Free Web Hosting : Election 2008 : Drug Rehab : Troubled Teens : Web Site



Mumia Abu-Jamal: The ABC Hatchet Job
By James Owens
Covert-Action Quarterly
Spring-Summer 1999 # 67

More Americans get their news from ABC News than from any other source. While this is good for Disney/ABC, it says something quite different for those whose interests are outside of the corporate political beltway. Such was the case on December 9, 1998, when ABC's 20/20 presented a story called "Hollywood's Unlikeliest Hero," which focused on the case of U.S. political dissident Mumia Abu-Jamal. In the late 1960s and early '70s, Abu-Jamal was a Black Panther and the victim of illegal surveillance and harassment by the FBI and the Philadelphia Police as part of J. Edgar Hoover's COINTELPRO operations.(1) But since 1982, when he was convicted of first degree murder for the killing of Police Officer Daniel Faulkner, Abu-Jamal has been an inmate on Pennsylvania's death row.

Abu-Jamal was recently denied his petition for a new trial, and now will try to have his case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. There has been little national television coverage of this story, so the ABC piece may be the only coverage many Americans hear on the subject. Unfortunately, 20/20 carefully chose issues and angles that would support only one side of the story, and provided analysis given only by the prosecution. In this way, 20/20 chose not to give the audience a full view of this complicated story and the issues it touches upon, but rather sought to justify the impending state execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal.

On December 9, 1981, just before 4:00 a.m., Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner pulled over a blue Volkswagen near 13th and Locust Streets. Before even approaching the VW, Faulkner radioed a request for backup, specifically a police wagon. The driver of the VW was William Cook, the brother of Mumia Abu-Jamal. Over the next 45 seconds, Cook and Faulkner became involved in a struggle, Abu-Jamal arrived on the scene and was shot, and Faulkner was also shot. Abu-Jamal and Faulkner were taken to the same hospital, where Faulkner died. Attending physicians described Abu-Jamal as "barely conscious," with a bullet lodged near his spine.

Prosecutor Joe McGill claims witnesses saw Abu-Jamal shoot Faulkner and that he confessed at the hospital. Abu-Jamal claims he was framed by police who withheld evidence and coerced witnesses, a prosecutor whose tactics were improper and illegal, and a judge who was openly biased in favor of the prosecution. Sam Donaldson and 20/20, however, focused the viewer's eye on only half the story.

Selective Statements, Selective Witnesses

ABC went far out of its way to give the impression that there was "a spectacular array of evidence" against Abu-Jamal. Chief among this evidence was the testimony of three eyewitnesses, who, according to ABC, "all say they saw Jamal run from across the street and shoot the Officer in the back. As the Officer spun around, he grabbed his revolver and, as he fell to the sidewalk, fired a shot that wounded Mumia in the chest. It was then that Abu-Jamal, according to witnesses, executed Officer Faulkner." (2)

Each of these three witnesses, however, gave significantly different statements prior to the trial. It was only as time went on that their stories all changed to conform to the prosecution version of events, the version ABC presented.

Mark Scanlan, the first of the witnesses referred to by ABC, saw the scene from behind the police car and across an intersection, 50 to 120 feet from the scene. On the night of the shooting, Scanlan actually identified Abu-Jamal, not as the shooter, but as the driver of the VW.(3) His initial statement was that "the guy running across the street pulled out a pistol and started shooting at the officer...the officer fell down. Then he stood over the Officer and fired three or four more shots point blank at the Officer on the ground."(4) But two days later, Scanlan stated that he hadn't seen the man running across the street holding a gun or firing a gun. Scanlan stated he "assumed" that the man crossing the street had fired the shot that he had heard.(5) Scanlan also stated, "I don't know if the Officer fired his gun or not, I didn't see him pull his gun or fire it." During the same interview with detectives on December 11, 1981, he was asked, "Did you see which male shot the officer?" His answer, "No, all I saw was the flash.... I don't know which male shot the officer." Also on December 11, he stated, "I don't know which one it was [standing over Faulkner]" and "I don't know which male had the gun." Scanlan even drew a diagram on the night of the shooting that, in contrast to the prosecution theory put forth by ABC, shows Faulkner facing Abu-Jamal when the first shot was fired.(6)

On two occasions, I spoke with Harry Phillips, the producer of the 20/20 story. Phillips agreed that Scanlan had made these contradictory statements, "but his story fits with what the others said for what he did see."(7) The problem is that ABC uses Scanlan to corroborate details that his statements simply do not support. Even Harry Phillips agreed that Scanlan did not identify Abu-Jamal as the shooter, did not see who fired the first shot, did not see Faulkner grab or fire his weapon, and places Abu-Jamal in front of Faulkner when the first shot was fired.

