Michael Coard esq. has made a formal challenge to the hosts of 1210 to debate the case of Mumia Aba Jamal. This is good for any host at 1210 whom thinks that Mumia Abu Jamal killed Daniel Faulklner. The debate could take place at 1210 or 1340 studios, so please if anyone knows anyone at 1210 studios, tell them they're are being challenged. They can contact Michael Coard at mc@bowserweaver.com or 215-581-5186.

Why does he actually believe he did not execute Officer Faulkner. for anyone who does not believe that Mumia killed Officer Faulkner in cold blood I ask you to first read the court transcript of the first trial. The trial was delayed for 3 days while Mumia kept asking over and over again for the court to get rid of his court appointed attorney and for him to have John Africa (a man without a college degree) appointed as his attorney and also there was a delay about the fact that he needed a microphone even though he was the defendant not an attorney (who don't use microphones either).

Please remember that his brother who was on the scene when the murder happened would not even come to court to testify on Mumia's behalf. Even if the police had an actual full color videotape of the execution some people would still say he was inncoent.

I only ask each and every individual who is interested in the case to read the court transcripts of the first trial and to also read the transcripts of his first appeal. When you read the transcripts of the first appeal you will find out that Mumia's new defense team does not even dispute any of the relevant facts of the case. The guy is as guilty as one can be. He was found on the scene moments after the shooting with his own gun near him and let's not forget that he confessed as well.

You can read the trial transcripts here:

http://www.justice4danielfaulkner.com/frames.html

I read these transcripts and the first appeal before drawing any conclusions as I worked in a law firm at the time, back in 1994.

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

Then why don't you call Michael Coard and debate him on saturday, from 2:30-4:30. I am sure he'll be glad to talk with you, and educate you on the true facts of the case.

Let me tell you that transcripts mean nothing at all, they don't show the emotion of the person speaking, nor if the answers were believable. For instance, if a person is asked a question, and answers it while moving their hands or eyes a whole bunch, rather than looking straight at the jury or person whom asked the question, then this is impossible to see on a transcript.

So if you know so much about the case, who is John Singleton, or Arnold Beverly? John was the only real witness who now states he was threatened into making the statement which indicated Mumia as the murderer. Arnold Beverly was the man who shot Daniel Faulkner, here's his confesion, http://prisonradio.org/maj/maj_tarnold_beverly.html
Tell me when else a case doesn't get a new trial when a person has stepped forward to admit he was the killer, never happens, does it. If people find out the cop was corrupt who arrested them they get a new trial. Let alone having another person admit to the killings and a witness saying he was threatened.

I would put my left foot that you wouldn't debate Michael Coard on this issue. But you never know, you might be able to call me stumpy.

I'll debate anyone on the issue. No problem. What I ask you to do is to read all of the court transcripts and the appeal documents. The funny thing is that once you do that you will see that these wild theories that are put forth on websites, in interviews with supporters and shouted out by people like Mr. Coard are not theories that any, and I say any because Mumia has had many lawyers, have ever put forth in court.

For you to say that court transcripts do not mean anything because they do not capture non verbal communication illustrates you have little knowledge about our justice system or simply care to be ignorant about that arena. You probably do not know that Mumia was a cab driver at the time, someone who no one really paid much attention to and someone who Daniel Faulkner had probably never even heard of before he was shot in cold blood.

Here are some of Mumia's day 1 antics to try to disrupt the proceedings:
(The following took place in open court in the presence of the jury

THE DEFENDANT: I am going to renew my motion, Judge.

THE COURT: I already ruled on your motion.

THE DEFENDANT: You haven't ruled on it before I have spoken about it. I want John Africa to represent me.

THE COURT: I already ruled on that.

THE DEFENDANT: You have not ruled on it to my satisfaction, Judge.

THE COURT: That may be unfortunate. I ruled on it.

THE DEFENDANT: Say what?

THE COURT: I ruled on it.

THE DEFENDANT: You have not ruled on it to my satisfaction, Judge. This man can't represent me. I do not want him sitting there in a position of defense in defense of my life. I want you to speak to the issue, Judge. I want you to address the issue, Judge, about my right

1.71

to counsel of my choice, not your choice --

THE COURT: Let's Proceed.

THE DEFENDANT: -- or the Commonwealth's choice.

MR. McGILL: Your Honor, if it please the Court --

THE DEFENDANT: I'm not finished.

MR. McGILL: Your Honor --

THE DEFENDANT: I'm not finished speaking, Judge.

