A TALE OF TWO CONVICTED COP KILLERS: Why Mumia Abu-Jamal Is Not Winston Silcott

A TALE OF TWO
CONVICTED COP KILLERS:
Why Mumia Abu-Jamal
Is Not
Winston Silcott

A TALE OF TWO CONVICTED COP KILLERS

A Tale Of Two Convicted Cop Killers

Murder At The Farm

In October 1985, serious public disorder broke out on a North London housing estate. The
Broadwater Farm riot was sparked by the death of an overweight black woman named
Cynthia Jarrett who dropped dead of a heart attack during a police raid on her home. The
riot itself resulted most tragically in the now notorious murder of 40 year old police constable
Keith Blakelock. The unfortunate victim was literally hacked to death by savages, and
unsurprisingly as ever when one of their own are cut down, Britain's finest moved into action
in double quick time and with their by now de rigueur lack of finesse. Six people were
eventually to stand trial for this senseless murder - three juveniles and three adults - the
adults were convicted, and the alleged ringleader, Winston Silcott, seemed destined to stand
forever in the halls of infamy alongside the likes of fellow cop killer Harry Roberts, serial
murderer Peter Sutcliffe, and multiple child killer Myra Hindley. (1)

A most unflattering photograph of Silcott grinning like a Cheshire cat was circulated far
and wide; its message was simple: this is the face of a cop killer, although the fact that Silcott
is black also lent its use to exploitation by both the far right and by so-called "anti-racists".
The reality though is that race is not an issue in this case, nor is it in the case of Mumia Abu-
Jamal - shortly to be discussed - but the cynical manipulation and gerrymandering of such
tragedies by people with political and/or racial agendas over the past two decades and more -
what has become known as "playing the race card" - has become depressingly familiar on
both sides of the Atlantic. (2)

After the conviction of the three who were to become known as "The Tottenham Three" a
shocking revelation was made: Silcott had done it before. At the time of the murder of Keith
Blakelock he was actually out on bail after being charged with the murder of boxer Anthony
Smith. That sealed things, didn't it? The only question was how could a monster like Silcott
have been granted bail on a murder charge in the first place?

That question was premature, to put it mildly, because on November 25, 1991 after years of
campaigning, Winston Silcott was cleared of the murder of Keith Blakelock by the Court of
Appeal. Silcott's co-accused, Mark Braithwaite and Engin Raghip, were also cleared (3) so
the question of who actually murdered Keith Blakelock remains unanswered. The only
"evidence" against Silcott was a supposedly contemporaneous (and unsigned) witness
statement (4) which was later proved by forensic tests to have been manufactured after the
event. (5)

Two police officers were subsequently sent for trial as a result of the inquiry into the fit-up
of The Tottenham Three. As was to be expected, they were acquitted. (6) In July 1992,
Detective Chief Superintendent Graham Melvin was committed at Bow Street Magistrates'
Court on charges of perjury and perverting the course of justice; Detective Inspector
Maxwell Dingle was committed on a charge of conspiring with him. (7) Melvin retired in
November 1994; he'd been suspended since November 1991, (8) presumably on full pay. Nice
work if you can get it.

Melvin's dirty work was not limited to framing Silcott. Silcott's co-convicted Mark
Braithwaite was denied access to a solicitor for twelve days! (9) Another suspect, 13 year old
Jason Hill, who was also charged with the murder, was kept in his underpants and given only
a blanket while he was interrogated for three days while being denied access to a solicitor and
to his parents. Melvin was at least found guilty of four disciplinary offences in this
connection. (10)

Although as his supporters claim, Winston Silcott was indeed demonised by the media as
much as by the police, he is not quite the little angel that some people would have us believe.