Robert Chobert was a prosecution witness who was in his cab directly behind the police car during the shooting. ABC described him to be "in plain view of the murder." Yet, how he could be "in plain view of the murder" when a police car with flashing lights on sat directly between him and the murder scene? His statements on the night of the shooting and prior to trial are also different from what he later testified under oath.

Chobert originally stated, on the night of the shooting, that he was writing a receipt for his fare when the first shot was fired and only saw the officer fall to the ground.(8) According to a report filed on the morning of the murder by Inspector Alphonse Giordano, about ten minutes after the killing Chobert told him that "a black MOVE member did it and apparently ran away." (Like Abu-Jamal, MOVE members wear their hair in dreadlocks.) The jury would never hear this information. When shown Abu-Jamal, lying on his back in a paddy wagon, Chobert stated, "That is the man that shot the policeman."(9)

But Chobert said the shooter "ran away," so how could he be the critically injured Abu-Jamal?

Later, at the police station, Chobert changed his statement to say the shooter ran "maybe 30 or 35 steps. Then he fell...then the cops got him and stuck him in the back of the paddy wagon."(10)

Case closed? Not yet. If the shooter ran "35 steps" that would still rule out Abu-Jamal as the shooter because Abu-Jamal was found about four feet from the dying Faulkner. On December 12, 1981, Chobert changed his statement again, to say that the shooter ran only about ten feet away from the policeman.(11) At the trial, on June 19, 1982, Chobert described the shooter as "walking about ten feet."(12)

Abu-Jamal was quite thin at the time, and wearing dark clothing when he was arrested. This is in contrast to Chobert's second statement on the night of the shooting, describing the shooter as "heavyset...wearing light tan shirt and jeans." By the time of his December 12 interview with police, Chobert changed his description of the shooter's clothes to "dark gray."

Chobert further said that it was Abu-Jamal who was shot first, but that he did not see who shot him.(13) Here we see another divergence from the prosecution theory of the events, and certainly not "essentially the same statement," as ABC inaccurately purported.

Finally we come to the prosecution's strongest witness, a prostitute named Cynthia White. She is a crucial witness for the prosecution because her testimony exactly corroborates the police version of events and places her as the closest witness to the crime scene. But her presence is unsupported by at least five other witnesses, who could not recall seeing her at the scene, though they did recall other people near where she claims to have been.(14) Dessie Hightower, the only witness who did recall seeing White, stated that she was nearly half a block to the west of the intersection.(15) Even White herself gave conflicting testimony as to her location, stating on January 8, 1982, that she was "seven or eight feet" from the shooting, but on January 11, she said that she was "three cars away."(16)

I asked ABC producer Harry Phillips about White. He told me she was a credible witness; "There is nothing out there that says she changed her story."

But, as has been articulated by the defense, transcripts of her own police statements show that she did change her story. On December 9, 1981, in her initial statement to police, she said the shooter "fired his gun at the police officer four or five times. The police officer fell to the ground." She also stated "there was no struggle" involving Faulkner and the driver of the VW.(17)

But other prosecution witnesses said that there was only one shot prior to Faulkner's collapse, and that Faulkner was fighting with Cook. White was arrested twice (December 12 and December 17) between the time of the shooting and the start of trial. In both instances she was brought to the Homicide department where she changed her statement.(18) On December 17, she changed her story to say that there was a struggle between Faulkner and Cook, and that the shooter fired "one or two times," then stood over him and shot him "three more times."(19)

I asked Phillips about the possibility of police coercion regarding witnesses. Referring to White, he argued, "She had no reason to lie or to change her story, she was already in jail. If she had received favors, why was she in jail?"(20)