MR. McGILL: Your Honor, we've just had about a half hour, 20 minutes, anyway, of side bar conference and I believe Your Honor has ruled.

THE COURT: Yes, I have.

THE DEFENDANT: He has not ruled to my satisfaction. This is my trial. This is my trial and it isn't your trial. I need counsel of my choice, Judge.

THE COURT: Are you going to allow the District Attorney to address the jury?

THE DEFENDANT: Are you refusing to allow me counsel of my choice?

1.72

THE COURT: I did rule on that before, yes.

THE DEFENDANT: I need counsel that I can have faith in, that I trust, that I respect --

THE COURT: This is --

THE DEFENDANT: -- that is not a member of this court, that is not an officer of this court --

THE COURT: Mr. Jamal, are you refusing to allow the District Attorney to proceed?

THE DEFENDANT: Are you refusing to give me counsel of my choice?

MR. McGILL: Your Honor, as I understand it Your Honor has said that --

THE COURT: Take the jury out.

(The jury was excused.)

(The following took place in open court out of the presence of the jury

THE COURT: Mr. Jamal, it is quite evident to this Court that you are intentionally

1.73

disrupting the orderly procedure of this court. I have warned you time and time again that if you continue with that attitude that I would have to remove you as counsel in this case.

THE DEFENDANT: Judge, your warnings to me are absolutely meaningless. I'm here fighting for my life. Do you understand that? I'm not fighting to please the Court, or to please the D.A. I'm fighting for my life. I need counsel of my choice, someone I have faith in, someone I have respect for; not someone paid by the same pocket that pays the D.A., not a court-appointed lawyer, not a member of the ABA, not an officer of this court but someone I can trust and I have faith in. Your warnings are absolutely moot, they're meaningless to me.

MR. McGILL: Your Honor, so the record could be clear I believe Mr. Jamal is speaking about a Mr. John Africa --

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. McGILL: -- who is not a member of the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and is, therefore --

1.74

THE COURT: Not a bar of any court.

MR. McGILL: Of any. But specifically in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Your Honor. As a result of this, Your Honor is not only obligated under the law to prevent a non attorney to represent the defendant even though the defendant wants that, literally the Court is required to do that to literally protect the defendant against himself. There are specific Commonwealth decisions, Supreme Court decisions on that.

Your Honor I believe has already mentioned to this Court but so the record can be clear, rather than denying the defendant, whose rights you're attempting to assure, that he is guaranteed his rights under the constitution and the law of this land. Furthermore, if Your Honor permitted such non-lawyer to represent a non-lawyer, Your Honor, you would be yourself violating the law. So it is clear that Your Honor in accordance with the law of this Commonwealth is acting appropriately. That I believe would be a response to what

1.75

Mr. Jamal is attempting to do.

THE DEFENDANT: That may be a response but it is not true. This man has gone to law school, right, but he cannot guarantee me my freedom; he cannot guarantee me victory.

THE COURT: Nobody can do that.

THE DEFENDANT: Well, how do you know?

THE COURT: Well, how do you know?

THE DEFENDANT: I do know. I do know. John Africa can do that.

THE COURT: No, nobody can.

THE DEFENDANT: Well, you don't know that. I do know.

THE COURT: Neither do you.

THE DEFENDANT: Well, do you know John Africa?

THE COURT: I don't have to know him.

THE DEFENDANT: Well, I do.

THE COURT: I don't have to know him.

THE DEFENDANT: I do.

THE COURT: I don't want any comments from the audience.

1. 76

THE DEFENDANT: The point I am making, Judge Sabo --

THE COURT: You're very loud. You're doing good without a microphone now.

***This goes on and on and on for almost a whole day. Judge Sabo had the patience of a saint.



Also I cannot find John Singleton anywhere in the initial trial proceedings. But here is some testimony from Robert Chobert who was one of the key eyewitnesses in the trial:
Direct - Chobert

(ROBERT CHOBERT, is duly sworn.)

MR. MCGILL: May I proceed, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Go ahead.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MCGILL:

Q. Mr. Chobert, would you please speak up, sir, so that we can hear you, the jury and all, when you answer these questions. All right?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you hear me all right, sir?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Now, Mr. Chobert, on December 9, 1981 were you employed at that time?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. In what capacity were you employed?

