On December 11, 1998, two days after 20/20 broadcast its segment on Mumia Abu-Jamal, Leonard Weinglass refuted and rebutted Disney-Donaldson in an interview on KPFA's Flashpoints program with Flashpoints Associate Producer, Leslie Kean. The following are excerpts from the transcript of that interview.

Leslie Kean: ABC's television newsmagazine 20/20 aired on Wednesday (December 9, 1998) follows in the footsteps of the May broadcast of a similar piece on KGO, the San Francisco ABC affiliate which attacked the movement to free Mumia and distorted the facts of the case. Now ABC, owned by Disney has taken its predetermined position on the Mumia case to millions of viewers nationwide. 20/20 featured Maureen Faulkner, the widow of the police officer that Mumia was accused of killing 17 years ago. It highlighted the prosecution's case, while giving short sound bites to Mumia's attorney Leonard Weinglass, presenting him in an unfavorable light. Yesterday during the morning following the airing of the 20/20 piece Flashpoints spoke to Leonard Weinglass. After we listen to the interview we will tell you how you can call 20/20 to give your comments on the program. But first here is Leonard Weinglass who began by giving us his gut reaction to Wednesday's program.

Leonard Weinglass: Well I was very disappointed, to put it mildly. I mean if this is the level of objective reporting that we get from Disney-Donaldson, I feel very badly. Aand it's not surprising that things are in as bad a shape as they are in this country when we have to rely on this kind of information that we're getting from major media. They undoubtedly started out with a theme and I was warned about this right from the beginning. The theme that they introduced was 'the poor widow', 'the distraught widow' versus 'the celebrities'. And the rest of us in the program were just filler. It's very clear that from the very beginning, from day one, they had a plan and a theme and they were going to cut, which is what they did with my interview, anything that interfered with that running theme and run their major theme. And I think regrettably this is the way all news is cast. And in this kind of a format.

Leslie Kean: Although this may have had a little more of a bias than we often see. Wouldn't you say?

Leonard Weinglass: It might have had more of a bias, yes. But I'm not sure. I think they get a take on things and the rest they just cut to support their take. And this is the take they had when they wrote the first letter even before they began their 'investigation' which was hardly an investigation. We gave them a lot of names that they never went to or talked to including Mumia Abu-Jamal. And they started out by writing a letter to the Department of Corrections saying that all the publicity thus far has been too pro-Mumia, too favorable to Mumia and that they're going to write a piece that's going to correct the record and give it a little more balance. And that's in fact what they proceeded to try to do.

Leslie Kean: Is that the letter that was written on June 30, 1998 to --

Leonard Weinglass: That's right.

Leslie Kean: the prison officials. And when they actually said that they were working with the Fraternal Order of the Police in Philadelphia.

Leonard Weinglass: Yes and with Maureen Faulkner. Yes of course. And they withheld that letter from us. We wanted that letter as evidence when we sued the Department of Corrections to allow Donaldson to get in to interview Mumia. And they withheld and wouldn't give us that letter. We didn't know why. We thought it was strange, because it was evidence and it would help us in opening up the prison. When they finally gave it to us at the eleventh hour, we realized why they were reluctant to give it. Now that we see it, now we see the nature of their communication to the Department of Corrections.

Leslie Kean: Could you explain about Mumia's refusal to be interviewed? I mean, do you have a lot of respect for his refusal to do an interview until the strike at ABC has been concluded?

Leonard Weinglass: I do have a lot of respect for Mumia. There he is sitting on death row, down to his final appeals, facing the possibility of execution. And he insists that he will not go on the air under any circumstances to break a strike or to violate solidarity with those, more correctly, who are being locked out, which is the case with Disney. But I have to give that a little more background. They started this issue in June of 98. That's six months ago. We told them after they were rejected by the Department of Corrections to interview Mumia, that if they would file a lawsuit they could very easily win that lawsuit because this same Federal Judge in Pittsburg has found that the Department of Corrections had frequently discriminated against Mumia in punishing him for his writings, etcetera. So they would have 'a leg up' on the case and they would get relief very shortly. They did nothing in August, nothing in September and nothing in October. I called them and I asked them 'Why don't you go to court?' and they said to me 'Disney doesn't have the budget to file a lawsuit against the Department of Corrections in Pennsylvania.' We then got them a lawyer in New York who offered to help. They refused that.

Then in the eleventh hour we filed the lawsuit. And ten days before this program was to air the Federal Judge who we relied upon came out and said 'This is a very serious issue' and instructed the attorneys for the Department of Corrections to go back and try to convince the head of the (Department of) Corrections to allow the interview of Mumia to proceed. We told ABC this. We told them to hold up this program for another week or two until the Federal Court would order the interview and until the lockout would be settled. It's now in active mediation. And they rejected that request. And they went ahead and aired this program without Mumia. I think it's just shameful.