Although it was not mentioned by 20/20, White was indeed in jail at the time of trial. White had 38 arrests for prostitution in Philadelphia, was serving 18 months for prostitution convictions,(21) and was facing trial in three additional cases.(22) Contrary to the comments of Phillips, it is not hard to see why a person with a lengthy record, serving time and faced with serving more time would have incentive to strike a deal with police. An example of White receiving such a favor occurred in 1987, when she was facing felony charges. Appearing in court, Philadelphia police detective Douglas Culbreth urged that she be released without posting a cash bail as she had been "a Commonwealth witness in a very high profile case."(23)

Double Standards, Hidden Evidence

ABC did not subject prosecution witnesses to the same degree of review as they did defense witnesses. For example, ABC mentioned Debbie Kordansky, a resident of a hotel that overlooked Locust Street and the crime scene, who witnessed a man running on the south side of Locust Street shortly following the shooting. Note how sharply ABC tries to limit her statement by saying that "police were already on the scene" when she was looking out her window and that "she did not testify that she saw someone running away, simply that she saw someone running."(24) Whatever that subtle difference may be, Kordansky reported a man running on the south side of Locust Street immediately after the shooting. The fact that police were on the scene may not diminish the relevance of this observation, because, as ABC reported, "back up officers arrived within 45 seconds."(25) Kordansky is not the only one who saw someone running on the south side of Locust Street immediately after the shooting. Veronica Jones also saw someone running on the south side of the street. When ABC presents this fact they again use qualifying and misleading language to discredit and limit the importance of this corroborating statement. "Defense witness number four, was a prostitute," is how ABC introduced Jones. Note that ABC never mentioned that prosecution witness Cynthia White was also a prostitute. ABC continues with Jones "who, after 14 years' silence, claimed she saw two men jogging from the scene."(26) Again, this is highly misleading, as it was not "after 14 years" that Jones first claimed to have seen someone running on the south side of Locust Street, but in a statement that she made to police on December 15, 1981. She stated that she was on Locust Street by 12th when she "heard three shots," saw a policeman fall to the ground, and saw two black men cross Locust and head east "sort of jogging."(27) When she finally took the stand in June of 1982, Jones would retract this statement.

The "14 years of silence" stated by ABC is a poor way of reporting that, in 1996, Veronica Jones testified that she had lied during the 1982 trial due to police pressure and that she had indeed seen two men flee the scene.(28) In this instance, we see how carefully ABC chose their words. They reveal only that Jones had kept silent for years, but not that she was part of the original trial or that she admits to lying at the behest of police who gave her "a deal."

Phillips informed me that he had actually met with Jones and had considered her for an interview. Although Jones was willing to do an interview, Phillips said, "I found her barely coherent. She made contradictory statements and proved herself incredible to me."(29) Unfortunately, Phillips does not give his audience a chance to make up their own minds about Jones's credibility or her statements. Rather, he excludes her claims of coercion, obscures the order of her statements, and subjects her to a scrutiny none of the prosecution witnesses are put to.

The severity of these distortions are compounded by the fact that these two were not the only witnesses who reported someone fleeing east on Locust that night. They are, however, the only witnesses mentioned by ABC. Witness Dessie Hightower, who is never mentioned in the story, also reported seeing a man with dreadlocks fleeing eastward on the south side of Locust (30) and that police arrived "maybe ten seconds" after this individual disappeared from sight. In all, at least five witnesses stated to police that at least one man fled the scene, all say he fled on the same street and in the same direction and shortly after the shooting. At least three of them stated he wore dreadlocks. Thus, regarding witness statements, ABC distorted the facts to support the prosecution theory, while excluding statements that strengthen the defense's theory.

Common Coercion, Common Corruption

Many of Abu-Jamal's claims of police coercion and withholding of evidence are repeated in case after case throughout Philadelphia's troubled police department. Federal probes revealed an extensive network of corruption that ran from police officials at the highest level, through the department, and into the vice crime of Philadelphia.(31) In 1985, the second highest ranked officer in Philadelphia, Deputy Commissioner John Martin, along with Chief Inspector Eugene Sullivan, were found guilty of extorting over $350,000 from vice figures.(32) Much of this involved the extortion of money and services from local pimps and prostitutes.