A. As a cab driver.

Q. For what company at that time?

A. The name is Crescent.

Q. Did you have occasion a little bit before 4:00 a.m. on December 9, 1981 to be at 13th and Locust Streets?

A. Yes, I was.

3.210

Direct - Chobert

Q. And did you have occasion specifically to be at the southeastern corner of 13th and Locust Streets?

A. Yes.

Q. What were you doing there?

A. I let my fare off.

Q. What did you observe, what happened?

A. Well, I let my fare out and I'm marking down on my pad how much it was, and then I heard a shot. I looked up, I saw the cop fall to the ground, and then I saw Jamal standing over him and firing some more shots into him.

Q. Now, you used the word and name Jamal. I'll ask you this: How many times did you see that individual shooting the Police Officer when he was on the ground after he had fallen down?

A. What was that again, please?

Q. You said you heard a shot; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. You looked up, and what did you see the officer do?

A. I saw the officer fall.

Q. And then what did you see happen? Just say what you saw happen then.

A. I saw him shoot him again several more times.

3.211

Direct - Chobert

Q. Several more times?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, what then did you see that you referred to as the shooter do?

A. Then I saw him walking back about ten feet and he just fell by the curb.

Q. All right, and then what happened?

A. Then I got -- I started getting out of my cab, I started walking to the cop to see if I could help him and then all of a sudden Police officers came and told me to get back into my cab.

Q. All right, and what did you see? Did you see the man at the curb any more, or what did they do to the man at the curb?

A. They just stuck him in a wagon.

Q. And where did you say you went?

A. I went back and got in my cab.

Q. And what then happened?

A. And a couple -- about -- a couple minutes later a Police officer came over and asked me if I seen this thing.

Q. What did you say?

A. I said yes, I did. He said, Did you see the guy that shot the cop; and I said, yes.

3.212

Direct - Chobert

Q. You have to speak up loud. You may be a little nervous, speak up loud so I can hear you. The officer came to you and asked what?

A. If I saw what happened, and I told him yes.

Q. And then what?

A. Then he asked me if I ever see the guy again, would I know him. I said yes, I would. They took me over to the wagon and asked me, is that the guy. I said yes, it is.

Q. How much time really transpired from the time that you first saw the shooter shooting the officer and the time that you saw the shooter down at the curb until the time that you went and identified him in the wagon?

A. Just a couple of minutes.

Q. At the time when you saw the shooter shooting the officer on the ground was there anyone else around, around the officer and the shooter?

A. Yes, another black male.

Q. And where was he in relation to the officer as well as the shooter?

A. Where?

Q. Yes.

A. Standing against the wall.

3.213

Direct - Chobert

Q. Other than those two males and the police officer, was there anyone there?

A. No.

Q. Now, this individual, sir, that you saw shooting the officer, would you look around the Courtroom and tell me if you see if he is in the Courtroom?

A. Yes, he is.

Q. Will you point him out?

A. He's right there (indicating).

Q. Would you describe what he has on?

A. What he got on now?

Q. Yes.

A. He has a long shirt, a tee shirt, and a beard and long natty hair.

Q. Is there any doubt in your mind at all that that man is the man who shot the officer?

A. That's the man all right. I got no doubt.

So Mr. Duffman please find where Robert Chobert one of the key eyewitnesses ever recants his story...



Again read the transcripts not what some of Mumia's friends and cronies try to spin about other people confessing.

Mumia even had his own court stenographer in the courtroom which Sabo did not have to allow. Sabo in fact bent over backwards repeatedly putting up with Jamal's antics just to make sure he would have no possible grounds to appeal the case via technicalities.

The man is one of the most guiltiest cold blooded murderers to have ever been sentenced in Philadelphia. I have no problem with people who are against the death penalty who argue that he should not be executed because they are against the death penalty. But anyone who examines all of the facts of the case which were presented in court time and time again by Mumia and his various lawyers and cannot come to the logical conclusion that he is guilty has absolutely no sense of logic and reason.

So before you reply to this message take a few days and read ALL of the transcripts, especially the actual appeals so you can see the actual arguments presented in the courtroom not the lies spun in radio interviews by people who disregard all of the key facts. Facts such as Mumia was found with a gunshot wound on the ground not far from a slain police officer who had been shot at near point blank range in the face after stopping Mumia's brother who was driving the wrong way on a one way street. Oh yeah Mumia's gun was found right near him and the guy who sold him the gun and the bullets testified in court that Mumia was the person who purchased the gun and the bullets.