Leslie Kean: Leonard, let's go into some of the specifics that were covered in the piece. And, you know, when they went over these points they'd give you a ten second reply. Obviously you were saying things that were much longer and they'd use these little snippets which did not portray you in the best light.

Leonard Weinglass: The interview of me lasted for well over an hour.

Leslie Kean: And so they had a few little, you know, ten seconds here, ten seconds there.

Leonard Weinglass: Yes

Leslie Kean: And then they'd spend maybe five minutes describing the prosecution's side of the case.

Leonard Weinglass: Right.

Leslie Kean: And so, you know, we want to set things straight. Now this issue of the confession. When they were talking about Faulkner's partner who reported Mumia had confessed two months later (after the fact). They also said there were two security guards who reported earlier on, that Mumia confessed. Could you tell us about that?

Leonard Weinglass: Yes. One security guard (at the hospital), Priscilla Durham, now dead, claimed - claimed - and she wanted to become a police officer at the time, that she heard the confession. And that it was written down, her report was written down. But they were never able to produce what she wrote down in the court. And instead they produced the document without presenting the author of that document which they said was written by her supervisor but not signed, not dated, and they didn't produce the supervisor. And they said 'You see, this document supports her.' It's an absolute fiction. Now, a very conservative lawyer and journalist named Stuart Taylor, who writes for The American Lawyer, spent time investigating this entire question of the confession. And after looking at Priscilla Durham's testimony, the evidence, what Officer Bell said, he wrote in The American Lawyer, a rather middle-of-the-road to conservative journal for judges and lawyers, that he was convinced the confession was a fabrication. In fact Donaldson himself related to other people who were interviewed, off the record and off camera, that he also thought the confession was a fabrication. And they ran this other story.

Leslie Kean: Donaldson actually said that himself.

Leonard Weinglass: I've heard that. I've been told that on good authority.

Leslie Kean: And do you enjoy his interpretation of Gary Bell's delay as being 'supressed memory'. What do you have to say about that?

Leonard Weinglass: It's just incredible that the partner of the officer who died claimed that he overheard a confession by the alleged killer of his partner and that he didn't report it for sixty three days. That is just incredible. And didn't report it until after Mumia filed the complaint against him, personally, and other officers for their abuse and mistreatment of him in the hospital. Only then did he remember the confession.

Leslie Kean: And let's go on to the issue of the ballistics they raised in the program. You know, they were trying to indicate that it had been shown that it was a .38-caliber bullet that was used as opposed to a .44. Can you explain the issue of the ballistics?

Leonard Weinglass: That's very much of an open question and I told Donaldson that. The problem with that issue is this: They were able to put before the jury their expert who said this bullet was a 38-caliber bullet. Mumia's gun is a 38-caliber gun. But they couldn't match that bullet to his gun. It's just that the caliber was the same. But even that question was open and suspicious because the Doctor (M.D.) who removed the bullet from the officer's brain wrote down that it was a .44-caliber bullet. And the point I was making with Donaldson is the jury never heard that fact because Mumia's attorney never read the autopsy report and didn't know about that. This is something that a jury should hear. And the question of whether or not this bullet is .38 or .44 is actually beside the point because the jury never heard the countervailing evidence or testimony that it was a .44. But beyond that, and I went to great lengths to explain this to Donaldson, the evidence supports the fact that Mumia wasn't the shooter, if you look at the ballistics. Number one: They never examined the gun to see if it had been recently fired. Mumia did have a gun. He had a legal weapon that night. He was a cab driver. He had been robbed. He took out a permit. He had a gun. They used that to full advantage but they never were able to connect that gun to the bullet or the shooting of Officer Faulkner. Because they never tested the gun to see if it had been fired. They said they had it within five minutes of the shooting. The gun should have been warm. The gun should have smelled from gunpowder. They claim it was fired five times. They never even bothered to smell it they said. They never tested Mumia's hands to see if he had fired a weapon. If you fire a handgun like that one, your hands are embedded with particles and dust of lead which are easily detectable. They said they didn't do the test. They didn't do that test in the shooting of a police officer? Hard to believe. None of this was raised or litigated. It's all very crucial. And lastly and most telling of all, found at the scene, near Officer Faulkner's body was a copper jacket. Now bullets do have copper jackets. Some guns fire bullets with copper jackets. Neither Mumia's gun nor Officer Faulkner's gun can fire a bullet with a copper jacket. Doesn't that raise the question that there was another gun involved here?

Leslie Kean: Sir, I was very interested to hear that Donaldson did an interview, I believe it was yesterday, in the Philadelphia Enquirer, where he stated that Mumia was guilty. Now wouldn't you think that whether anybody believes that he's innocent or guilty is really almost not the issue. The issue is whether he had a fair trial. Is it possible for anybody to study his trial and say that he was convicted fairly?