This practice was also carried out by officers serving in the 6th district, the same district involved in investigating and collecting evidence for Abu-Jamal's 1982 trial. It is also known that prosecution witness and prostitute Cynthia White had contact with two 6th district officers, later convicted of extorting prostitutes, on at least six occasions in the year prior to the shooting. It is quite likely that she was familiar with the process of "dealing" with police.(33)

It has been further proven that police withheld evidence, and used false evidence and false testimony in order to gain wrongful convictions. The New York Times stated that "nearly 300 jail sentences were overturned recently because of police corruption."(34) In several cases the wrongfully convicted were sentenced to death.(35) An important example is the case of Raymond Carter. Carter served ten years on death row in Philadelphia for a murder he never committed. He was released in 1996 after a police officer informed FBI agents that prosecution witness and prostitute Pamela Jenkins had given perjured testimony in exchange for $500 paid by police officers. The police in question were two of six Philadelphia police officers who pleaded guilty in 1991 to framing defendants, stealing money, assault, and civil rights violations.(36) One of them, Richard Ryan, was a detective in the Central Division in 1981-82, an area that included the 6th district.(37) Jenkins testified that Officer Ryan repeatedly pressured her to provide such false testimony in the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal.(38) Phillips described the testimony and history of Pamela Jenkins as having "no bearing" on the Abu-Jamal case. Phillips's opinion is in keeping with that of Judge Albert Sabo, who presided over the original trial and the petition for a new trial, and who ruled that Jenkins's testimony was inadmissible.(39)

Such testimony, however, corroborates the statements of Veronica Jones, whose testimony in the 1982 trial explicitly describes police attempts to coerce false testimony as part of a deal. "They were getting on me telling me I was in the area and I seen Mumia, you know, do it, you know, intentionally. They were trying to get me to say something the other girl said... we had brought up [prosecution witness] Cynthia's name and they told us we can work the area if we tell them." Judge Sabo ordered this portion of the testimony stricken.(40) (This stands in contrast to 20/20 producer Harry Phillips's comments to me regarding Jones's testimony, where he stated, "Clearly, the jury listened to [Jones] and heard the value of what she had to say."(41)) In 1995, when Jones testified that she had succumbed to police pressure to change her statement at the 1982 trial, Judge Sabo ruled that testimony was also inadmissable.

Unexamined Injustice

Why did the judge disallow such powerful arguments and testimony? A good question, but not one examined by ABC, even though the issue was raised on the show by defense spokespersons. That ABC spent zero time examining judicial impropriety is an alarming indicator of bias. Especially since systemic failures of justice have been previously acknowledged by Ed Rendell, Philadelphia Mayor, former DA, and one of the prosecution spokespersons on the 20/20 broadcast.

In 1992, Rendell openly described the Philadelphia system as "easily susceptible to influence," in the form of "politics, or who the defendant is."(42) He also stated there were "incredible inconsistencies and randomness of justice from courtroom to courtroom" and that "the trial depends literally on what judge the case is assigned to."(43)

Abu-Jamal was assigned to Albert Sabo. Sabo, a former member of the Fraternal Order of Police, served for 16 years as the Undersheriff of Philadelphia County. Famous as the judge who has sentenced the most people to death in America, in 1995, his total of 32 death sentences was more than twice that of any other judge.(44) In addition, over 90 percent of those sentenced to die by Sabo are people of color.(45) His 34 percent reversal rate ranks as one of the highest in the whole country. He has also been described as extremely biased toward the prosecution.(46)

In responding to questions about Sabo, producer Phillips said, "Sabo may have a history of bias, I don't know." Phillips pointed out that Sabo was under "incredible pressure" and suggested Sabo's background might be irrelevant. "In this case, transcripts do not indicate that Sabo was acting in a biased manner." He summed up his reasons for omitting reference to Sabo with, "In my non-lawyer opinion, he didn't handle it that badly."(47) On this basis, Phillips excluded the opinion of many actual lawyers that there were problems with the way the courts, and Sabo in particular, have handled the case. Attorneys involved with organizations like the National Conference of Black Lawyers,(48) and the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund,(49) as well as Johnnie Cochran, and even Republican Senator and former Philadelphia DA Arlen Spector, have all voiced strong criticisms.(50) "The unfairness of Abu-Jamal's 1982 trial was almost guaranteed once it was assigned to Judge Albert Sabo," said American Lawyer magazine, describing Sabo as "notoriously pro prosecution."(51)