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

With all of the African-American men in jail that are innocent (and those that aren't, which is another issue), why the focus on one person? Well it does matter that Mumia is a rather articulate felon, unlike Leonard Peltier (who really got railroaded by the Feds). But guess who gets the press? I get so sick of hearing about Mumia's case, because it is a microcosm to begin with (as I do not know the facts well enough to choose whether he is guilty or not), followed by the fact that if he were not an African-American radical (i.e. any other radical minority would not garner the local press) he would be another statistic or trivia question for your local bar. If one were really concerned about "political prisoners" perhaps one should think about joining Amnesty International and writing letters to a bit more harsh regimes.

__________________
Water for Oxen, Wine for Kings.

Are you a lawyer? If so I will set up the interview for you to discuss the trial on air with Mr.Coard. So e-mail me at iam420in@aol.com and I'll set it up for you. Though I don't see what you proved in your post, the statements by Mumia were that of a man on trial for his life whom doesn't trust his council. I would bet that you don't respond to me, yet if you do, I will be only a median for you and Mr.Coard. Though I would like to ask you if you looked the link about Arnold Beverly? Why would another man want to die for Mumia? And you know he was not just a cab driver, he was a radio host and reporter, with a gripe against the police, like most black people should have.

So Duffman, what's your beef? You seem very concerned about Mumia, but don't address the real issues at hand (please see my previous post). Mumia was a Black Panther (look at some of their old material, smitten with Shakespeare that they were) and I respect his intelligence. But to make one person a focus seems rather silly. The railroading of minorities knows no bounds, throughout the history of this country. So why is Mumia so important? What about all of the people who were convicted of crimes because they "fit the description" of a "dark skinned male between the ages of 18-40"? To worry about whether Mumia is executed or not (and it isn't going to happen, he will die of natural causes) it doesn't change the system of justice we live under. Personally I'd rather have Ed Asner executed in his place.

__________________
Water for Oxen, Wine for Kings.

When is it in America that a new trial isn't given when new evidence has surfaced. Not to mention an officer who never tesified, this officer gave two conflicting reports about the death of Daniel Faulkner. With all the black men out there trying to stay out of jail, why the hell would Arnold Beverly ask to be put in prison, or even to death. Why wasn't the most basic test done to see is Mumia had gun powder residue on his had?

I talked to Frank Rizzo Jr. one day about this issue. He was talking about the death penalty, to which I saw the opening to discuss Mumia. When I first came on the line he stated that when there is no doubt in a death penalty case, then the person should be put to death. He was giving no specifics on his blanket statement, so I asked him what he thinks about Mumia. He said "what about Mumia", to which I replied"is there a doubt in Mumia"? Frank said"Nope no doubt", when I then brought up the name of Arnold Beverly he didn't want to talk about it. This is the same man who's father, hated Mumia with a passion. So he keeps the lie and hate going, the same as the two of you do. Yet, if you'd like a public humiliation on this subject, then please contact me or Michael Coard, he'll be on the air saturday 2:30-4:30 pm, 1340am. I would guess that you don't feel that passionatly to put your real name on the line?

oen :clapping:

I never thought of it in those terms, but you are absolutely right. The question should be what is it about THIS case that causes it to get so much attention over other cases where black men (or any man) is falesly imprisioned.

__________________
Philadelphia SEO consultants | Ringtones|Contact Lenses

Duffman,

Mumia has had several appeals and even one that resulted in the dismissal of his death penalty charge due to technicalities, but even in that last appeal which was after the Arnold Beverly claim the judge found without a doubt that Mumia was guilty of the crime. Do you know that in high profile cases it often happens where people try to take credit for a crim they did not commit. Addtionally the defense waited far too long to present this supposedly new evidence and Beverly's statements are filled with factually inaccurate statements such as a key statement that he was supposed to go to a spot at 13th and Locust at 4 am and shot Officer Faulkner who would be coming out of a bar called Johnny D's. One big probelm with that statement is that Johnny D's was a Pizza place that was never open at 4 am (additionally bars in Philadelphia close at 2 am).

Find other problems with Beverly's testimony here and information from the Common Pleas judge about how common it is for other people to confess to murders in high profile cases:
http://www.geocities.com/justice4fau...ld_beverly.htm

I am not a lawyer and like I said I will debate the actual facts of the case with anyone who has actually either read all of the court transcripts or actually attended all of the trials and legal proceedings. You seem to have done neither.

You seem to ignore the fact of how I noted that this John Singleton was not used as a witness in the original trial by the prosecution and that Robert Chobert a key eyewitness has never refuted his original testimony. Nor was John Singleton called by the defense in 1982, nor by Weinglass in 1995. You are making stuff up as you go along or probably just passing on information that others made up.

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