1

A TALE OF TWO CONVICTED COP KILLERS

He was after all convicted of the murder of Anthony Smith, and remains in gaol to this day.
Prior to his arrest for this murder he had eight previous convictions going back as many
years. Only one of these, for malicious wounding, involved violence, an offence for which he
received a six month sentence, but perhaps just as significantly he had been tried for murder
before. In 1980, Silcott was cleared of murdering Leonard Mcintosh. A retrial was ordered
when the jury in the first trial couldn't agree. (11) Of course, the fact that Silcott was
convicted of a subsequent murder doesn't mean that he should also have been convicted of
the first one, but for something as comparatively rare as murder it does suggest that Silcott
was accident prone at the very least.

Murder On The Highway

Which brings us to the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was also convicted of the murder of
a police officer, in 1982, and like The Tottenham Three has been the subject of intense
campaigning. Like Winston Silcott, Abu-Jamal remains in gaol, but unlike Silcott who may
one day taste freedom, Abu-Jamal is likely to remain on Death Row until he is eventually
executed. Although the campaign to clear Silcott and his two co-accused was intensive, it was
not of the same scope or on the same scale as the campaign on Abu-Jamal f s behalf. In the age
of the Internet and the World Wide Web Abu-JamaPs supporters have set up websites and
mailing lists to lobby for a retrial. Abu-Jamal has also published a book of his prison writings
as well as engaging in numerous journalistic assignments from Death Row.

An uninformed observer might conclude that there are disturbing similarities between the
framing of The Tottenham Three and the conviction of Abu-Jamal, certainly if he relied on
the biased, distorted and often blatantly dishonest reporting of Abu-JamaPs many and vocal
supporters.

The creeping left wing magazine CARF carried an inset on Abu-Jamal in a 1999 issue.
Obviously based uncritically on a press release, CARFs readers were told that Abu-Jamal is
a political prisoner, which he certainly is not, and that he was "sentenced to death in 1982
after a rigged trial on charges of shooting a policeman". (12) Incredibly, CARF managed to
publish this item without once using its controllers' favourite word: racism. (13)

A leaflet which turned up here in London announces that Abu-Jamal (14) was

FRAMED

for a murder he didn H commit.
SENTENCED

after a rigged and racist trial.
CONDEMNED

for working to expose police brutality.

The leaflet calls on its readers to demand justice for Abu-Jamal before it is too late.
However, anyone who does a little probing will swiftly realise that what Abu-Jamal needs is
not justice but a reality check. Apart from the colour of his skin Abu-Jamal has only two
things in common with Winston Silcott; the first is that he is a liar. (15)

2

A TALE OF TWO CONVICTED COP KILLERS

Political Prisoner?

The facts about "political prisoner" Mumia Abu-Jamal as presented by his supporters are
that he is "a prominent radio journalist" who was committed to the poor and the black
communities of Philadelphia as well as a strident critic of the city's "racist police force". (16)
In 1981 he saw his brother being beaten up by police officer Daniel Faulkner, ran to defend
him and was shot in the stomach. That much is certainly true, Abu-Jamal was indeed shot by
Faulkner. The officer was then shot and killed, not by Abu-Jamal, but by an unidentified man
who subsequently fled the scene of the crime. Although Abu-Jamal was carrying a gun, this
was a .33 calibre while the murder weapon fired a .44 calibre bullet.

Witnesses who testified at the trial have subsequently claimed they were intimidated into
perjuring themselves by the police. Testimony supporting Abu-JamaPs version of events was
suppressed or ignored; Abu-JamaPs attorney was incompetent, and his client was not
permitted to defend himself. Abu-Jamal was sentenced to death solely on the basis of his
political beliefs and to make sure that he was convicted, no less than eleven African-
Americans were struck from the jury.

"We" - that's us - have got to stop "the execution of a man who has not committed any
crime, except that of speaking out against oppression and violence."

A contact phone number for the London Mumia Support Group is given on the leaflet: 0171
326 0353. On the morning of April 14, 1999 I dialled this number and received a number not
available message. I was informed by the operator that since March there had been no
customer on that line.