Controlling the Jury

One of the ways Sabo's influence had lasting impact on
the trial and the subsequent appeal was his handling of the jury selection process. Eleven African Americans were removed from jury selection by prosecutorial peremptory challenges, though the original trial record only shows eight. The confusion over allegation as "a nail in Abu-Jamal's coffin." 20/20 did include in its story that the alleged confession was not reported for more than eight weeks, and was produced by the deceased officer's partner. ABC then gives a statement designed to increase the credibility of the alleged confession: "But security guard Priscilla Durham told the jury that she reported it to her supervisor the next day."(55) Although Durham did testify that she reported it to her supervisor, no evidence has been produced to confirm the accuracy of her claim. In court, a one-page typed document was offered as the report in question. Durham, however, denied the report was hers. The authorship was not authenticated, the witness denied it was her report, yet Sabo allowed the prosecution to read parts of it in front of the jury.(56)

Framing the Story

An examination of the story structure underlying ABC's December 9 piece makes it difficult not to conclude that ABC built the story to support the prosecution perspective. The prosecution side is introduced to the audience first, defense representatives are shown only in highly edited context, analysis is exclusively conducted by the prosecution, and defense evidence is largely omitted or when mentioned, ABC does not investigate its merits.

Instead, ABC News, in the person of Sam Donaldson, began to insert a subtle commentary into the story, characterizing Abu-Jamal as a "charismatic" leader, and those opposed to his execution as "his followers."(57) Application of these labels creates an unspoken association in viewers' minds to others who have been similarly labeled by the media: people like David Koresh, Osama Bin-Ladin, or Jim Jones. While initially describing those opposed to Abu-Jamal's execution in limited terms such as "campus rebels," 20/20 quickly transformed them into "followers ...taken by his charisma."(58) Donaldson culminates the impression of "cultism" by referring to Abu-Jamal supporters as "zealous disciples" who believe that "Mumia Abu-Jamal is a prophet. To call him a murderer is sacrilege."(59)

While ABC allowed selective issues to be raised by defense representatives, there was little follow-up review of the evidence or issues cited, or ABC would turn to the prosecution for evaluation. This "bait and switch" tactic allowed 20/20 to maintain an appearance of fairness while actually limiting the evidence to one side of the story.

Such was the case when defense attorney Leonard Weinglass raised the issue that Abu-Jamal's brother was being beaten by Officer Faulkner, and that witnesses reported a third man fleeing the scene. In a ridiculous example of bias, ABC turned to Maureen Faulkner, the widow of the slain officer, for the only assessment of these defense issues.

Sam Donaldson: "Have you looked over the evidence that Leonard Weinglass says would prove Abu-Jamal was innocent?"

Maureen Faulkner: "Yes, I have."

SD: "There's no substance to it?"

MF: "No, [Weinglass] has duped the world...."(60)

ABC does not allow the viewers to know what this evidence is; instead 20/20 turns to the person most emotionally involved in the entire case, and most likely to be biased, for exclusive analysis.

As to the allegation of Faulkner beating Abu-Jamal's brother, at least three witnesses reported the officer either struggling with someone or hitting him with a billy club or flashlight.(61) In addition, arresting officers reported William Cook to be bleeding from the face, and Faulkner's flashlight was recovered from the scene with a broken lens.(62)

In contrast to his own report, ABC producer Phillips acknowledged to me that Faulkner had beaten Cook at the scene. "Witness statements indicate a struggle. He was beating [Cook] with a flashlight or billy club." Phillips's only explanation for why he did not focus more clearly on this was that Cook was not seriously injured, and that it was therefore irrelevant.(63)

Whether or not Faulkner beat Cook is certainly relevant in a legal sense, as it could show mitigating circumstances, which could have lowered the charge to manslaughter or allowed Abu-Jamal to claim self-defense.

Emotion as Evidence

Maureen Faulkner played the role of emotional centerpiece, around which ABC set incomplete information disguised as serious investigation. Note that although 20/20 devotes considerable time to Maureen Faulkner, Abu-Jamal's family is never mentioned. One could see only too clearly how an interview with Abu-Jamal's children and grandchildren would change the emotional framework of the story, allowing Abu-Jamal to be seen as a human being. In the same manner that ABC selectively displays its facts, emotional issues of family and loss are only presented in support of the prosecution. Producer Phillips disagrees with this analysis: "As far as I know these people are not as important to the story as Mumia Abu-Jamal himself or Maureen Faulkner." Phillips insists that Faulkner's appearance was to present factual information and not for emotional impact. "She happens to be one of the most knowledgeable and credible people available on that side of the issue," Phillips said.(64)

While ABC certainly did turn to Faulkner for analysis and assessment of fact, just as clearly she was used as the key emotional representative. For example, in the segment where ABC unveils the results of its "investigation," Sam Donaldson states, "We conducted a four-month investigation, and here is what we found. On a cold December day in 1981, Maureen Faulkner buried her husband. But for 17 years there has been no closure because of the voice that won't go away."(65) (The voice is, of course, Abu-Jamal, who has been referred to as "the voice of the voiceless.") The segment is a montage of photos of Maureen Faulkner and her family, grieving at the funeral, and accompanied by bagpipes playing "Amazing Grace." Notice how the lead-in is an announcement of the findings of the investigation, but the follow-up is pure emotion, with Maureen Faulkner center stage. Using Maureen Faulkner's suffering to create appeal, ABC blames "the voice that won't go away."

The segment goes on to tell the story of Maureen Faulkner's outrage and grief over a series of radio commentaries by Abu-Jamal as part of the Prison Radio Project and National Public Radio. Giving no context or opposing view, and with Maureen Faulkner describing Abu-Jamal's voice as "haunting," the segment is a disguised attack on both Abu-Jamal's right to practice journalism while incarcerated, and on the right of prisoners to exercise their First Amendment guarantees. Nowhere in the report does ABC find time to mention that he won a federal lawsuit against the prison authorities. The three-judge panel unanimously agreed that the Pennsylvania prison authorities had violated Abu-Jamal's First Amendment rights and that the they were punishing him for the content of his writings and commentary. The court went on to say that officials acted against Abu-Jamal only after "complaints concerning Abu-Jamal's proposed NPR commentaries were made by the Fraternal Order of Police."(66)

Hidden Sources

It is very telling that ABC would not mention these facts, considering that the Fraternal Order of Police may have worked directly with 20/20 on the construction of this piece.

In a letter from ABC to prison authorities dated June 30, 1998, regarding the 20/20 segment (then still in production), ABC representative Phuong Nguyen clearly states, "We are currently working in conjunction with Maureen Faulkner and the Fraternal Order of Police." ABC kept their association with the FOP in the background, never mentioning the organization once during the entire piece. In my conversations with Harry Phillips he told me, "The FOP played no role whatsoever" in the construction or production of the story, and that he had only one phone conversation with them. Yet, he also stated, "I did call for their opinions on certain points." When I raised the issue of the letter, he distanced himself from it. Describing the letter as "unfortunate," he stated that Nguyen, "was simply trying to make the point that Mumia Abu-Jamal wouldn't be the only one speaking."(67)

Next, ABC spotlighted Maureen Faulkner's "crusade." The camera shows a web site proclaiming "Justice For Daniel Faulkner," while Maureen Faulkner sits in front of the computer, looking through books and making notes. Sam Donaldson tells us, "[Maureen Faulkner] has written a 100-page document attempting to debunk [Abu-Jamal's] claims."(68) Faulkner's document, appearing at www.justice4danielfaulkner.com, is strikingly similar to the ABC piece, in both content and structure. This document makes several highly questionable claims of its own, even to its authorship. The document describes its authors as "private citizens." "We are not affiliated with any police organization," it states, "simply a group of individuals."(69) Ms. Faulkner, herself, is referred to in the third person, and nowhere could I find any claim to authorship, neither Maureen Faulkner's nor anyone else's.

Now, assuming Faulkner is the author, as ABC portrays, then she has intentionally obscured her authorship to create a false impression of impartiality. The document also argues vehemently in favor of the death penalty, describing the anti-death-penalty movement as a "culture of lies and deceit" that "specializes in the abolition of truth." Faulkner's document, however, holds truth in no high esteem, presenting statistics that are designed to produce inaccurate results. In order to bolster claims regarding the rarity of executions, Faulkner claims "there have been approximately 560,000 murders and 358 executions from 1967 to 1996" or "one execution for every 1,600 murders."(70) Yet, the truth is that there were no executions between 1967 and 1976, while the six years between 1977 and 1983 saw only ten executions, with no persons executed in 1978 or 1980. The remaining 348 executions took place between 1983 and 1996. The figures cited by Faulkner include 12 years when no executions took place, four years when five or fewer persons were executed, leaving only 13 active years of executions compared to the total number of murders from a 29-year period.(71)

Predictably, ABC does not question Maureen Faulkner about her role in authorship or promotion of this "document" nor her position on the death penalty.

Irrelevant History

One of the main issues that Abu-Jamal was following in his journalism immediately prior to his arrest was the issue of repressive police action towards the MOVE organization. Less than three years after Abu-Jamal's trial, on May 13, 1985, Philadelphia police dropped a bomb from a police helicopter on the MOVE organization headquarters. Two hundred and fifty people were rendered homeless and six adults and five children were killed in the ensuing blaze.(72) By painting a scenario free of the history of longtime political repression of domestic dissidents, ABC conditions viewers to accept the execution of current political dissidents. On the day of the 20/20 story, Sam Donaldson said that, "as far as I'm concerned.the death sentence has to be carried out." Donaldson claimed that, "The people who support [Abu-Jamal's] release don't do so from a position of knowledge."(73) ABC certainly did little to put its viewers in "a position of knowledge."

Fascinating and revealing to me was that Phillips's greatest concerns over this case seemed to be that Abu-Jamal is "charismatic" and trying to exercise some kind of control over the angle that the media take on him.

Phillips portrayed this as evidence that Abu-Jamal is not to be listened to. "One side is making use of half truths and exaggeration. The Mumia movement supporters get information prepared and spun for their benefit," he told me. He then asked, "Could it be that [Mumia's] people are trying to control and spin his media?"(74) The irony is that there is absolutely nothing unusual about personality and spin control in media; in fact, that is what modern corporate media are all about. From Reagan to Clinton, from Sam Donaldson to Mumia Abu-Jamal, the battle has always been to project an image that the press will echo, and to control which issues the press will focus on.

Perhaps the real issue is that Abu-Jamal has done such a surprisingly effective job of getting his message out, despite the deceptive spin of corporate outlets like ABC.

Footnotes

1. Over 700 pages of FBI documents specifically involving Jamal were obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests by New York attorney Paul Cooperstein. "Mr. Abu-Jamal was subjected to surveillance, harassment, disruption, politically motivated arrests, and attempted frame-ups by the FBI who worked in conjunction with the Philadelphia Police Department," Affidavit of Cooperstein, June 1995.

2. Transcript of ABC 20/20 show, Dec. 9, 1998, "Hollywood's Unlikeliest Hero" (hereinafter "ABC transcript"), p. 2.

3. Transcript of the trial, June 25, 1982, 8.46 (hereinafter thus: "Tr. 6/25/82, 8.46").

4. Police interview, Scanlan, Dec. 9, 1981.

5. Ibid., Dec. 11, 1981.

6. Ibid.

7. Telephone interview with author, Feb. 4, 1999.

8. Police interview, Chobert, Dec. 9, 1981.

9. Ibid.

10. Police report, Giordano, Dec. 9, 1981.

11. Police interview, Chobert, Dec. 12, 1981.

12. Tr. 6/19/82, 211.

13. Tr. 6/19/82, 267-269.

14. Scanlan and Magilton PCRA record, Ex. 21; interviews, Chobert, June 19, 1982, 227; Jones, June 25, 1982; Tr. 6/25/82, 8.58, 8.86.

15. PCRA record, Ex. 21.

16. Tr. 1/8/82, 28, 1/11/82, 98.

17. Police interview, White, Dec. 9, 1981.

18. White, Tr. 6/22/82, 5.31.

19. Police interviews, White, Dec. 12, 17, 1981.

20. Phillips interview, Feb. 4, 1999.

21. Tr. 6/21/82, 4.79 and 4.85.

22. Tr. 6/21/82, 4.80-4.81.

23. Commonwealth v. White, MC 87-06-2351, June 29, 1987, transcript, p. 29.

24. ABC transcript, p. 7.

25. Ibid.

26. Ibid.

27. Police interview, Jones, Dec. 15, 1981.

28. Associated Press, Oct. 1, 1996.

29. Phillips interview, Feb. 4, 1999.

30. Tr. 6/28/82, 126-127, 149-150. See also Police interview, Hightower, Dec. 15, 1981.

31. See United States v. City of Philadelphia, 644 F.2d 187 (3rd Cir. 1980).

32. Philadelphia Daily News, Dec. 7, 1985.

33. Officers Richard Herron and Joseph Gioffre pled guilty in 1985 to shaking down prostitutes in the 6th district. Cynthia White had been arrested approximately 6 times in 1981 by these same officers. See case nos: 8005-2895, 8007-0195, 8006-2855, 8103-0493, 8104-0062, 8107-1610. See also Abu-Jamal Petition for Remand Hearing, 1997, p. 10.

34. New York Times, Apr. 3, 1997.

35. Rev. Betty Patterson, a 54-year-old grandmother, served nearly four years because police planted drugs in her home during an illegal search; see Philadelphia Tribune, June 14, 1998. Neil Ferber and Jay Smith were sentenced to death on the basis of perjury and withheld evidence, respectively. See Equal Justice USA, 1995 Report on Philadelphia Police Department, "Trampling the Public Trust," p. 2.

36. Philadelphia Inquirer, Dec. 31, 1996; Equal Justice USA, op. cit., n. 35.

37. Petition for Remand Hearing, 1997, p. 5.

38. Affidavit of Jenkins, 1997; see also Philadelphia Inquirer, June 27, 1997.

39. PCRA ruling, 1997.

40. Tr. 6/29/82, 129, 135, 141.

41. Phillips interview, Feb. 4, 1999.

42. Philadelphia Inquirer, Sept. 12, 1992.

43. Ibid., Sept. 13, 1992.

44. NAACP and Equal Justice USA, Jane Henderson, "Philadelphia's Judge Sabo"; Philadelphia Inquirer, Sept. 13, 1992; "Guilty and Framed," American Lawyer, Dec. 1995.

45. Henderson, op. cit., n. 44, p. 9.

46. Philadelphia Inquirer, Sept. 13, 1992.

47. Phillips interview, Feb. 4, 1999.

48. The Nation, Sept. 11, 1995.

49. See 1996 report by NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund and Equal Justice USA, "Philadelphia's Judge Sabo: The Judge who Became Death Row's King."

50. Los Angeles Times, Sept. 13, 1995.

51. American Lawyer, Dec. 1995.

52. Tr. 6/7/82, 20.

53. Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 555 A.2d 846.

54. New York Times, Apr. 3, 1997.

55. ABC transcript, p. 6.

56. Tr. 6/24/82, 109-113.

57. ABC transcript, p. 4.

58. Ibid., pp. 1, 4.

59. Ibid., p. 9.

60. Ibid., p. 4.

61. Tr. 6/25/82, 8.6; see also Police interview, Scanlan, Dec. 9, 1981.

62. Tr. 6/30/82, 5.151; Tr. Ex 1.

63. Phillips interview, Feb. 4, 1999.

64. Ibid.

65. ABC transcript, p. 5.

66. Associated Press, New York, Aug. 25, 1998.

67. Phillips interview, Feb. 4, 1999.

68. ABC transcript, p. 5.

69. www.justice4danielfaulkner.com/myths.html.

70. www.justice4danielfaulkner.com/DP.html.

71. Execution statistics cited from University of Alaska, Anchorage, Justice Center, and University of Northern Illinois University, Critical Criminology Division.

72. CNN, June 24, 1996.

73. Philadelphia Inquirer, Dec. 10, 1998.

74. Phillips interview, Feb. 4, 1999.


There have been


visitors to my site

since 05/21/99