Beyond Reasonable Doubt (was Re: Farrell on Cooper)

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Mike Farrell wrote:
>I, for one, am not sure I understand what the claims of Abu-Jamal's
>innocence are based on. Yes, we know about the racism that permeates
>our society. Yes, we know about police corruption - newly uncovered
>but long recognized - in Los Angeles. Yes, we know about the Diallo
>shooting in New York and, sadly, so many others around the country.
>Yes, we know about federal investigations of corruption and racism in
>the Philadelphia P.D. But the fact that those things exist and must
>be rooted out of our system doesn't mean that this man is innocent,
>just as the fact that some believe it's possible he may be
>responsible for Officer Faulkner's death doesn't mean they're
>disloyal racist haters who deserve to be censored and shouted down.
>
>Any honest assessment of what happened in Judge Sabo's court, I
>believe, argues that a new and fair trial is necessary. Justice was
>not served there. Cooper and other writers, including Stuart Taylor
>in "American Lawyer," who believe there is a genuine possibility that
>Abu-Jamal is guilty (though arguably not of first-degree murder),
>agree. So why does their having the temerity to speak their open
>disagreement with some of the pronouncements and attitudes of those
>insistent drum-beaters for innocence and immediate freedom draw such
>heat?

What's the reason that Farrell, Cooper, Stuart Taylor, et al. believe that
Mumia is guilty?  What's their evidence?  Because Sam Donaldson said so on
20/20?  That's what I'd like to know.  Besides, the question is whether
Mumia got a fair trial, *not* whether he's innocent.  What's this harping
on the "possiblity" of guilt?  Reminds me of the recent thread on the
Rosenbergs.  I suppose some American leftists have given up on the ideas
that one is innocent until proven guilty and that one has to be proven
guilty beyond reasonable doubt to get a guilty verdict.  If the facts are
in dispute or the evidence could have a perfectly plausible alternative
explanation, the jury must find for the defendant.  "Innocence" is *not*
the point!  If Farrell, Cooper, etc. are friends of civil liberties, who
needs an enemy?


>The claim, made by many, that Abu-Jamal is a political prisoner is
>not supported by my understanding of the meaning of the term and its
>use both demeans the situation of true political prisoners around the
>world and attempts to inflate the position of those who charge it.

The FBI had over 700 pages of documents on Mumia, which NY attorney Paul
Cooperstein obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (see James
Owens, "Mumia Abu-Jamal: The ABC Hatchet Job," _CovertAction Quarterly_ 67
[Spring-Summer 1999]).

Yoshie