If the London number is no longer functioning, the websites are. One of the Abu-Jamal
websites publishes a precis of the book by American lawyer Leonard Weinglass who has
taken up Abu-JamaPs case. Among other things this site claims that:

The Commonwealth withheld materially favorable evidence from the defense, and
knowingly used false evidence. Evidence withheld and false evidence include the following:

...statements by an eyewitness, indicating that another individual, not Mumia, was the
shooter, that the actual shooter fled the scene, and that a critical prosecution witness was
actually not present at the scene.

And that

Mumia was effectively barred from presenting crucial evidence that he had not made any
incriminatory statements. Consequently, the prosecution's claim that Mumia had confessed to
the shooting of Officer Faulkner remained unrebutted.

And that

The court unjustifiably banished Mumia on numerous occasions from the trial proceedings,
thereby violating his right to self-representation, his right to assist in his own defense, and his
right to confront the prosecution's witnesses.

And that

The jury pool from which the jury was selected was not a product of a random cross-section
of the community.

3

A TALE OF TWO CONVICTED COP KILLERS

And that

A medical examiner's report states that Faulkner's wounds were made by a .44-cal gun, but
Mumia had a .38. This key evidence was withheld from Mumia and his defense in his 1982
trial. Moreover, a weapons expert found it incredible that the police at the scene of the
shooting failed to test Jamal's gun to see if it had been recently fired or to test his hands to see
if he had fired a weapon. (17)

These are serious criticisms and, if true, would give genuine cause for concern that a
miscarriage of justice had indeed been perpetrated. The current writer has read Weinglass's
book Race For Justice where these criticisms are amplified. Fortunately the book has been
written with such an outrageous spin that no critical person could read it without doubting
both the noble intentions and the veracity of the author.

The book, which runs to over 270 pages, carries the insinuation of racism throughout the
text. This word is a much over-used epithet and can mean practically anything its users want
it to mean, but let us assume that in this context it means that Abu-Jamal was treated unfairly
by the system because he was black, notwithstanding any other possible reasons. Abu-Jamal
was convicted of the murder of Daniel Faulkner on July 2, 1982. One of his problems,
according to Weinglass, was "his younger brother's inability or unwillingness to testify on his
behalf." This, we are told, is because his brother is said to have "a history of drug problems
and was terrified of police retribution". (18)

Prosecution witness Cynthia White - a prostitute - had allegedly been schooled by the police
repeatedly to give "correct evidence" (my quotes). (19)

Abu-Jamal was repeatedly excluded from the court during the trial, (20) something which
sounds remarkable but which sounds less remarkable when the full facts - which Weinglass
does not present here - are known.

Four witnesses are alleged to have seen someone else fleeing from the crime scene. (21)

The prosecution is said to have withheld evidence, including statements relating to the

alleged killer and the fact that a prosecution witness allegedly failed to identify Abu-Jamal.

Robert Harkins, a taxi driver, said he could identify the killer but was unable to pick out

Abu-Jamal from a photographic array. (22)
Abu-Jamal was said, falsely, to have confessed to the killing and "was effectively barred

from presenting crucial evidence that he had not made any inculpatory statements. As a

result, the prosecution's claim Mr. Jamal had confessed to the killing of Officer Faulkner was

never actually challenged at trial." (23)

This is an outright lie, and next to the ludicrous protestations of Abu-Jamal' s innocence is
the biggest lie of all.

The defence was said to have suffered severe financial restrictions. (24) This is a serious
criticism - if true - but in view of the weight of the evidence against Abu-Jamal it is doubtful if
even O.J. Simpson's extremely expensive lawyers could have bought him his freedom.

While Abu-Jamal's supporters have been extremely vocal, his detractors have,
unfortunately, largely been muted, barring calls for the death sentence to be carried out
without further delay. The current writer contacted the District Attorney for Philadelphia
and the Philadelphia Police Department as well as the Philadelphia Inquirer newspaper, the
latter of which which has covered the Abu-Jamal case extensively. I received no replies.
However, DA Lynne Abrahams did publish an article about the case in the New York Times in
1995, and that, combined with an excellent essay by local journalist Paul Mulshine in the 1997
book The Race Card, an in-depth article on the case published in Vanity Fair magazine
(several months after I began researching this monograph), the book by Weinglass, and a
handful of other reports ranging from fairly neutral to slavishly pro-Abu-Jamal, allows us to
piece together a reasonably objective picture of the true facts of this case. In the light of this,
how Abu-Jamal ever became a cause celebre remains a mystery.

