«
»

Maureen Faulkner Overdrive: Scenes From The Murdered By Mumia Book Tour

murdered by mumiaJust a few of the choice bits from today’s Maureen Faulkner appearance on Radio Times:
· According to Ms. Faulkner, Mayor Street is in cahoots with the nation of France, as well as Mumia. This is evidenced, she says, by the fact that Street once entertained a French delegation who were in the States to visit Jamal.
· During the trial, Mumia had a habit of “smirking” at Faulkner.
· Mumia Abu-Jamal has made “millions of dollars off of the blood of [Daniel Faulkner].”
· “I don’t believe Michael Smerconish is a racist, and if anything, this book [Murdered By Mumia] should bring the city together.”

This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 11th, 2007 at 12:04 pm.

  • http://www.yourdaughterstiedupinabrooklynbasement.com notefortheplaintiff

    her glares got pretty intense on the today show. especially after matt lauer broke out this gem: “There are some photographs that have been released by supporters of Mumia, and they were taken by a freelancer named Pedro Polakoff. The supporters say that these photos show a policeman holding two guns in his bare hand, contradicting the officer’s trial testimony that he had preserved ballistics evidence. Another shows your husband’s hat on top of a car, and not on the sidewalk as it is in the official police photo of the crime scene. A third shows a blood-stained sidewalk where the shooting took place, but does not show any signs of the marks in the concrete that might have occurred if your husband had been shot from above as prosecutors contended. The defense attorney says that he can ‘have a field day’ with these photographs if a new trial…”

  • lord_whimsy

    Hm–not an authority on the case, but it seems that the rage and grief of a dead cop’s wife is more understandable and legitimate than the comically preening sanctimony I’ve heard from the more vocal Mumia supporters over the past two decades. At this point, they could find raw video footage of that night and it wouldn’t change anyone’s opinion–there’s too much narcissistic identity politics in the mix. The case has become a kind of emblem for one’s worldview rather than a conclusion that could change should new facts come to light. There’s rationale aplenty, but precious little reason.

  • Patricio

    Whimsy just said what I should have been thinking even before I would’ve wrote it.

  • http://bostodelphia.blogspot.com C. The Impaler

    Ditto wit’ the Lord and Patricio.

  • d_Rummy

    This poor woman has lost it. Very sad.

  • tedp

    While I would agree that there is alot of “ego” on both sides during this history of the Mumia case I am not sure about the comment about “narcissistic identity politics” in the case. Honestly this feels like a over-simplified dismissal of a much more complicated issue.

    My experience is that most people in Philadelphia are not as informed as they project themselves to be and rather than look in to the case they are “annoyed” by the movement for Mumia for reasons that seem merely aesthetic to me. Those in the Mumia camp see this case as one of many examples of evidence of racism-based misconduct in the criminal justice system that has personally touched them, their families, and/or their community. There is much evidence to support these feelings.

    This public debate of this case is really about very old feelings that the police and more impoverished communites of color have with each other and each are using Mumia and Faulkner as symbols for their sides’ interpretation of this history.

    As someone who is very familiar with the case I can identify with the statement that “they could find raw video footage about that night and it wouldn’t change anyone’s opinion”. The coverage of this case has been laughable at best and has left many people very confused as to what the facts actually are. Furthermore the defense’s positions are so rarely mentioned by a major platform that many believe that the “Free Mumia” contingency actually believe he is gulty but is just mad cause he got an unfair trial.

    The new photos of the crime scene that have been unearthed were discovered over a year ago by the defense and (they were known about by the prosecution since 1981 however but they were suppressed) have not been mentioned in mainstream media before the brief appearance on the Today Show last week. They not only disprove the prosecution’s case over what happened, but they point very strong evidence that the prosecution’s witnesses were coerced (all agree on a scenario which clearly didn’t happen – there’s PLENTY of other evidence of coercion too). They also show that one of the prosecution’s witnesses was not where he claimed to be, that the police manipulated the crime scene and damaged evidence. All this in a case where a police officer was shot!

    The point I’m trying to make is that the Inquirer has not run this despite the major impact this has on one of the most controversial cases in the history of Philadelphia and yet they will not only run stories on Maureen Faulkner’s book but run exceprts! As if this book’s writing is somehow a bigger story! The only other story they’ve written lately is this “bombshell” that intends to make John Street look bad because he offered to defend Veronica Jones (pro bono) when he heard that she was claiming to being coerced by police. We now know that she WAS coerced, though the judge had her statement where she admitted to lying on the stand because she was scared of what the cops would do to her was stricken from the PCRA hearing transcript. This is supposed to make Street look bad when the headline should have been A WITNESS WAS COERCED BY POLICE!

    The point I’m trying to make is that a simple look into this case reveals gross misuse and irregularities in the legal process and media coverage. Instead of judging the activists as being “narcissistic” I think it’s much more valuable to look at the importance of WHAT they are saying rather than writing it off because of HOW they are saying it.

    Maureen Faulkner’s grief is extremely valid as well as the community’s feelings of being historically disenfranchised by the legal system. Neither sides’ feelings changes the facts that some f-ed up shit went down in this case, which should have us all taking notice. If you didn’t understand this before then you should ask why the information isn’t being presented in more accessible arenas.