Leonard Weinglass: These are the facts that are uncontested. Number one, Mumia's jury was selected only after the prosecutor removed eleven qualified African American jurors. Number two, Mumia's attorney testified under oath that he didn't interview a single witness and was unprepared for this case. Number three, the prosecutor wrongfully introduced into evidence Mumia's political associations twelve years earlier, when he was a member of the Black Panther Party. Number four, there are witnesses who've come forward like Veronica Jones who said 'I testified falsely under oath because I was put under police pressure to do so.' Another witness, William Singletary said he did not testify at all because the police ran him out of town and harassed him after he told, them Mumia was not the shooter. All of this, witnesses are - are threatened, witnesses are given benefit, their lead witness was allowed to work as a prostitute on her corner, without police interferance after she said Mumia was the shooter. Another witness said that she refused to do that. All of this impacts the truth seeking process, what the appellate courts call the truth seeking process. It was severely flawed and marred in this case. And all these things are uncontested. Donaldson didn't touch on that at all.

Leslie Kean: Can you also comment on the issue of Mumia's brother which was raised in the piece. The fact that Mumia's brother has not spoken up on behalf of Mumia and apparently he's missing. Can you tell us about that?

Leonard Weinglass: Yeah. Number one, everyone agrees that perhaps the closest witness to the shooting was Mumia's brother. If that's the case, why didn't the prosecution, which has the burden of proof in the case call his brother as a witness? They have the burden to do that. Mumia does not. Number two, at the time of trial Mumia had an attorney who really didn't prepare the case, did not spend the time to talk to his brother and get his brother's testimony or his brother's evidence. His brother told us that everyone, including Mumia's attorney, thought Mumia would not be convicted because the evidence was so scanty. And they didn't anticipate what the police were able to manufacture and produce in the case. So they didn't feel he was necessary and his lawyer didn't spend the time to bring him in. But we brought him in in 1995, thirteen years later. And he was prepared to testify. And as he was about to testify, he had a lawyer, we had subpoenaed him. As he was about to testify, the judge ruled that he would have to go to jail if he came into court because there were outstanding warrants for his arrest. We pled with the judge not to do that. Mumia's brother thought if he went to jail after testifying for his brother he would probably be killed. And the judge would not relent. And so when we did call Mumia's brother as a witness the following day, his lawyer appeared and said he would not show up under those conditions. We lost him.

Leslie Kean: We only have a few minutes left Leonard. I was appalled by Maureen Faulkner. I mean, obviously, everyone has sympathy for the fact that she lost her husband. But she was on national television calling you a liar and saying that you have duped the world. Can you respond to that?

Leonard Weinglass: I spoke in Santa Cruz, California about a year ago. And Maureen Faulkner appeared with either her attorney or her investigator. The room was filled with Mumia supporters. This is how frightened she is. (In the 20/20 segment Maureen Faulkner said she has been harassed by Jamal's supporters and fears for her life.) And she was welcomed. And I identified her and I said the group should hear from her after I finish. And she and her representative were allowed to come up and speak. This is the way she was treated. And what her representative said was absolutely false and outside the record. So much so that Maureen Faulkner had to interrupt him a couple of times to tell him that he was wrong. And so we did have a face-to-face meeting and a discussion. And the interesting thing is this. I've debated the D.A. who tried the case, Joe McGill, twice on national television, once on Larry King and once on Charlie Rose. And we both had equal time and we could debate back and forth. Everyone agrees that they lost that debate. So they no longer opt for that kind of a format. The kind of format we have now is separate interviews with an editor. And ABC-Disney having editorial control and slanting the program one way or another. I mean Maureen Faulkner can say whatever she wants. Her husband was murdered. No question about it, she is the victim of a crime. Unfortunately she's elected to go with the Fraternal Order of the Police and has refused to look at this case with any kind of objectivity.

Leslie Kean: Why do you think she's so insistent that Mumia be the one convicted? I mean, obviously she wants to find the right person. But why do you think she has this thing that its gotta be Mumia?

Leonard Weinglass: I don't know the answer to that. But you know, there are seventy cases now, it's fairly well documented, of people who were convicted and who were on death row, who it turns out were not the actual perpetrators. But I only feel badly for the seventy families of the victims. Because for years, some cases up to eighteen years, they lived in the belief that the person who had perpetrated the crime against their loved one was behind bars and awaiting execution only to be told after sixteen or eighteen years of waiting that they had the wrong person all the time. And that the actual perpetrator is out there and free. That must be a real hurt. And unfortunately she doesn't allow for that fact and she's leaving herself wide open in taking the position she takes.