4

A TALE OF TWO CONVICTED COP KILLERS

The slaying of Daniel Faulkner was reported briefly in the New York Times of Sunday,
December 13, 1981. Abu-Jamal - formerly known as Wesley Cook - was said to be 27 years
old, a freelance reporter and the retiring president of the local chapter of the Association of
Black Journalists. There were said to have been four civilian witnesses to the shooting.

Abu-Jamal had (in his youth) been a Black Panther Party spokesman. He was said to have
been working for a radio station, WUHY-FM, earlier in 1981. His brother was released on
SI 0,000 bail on the Friday. This report was fded Saturday, December 12. (25)

Curiously, for such a prominent radio journalist who hit the headlines in a big way, Abu-
Jamal is not listed in the Black Newspaper Index for the last quarter of 1981 nor for the whole
of 1982, which indicates that the word prominent has been used rather liberally. In fact, as
Paul Mulshine points out, at the time of the murder of Daniel Faulkner, Abu-Jamal had only
the most tenuous of contacts with journalism, he made his living by driving a cab. (26) In
Britain, the National Union of Journalists has taken up the cause of "innocent" Mumia Abu-
Jamal, and even made him an honorary member of the union in 1995, (27) although one
correspondent writing to the Union's official journal from New York exercised a little more
critical faculty than most when he pointed out that the reference to Abu-Jamal being a
journalist is "not exactly correct". He was fired from his job for his overt advocacy of "a
black political party" (the MOVE organisation) and became a taxi driver. (28)

Abu-Jamal: The Best Case For
The Defence Deconstructed

Now let us turn to the book by attorney Leonard Weinglass and compare what he says with
the facts of the case. On page 20 he tells us that during the trial, Abu-Jamal was repeatedly
excluded from the court. What was the reason for this? According to Weinglass on page 86,
Abu-Jamal's desired representative, John Africa, was not a member of the bar. This is as
good a reason as any for denying any accused his desired representation. In Britain an
accused (or either party in civil proceedings) may represent himself and have the assistance of
a McKenzie Friend, (29) but he must conduct his own case. (30) When the trial judge, Albert
Sabo, refused to permit John Africa to join the defence team, "Jamal responded by
disrupting the trial and playing to the audience, which was composed largely of MOVE
members...After warning him several times to cease disrupting the proceedings, Sabo would
have Jamal removed from the courtroom and let his backup attorney, Anthony Jackson,
handle the defense. Then Jamal would return for a while, until his next disruption." (31)

Weinglass and the rest of Abu-Jamal's vocal supporters are strangely silent about this. Or
perhaps not so strangely, because as Mulshine rightly points out, those who worship in the
cult of Mumia Abu-Jamal are allergic to the facts, (32) something which is a necessary
prerequisite for many political and lobbying causes, of course.

Obviously it cannot be satisfactory to run a trial, any trial, in such a fashion, but Abu-Jamal
was largely if not entirely to blame.

Earlier, on page 15 of his book, Weinglass claims that Cynthia White - a prostitute - had
allegedly been schooled by the police repeatedly to give "correct evidence". Another
prostitute who allegedly witnessed the slaying of Daniel Faulkner at 4am at the junction of
Broad and Locust was 20 year old Veronica Jones. She was said to have been visited in gaol
by detectives where she was awaiting trial on serious charges and threatened with a ten year
gaol sentence if she gave evidence in Abu-Jamal's favour. (33)

This may be true, but it is more likely that the officers were warning her of the consequences
of committing perjury or of failing to testify. Ordinary people are often reluctant witnesses in

5

A TALE OF TWO CONVICTED COP KILLERS

criminal trials for all sorts of reasons, not the least being that it can be inconvenient and
boring hanging around a court building for hours or even days on end in order to give
evidence. A prostitute might also be reluctant to be so identified and to be subjected to public
cross-examination concerning her trade and antecedents by an aggressive defence lawyer.

