I have withheld my opinion that got deleted in the last thread. Those of you who think he is a "political prisoner", read the following. If there is justice for Officer Daniel Faulker, Mumia will never be free, and will never be remembered as anything but a cold blooded killer. CONSIDER THE FACTS THAT CONVICTED MUMIA ABU-JAMAL Before, during, and after the moment he fired the fatal shot on December 9, 1981, Mumia Abu-Jamal's actions have been consistent with his guilt, and have been consistent with nothing else but his guilt. He has done nothing that an innocent person would do if accused and convicted of murder. All the evidence points to Jamal as the killer. You be the judge. FACT As a young man, Jamal had a long history of hatred against the law enforcement officers. While he was a Black Panther, Mumia Abu-Jamal wrote, "I for one feel like putting down the pen....LET'S WRITE EPITAPHS FOR PIGS." Jamal has stated that he used his position in the Black Panthers to call for a "black revolution in America" and that "political power grows from the barrel of a gun." FACT A total of five eyewitnesses have testified that they saw Mumia Abu-Jamal run from a parking lot and shoot Officer Faulkner to death as the officer attempted to arrest Jamal's brother. None of these eyewitnesses knew each other. Each gave their accounts within minutes of the shooting, and the accounts agreed with each other in every significant detail. Several of these individuals stated that -- in some cases from less than 30 feet away -- they watched as Jamal repeatedly fired at the fallen and unarmed officer from point blank range. One even stated that Jamal took the time to bend down and fire the final shot into the wounded officer's face from less than a foot away and that the officer's "whole body jerked" when the shot hit his face. Was each and every one of these eyewitnesses - including a man called by Jamal's own lawyers in 1995, Robert Harkins - "confused" about what they saw, as Jamal and his attorneys allege? FACT Within a few minutes of the shooting, three of the eyewitnesses personally identified Mumia Abu-Jamal to police at the scene as the man who had shot Officer Faulkner. Again, none of these individuals knew each other. They had no time to find what other witnesses were going to say. Nor was there time for police to "coerce" or "intimidate" them prior to making their identifications. The police had no way of knowing what story to "coerce" witnesses to tell even if they had wanted to. Each witness watched from a different vantage point, and several stated that they never lost sight of Jamal from the moment the shooting stopped, until the police apprehended him and placed him in the van. Were these eyewitnesses all "mistaken" about what they saw, as Jamal and his attorneys now argue? FACT Jamal was apprehended only 10 feet away from Officer Faulkner's body. In his chest, Jamal had a bullet fired from Officer Faulkner's gun. If the officer was shot by a "phantom killer," as Jamal's lawyers contend, he would have shot the gunman, not Jamal. The eyewitnesses all said that Jamal shot the officer in the back before the officer even knew Jamal was there. FACT The gun found next to Jamal was owned by Jamal and registered in his name. Does an "innocent man" run to the scene of an arrest with his gun in his hand if he doesn't intend to use it? FACT Jamal's gun contained five spent casings from unique high velocity special +P ammunition. These casings were the exact brand (Federal), caliber (.38) and type (high velocity +P with a hollow base) of ammunition retrieved from Officer Faulkner's brain. Is it reasonable to believe that an "innocent man" just happened to load his gun with exact same ammunition that the "real killer" used in his gun? FACT The rifling characteristics of the bullet removed from Officer Faulkner's brain showed that it was fired from a barrel with 8 lands and grooves and a right hand direction of twist. This is identical to the rifling characteristics of the barrel of Jamal's gun. Is it a coincidence that an "innocent man" just happened to load his gun with the same unique ammunition as the "real killer" AND have the same riffling pattern in the barrel of his gun as the "real killer"? FACT Jamal's brother, William Cook, saw the murder unfold. When police arrived at the scene -- less than one minute after the shooting -- they found Cook against a wall a few feet away from the dead officer's body. Cook's only comment was, "I ain't got nothin to do with this." Would not the brother of an "innocent man" say something like, "The guy who shot the cop ran away." or "My brother didn't do it"? In fact, to this day, Cook is the only known eyewitness (other than Jamal himself) who has never testified to what he saw. He has never so much as suggested that his brother might be innocent. FACT The jury knew that William Cook was the closest person to the murder. Yet the jury never heard Cook testify on his brother's behalf. It does not require a degree in rocket science to understand the significance of the fact that Cook would allow his brother to be sentenced to death rather than testify to his supposed innocence. Is it believable that an "innocent" Mumia Abu-Jamal would simply accept his brother's silence and not demand to have him testify to his innocence in order to save him from conviction? FACT On June 21, 1982 , Officer Faulkner's blood stained shirt was displayed in the courtroom. Jamal deliberately turned around and grinned at Officer Faulkner's widow as her husband's shirt was displayed. Several witnesses saw this. Such a calculated act of evil is not characteristic of an innocent man. FACT Throughout the trial and at the sentencing hearing the jury saw Mumia Abu-Jamal explode with loud violent outbursts, obscenities, verbal threats and diatribes against the judge, the prosecutor, his own attorney, and even the jurors themselves. Were these the acts of an "innocent man"? FACT Jamal insulted and refused to speak with the lawyer he himself had selected prior to trial. He then refused to be represented by any lawyer at all. Instead, he demanded to have John Africa, the leader of a radical cult called MOVE, act as his lawyer. Would an "innocent man" concerned with keeping his freedom, as opposed to making his trial a political forum, make such absurd demands? Or would an "innocent man" work to provide his highly qualified and experienced attorney -- an attorney he hand picked -- with every bit of information and evidence he could muster that supported his innocence? FACT Though given two chances (the trial in 1982 and the PCRA hearing in 1996) to take the stand and explain his alleged "innocence," Mumia Abu-Jamal has refused to do so. In fact, he has refused to tell anyone what really happened on the morning Officer Faulkner was murdered; including the legion of reporters from around the world who line up to interview him. Would an "innocent man" keep the facts that prove his supposed innocence a secret? FACT At his sentencing hearing, Mumia Abu Jamal threatened Judge Albert Sabo in front of the entire courtroom when he said, "I'm going to tell you one thing: You have sentenced yourself, just like Judge Malmed, just like Malcolm, just like Merna Marshal, and every other Judge who dares to sit up there and act like you got some justice. You are wrong. You have just been sentenced to death. You have just been convicted!" (N.T. 5/25/83, 165) Are these the words of an "innocent man"?