommend that he be taken off the list until a solution is resolved.-asad112 8:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Biographical Information

Anyone have any they want to add to this article? Ckessler

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics