How is it that you don't look at the facts of each case as it pertains to the conversation? I didn't start this thread to discuss the numerous black men in prison whom might be there free of guilt. This is a case in which we have a man convicted of murder, after the conviction, new evidence surfaces, and still no new trial.

What good point does OEN make compared to Arnold Beverly putting his life up for another man to go free? I am currently fighting against the racist war on drugs with a man named Njweedman.com . So I know about the millions of young black men sitting in prison, on parole or probation who should rather be in college. Ohh but the fact that we have more young black men in jail, on parole or probation than we have in college proves to me how much our government cares about the African American community.

So that being said, I still have recieved no e-mail from Mr. Lawyer ROb, the smart guy who thinks transcripts mean more than viewing emotion. Yet I would like to ask you then Rob, why are they videotaping all the new trials? I mean if your ready to debate michael Coard a bit earlier, he's on today thursday between 10-2 and just say your accepting the challenge to debate him on Mumia put out by Patrick. I didn't see you type anymore ot get your e-mail Rob, so I will only assume your a liar, not a lawyer, not that they're that much different.

Please explain what this means as I have no clue. What does it mean to view emotion as you term it. The transcripts are quite rich and provide very much detail. Additionally if someone makes hand gestures without speaking the judge always directs the witness to verbally explain what he means and the court stenographer always indicates to whom someone is pointing. If we were able to watch teh actual first trial we would see a man disrepecting his own counsel and the judge numerous times and causing a scene in an attempt to cause disorder and disarray in the hearings.

Read the facts of the case which are in the official court proceedings. Hell don't read any of the remarks of the prosectuion and just read the defense motions and cross examinations.

Please tell me who this John Singleton is by the way when you get a chance.

To read the last decision on the case made by Judge Yohn in Dec 2001 where he found that 28 of the 29 claims made by Mumia's new defense team (team number 3 or 4 I can't keep track) had absolutely no merit click on this link:
http://www.danielfaulkner.com/yohnsorder.pdf

__________________
"If you have the courage to begin, you have the courage to succeed." -- David Viscott

215-581-5186 is the number you should be calling, tell them what your calling about and they'll put you right up.

My bad on the first name, I meant to say William Singletary. So go check that out.

Yo do realize, after someone reads this part of your post you can rest assured any respect they may have had for you has been cut down dramatically? Do you actually think there is value in such wiseass comments?

Oh William Singletary the guy that likes to keep changing his story. His testimony was not even needed to convict Jamal but let's see what the Supreme Court of PA had to say about it in 1998:

"Appellant's argument continues with a claim that the police destroyed at least two exculpatory statements taken from another eyewitness, William Singletary, and threatened to cause him physical harm and to destroy his business if he did not cooperate and say what the police wanted him to say. Appellant asserts that the defense did not know about Singletary's true account of the shooting.

Singletary testified at the PCRA hearing that he was a witness to the shooting. According to his testimony, he went to the police station shortly after 4:00 a.m. on December 9, 1981 whereupon he was interviewed by someone named Detective


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27 In any event, Appellant is unable to establish prejudice on this point, since the jury heard his testimony to the effect that he saw someone running prior to the time the other officers arrived and obviously found the evidence to the contrary to be more credible.

Page 32.

Green. (N.T. 8/11/95 p. 209). Singletary testified that while being interviewed, he was asked to write a statement respecting his observations of the shooting incident. He testified that he attempted to complete two or perhaps three such statements, but that after each statement was complete, the detective read it and then ripped it in pieces and threw it in the trash. Detective Green then told Singletary to write what Detective Green wanted him to write or else he would be beaten and his business would be destroyed. Accordingly, Singletary then wrote what the detective dictated and after that statement was typed, Singletary signed it. (N.T. 8/11/95 pp. 210-212). The substance of that statement was that as he was stopped at a red light at 13th and Locust Streets, he heard what he initially thought to be firecrackers, but soon realized it was not firecrackers because they were going too fast. He looked down Locust Street and saw a police car parked at the curb. He then parked his own vehicle and exited it. He proceeded to the southwest corner of 13th and Locust from where he observed two figures some twenty-five to thirty feet away. One was standing facing the wall; the other with his back to the wall, bent over at the waist. As he began to walk towards these two figures, someone yelled to him that a policeman had been shot. He then saw a policeman sitting on the ground with his back against the wall with his blood covered right hand to his face. The other person, an African-American man with dreadlocks and wearing green pants, was sitting on the curb, holding his leg that was stretched in front of him. After the fallen officer was placed in a police car and transported elsewhere, Singletary encountered Officer Vernon Jones with whom he was familiar. Officer Jones directed that Singletary proceed to the police station and report what he had observed. (N.T. 8/11/95 pp. 245-249).

Singletary testified that a few days after he gave his statements, he contacted State Representative Alphonso Deal and informed him of the coerciveness he encountered, but that, to his knowledge, Representative Deal never initiated an

Page 33.

investigation into his complaint. (N.T. 8/11/95 pp. 214, 251). He also testified that a few days later, four officers came to the gas station which he managed, claiming they were on burglary detail. Singletary, his employees, and his customers were told to lie on the ground while the officers displayed their weapons. Singletary claims that one of the officers said "this will give you something to remember." (N.T. 8/11/95 pp. 218-219). He testified that in February, 1982 he was forced to close his business because of repeated instances of vandalism. (N.T. 8/11/95 pp. 219-223).

At the PCRA hearing, Singletary testified that what he actually witnessed, and what he wrote in the discarded statements, was that he saw an officer frisking the driver of the Volkswagen. He claims a passenger, a tall man with dreadlocks, alighted from the Volkswagen, screaming and yelling, and then pulled a gun and shot the officer. The passenger placed the gun in the Volkswagen and fled. The driver ran after the passenger. Singletary then observed Appellant approach the fallen officer, asking him if there was anything he could do to help the officer. As Appellant was bending forward, the officer's gun discharged and struck Appellant. (N.T. 8/11/95 pp. 234-237). Singletary also testified that when the police arrived, they repeatedly beat and kicked Appellant and, at one point, rammed his head into a police car with enough force to fracture his skull. (N.T. 8/11/95 pp. 237-238). 28

According to his testimony, Singletary gave a statement to one of Appellant's current attorneys on August 31, 1990. In that statement, Singletary stated that after Appellant offered to help the officer, the officer mumbled something that sounded like


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28 In any event, Appellant is unable to establish prejudice on this point, since the jury heard his testimony to the effect that he saw someone running prior to the time the other officers arrived and obviously found the evidence to the contrary to be more credible.

Page 34.

"get Maureen" and/or "get the children." (N.T. 8/11/95 pp. 269-271). In another part of that deposition, however, he also said that after Appellant asked if he could help the officer, the officer said nothing and "just laid back, grabbed his gun and fired." (N.T. 8/11/95 p. 276). When confronted by the prosecution with this inconsistency in his December 1990 statement, Singletary claimed to have been confused by the questions being posed at the time of his statement. (N.T. 8/11/95 p. 278).

To counter Singletary's PCRA testimony, the prosecution presented the testimony of Police Detective Quinn, who claimed that he, and not a Detective Green, took Singletary's statement at the time of the murder. He recalled having been asked to leave his post at the North Central Detective Division and go to the Homicide Unit to assist. (N.T. 8/14/95 p. 49). He testified that he typed Singletary's statement verbatim and that at no point was Singletary asked to write anything. (N.T. 8/14/95 pp. 51-52). Quinn testified that he did not recall who directed him to take Singletary's statement, but that during the taking of that statement, no one but he and Singletary were present. (N.T. 8/14/95 pp. 50, 67). He testified that to his knowledge, no other detectives interviewed Singletary. However, he admitted that he not know how long Singletary was at the station that day. (N.T. 8/14/95 pp. 52, 67-68).

Officer Vernon Jones testified that he saw Singletary, with whom he was familiar, at the scene and that Singletary asked him what had happened. (N.T. 8/14/95 pp. 18-19). According to Jones, when he told Singletary that a police officer was shot, Singletary responded that he heard shots, but believed them to be firecrackers and that after that several police cars arrived. (N.T. 8/14/95 p. 21). When Jones asked Singletary whether he had seen the shooting, Singletary replied "no." Id. Jones had recorded this precise account in a statement given to homicide detectives on December 17, 1981. He candidly admitted at the PCRA that he had no present

Page 35.

recollection of these events, but was certain his recorded statement was true. (N.T. 8/14/95 pp. 20, 29).

The PCRA court found Singletary's testimony not credible. We find ample support in the record for this conclusion and, thus, will not overrule that finding. Beasley, supra. Accordingly, Appellant's claim which is based on Singletary's testimony lacks merit."

http://www.danielfaulkner.com/supreme.html#Singletary

__________________
"If you have the courage to begin, you have the courage to succeed." -- David Viscott

What is even funnier is when you look at the new testimony that Singletary gave back in 1995 which not only contradicts his sworn affadavit of 1990, but is in stark contrast to the theories promoted by Beverly. Additionally it took until 1995 for Mr. Singletary to claim that he was on vacation for part of the trial in the summer of 1982. He never mentioned this in his statement in 1990 but waited until 1995 to state that why he did not go to the courtroom in 1982, find Mumia's attorney and tell him what had happened, was becaue he was not in Phila. He claimed that he left on a planned vacation that started on June 26th 1982 and ended on July 9th 1982. The trial started on June 17th and ended on July 3rd so he was in Philadelphia during the first 10 days of the trial anyway. The guy can't even lie right...

Singletary changed his intital story that he gave to the police in 1981 back in 1990 and then again in 1995. In 1995 he claims that there was another person in William Cook's car when Officer Faulkner stopped him for driving the wrong way on Locust Street. He also claims that this guy got out of the car and was the one who shot Faulkner and that Cook and this gentleman fled the scene. He then claims that Mumia came from across the street and tried to help Faulkner and that Faulkner's gun "accidentially" went off and shot Mumia. He states that Faulkner was lying down on the sidewalk with a gunshot wound through his eye and that his gun fired up from his lap and stuck Mumia. Ballistics showed that this was totally inconsistent with the wound Mumia sustained. This obviously also goes against Beverly's notion that he went up to Faulkner and shot him in the face as Singletary did not report that someone who looked like Beverly went up and shot Faulkner at point blank range.

So either one or both of these men is lying, there is no way possible for both stories to be correct as they contradict each other. The details of their testimony has been combed meticously over and over again and both statements are obvious fabrications of the truth.

Again please read the testimony from each of these witnesses. You seem like an intelligent guy, Duffmann, too intelligent to by led by men with faulty arguments and non-credible rhetoric.

__________________
"If you have the courage to begin, you have the courage to succeed." -- David Viscott

Awww, are you a lawyer? I am sorry if I hurt you little feelings, but we all know how a lawyer is lying, he's talking. So accept a bit of humor in my writings, I am a comedian. But I will set up your interview for 3:30pm on saturday, call 215-581-5186 and they'll be ready for you. Then you can debate Michael coard and tell him he doesn't know the facts of the case.

Here is a great rebuttal to Beverly's story which is similar to what I uncovered after reading Beverly's statement and the various statements from Singletary that contradict Beverly's statement.

Even one of Mumia's former lawyers states that Beverly's statement was purely fabricated and that it would actually hurt his case because it was contrary to Singletary's story.



http://www.danielfaulkner.com/indexmyth17.html

__________________
"If you have the courage to begin, you have the courage to succeed." -- David Viscott

I will take it you'll be calling at 3:30 on saturday, and what name will you be using so i can inform them of your call. I will tape the whole call and put it on the internet later for everyone to hear. So we'll see how much you know saturday.