Abu-Jamal' s supporters have been aided by inconsistencies in the eyewitness evidence. In
her 1995 New York Times article on the Abu-Jamal campaign, Philadelphia DA Lynne
Abraham refers contemptuously to "The Fleeing Stranger Theory". Abu-Jamal's supporters
claim that "several witnesses saw the 'real' shooter escape. The reality is that after years of
empty assertions, the defense only recently presented testimony from these
'witnesses.' ...Essential parts of their stories contradict one another and don't square with the
physical vestiges of the crime. The only witnesses whose testimony agrees with the known
facts came forward immediately after the crime." (34)

Abraham is also dismissive of the claim that the defence was starved of funds. "Mr. Abu-
Jamal's supporters say he was forced to accept a novice lawyer [and] was given no money for
preparations... (35) The record shows that the court paid the lawyer, that the defense received
additional public and private funds and that the lawyer hired an investigator who worked on
the case for months before and during the trial." Nor was the lawyer a novice, she says.

Paul Mulshine is just as contemptuous of the attempts to absolve Abu-Jamal and says there
are "at least four separate and mutually exclusive theories of what happened that night... In
this latest hearing, the defense one day produced a witness who said that Faulkner was shot
by a passenger in William Cook's car and on another day produced a witness who said
Faulkner was shot by a guy with 'Johnny Mathis hair' who drove up to the scene in the
middle of the action..." (36)

Both Abraham and Mulshine are in danger of going over the top in the same way - although
in the opposite direction - as Abu-Jamal' s supporters. What are we to make of the claim
made by Weinglass earlier that taxi driver Robert Harkins failed to identify Abu-Jamal as
the killer?

There are serious problems with eyewitness evidence, even when the witnesses are sincere,
willing, and have no reason or motive to lie. In Britain, when eyewitness evidence is crucial a
judge must in his summing up to a jury administer a Turnbull Warning, which is named
after a Court of Appeal case. (37) I have personal experience of the problems the police face
with eyewitness testimony. A few years ago I witnessed an attempted armed robbery at the
Abbey National building society in Catford. Shortly, two detectives turned up at my flat to
take a statement and I was asked what colour was the robber? White, I said. Are you sure? I
was asked; at least one witness had claimed he was black. Granted, there are black men who
can pass for white and white men who are dark complexioned, but at the end of the day there
were two, perhaps several, conflicting statements.

The murder of Daniel Faulkner took place at 4am on a December morning; the incident was
sudden, totally unexpected, and traumatic. It is hardly surprising that several witnesses
should give different accounts of what happened. It is quite conceivable that one man failed to
identify Abu-Jamal as the assailant, and it is just as conceivable that someone mistakenly
thought they saw the killer (or someone) fleeing from the crime scene. But one must consider
the weight of the evidence, and in this case there is plenty of it.

I don't know if anyone was apprehended for the Catford building society robbery, certainly
I was never called upon to give evidence, but suppose the police had arrested a suspect and
found his fingerprints at the scene, CCTV evidence, and forensic evidence at his flat. Would
that mean that a conviction would be unsafe if one witness said the perpetrator was black,
another white and a third that the robber was a woman?

Did police officers verbal up witnesses to give "correct evidence" in the Abu-Jamal case?
This sort of thing happens all the time - as I know from personal experience - it may even
happen subconsciously, but there is no meaningful evidence that Abu-Jamal was fitted up. At
worst it appears that witnesses - some of whom were of dubious character - were reminded of

6

A TALE OF TWO CONVICTED COP KILLERS

the consequences of failing to testify truthfully. Neither Weinglass nor any other of Abu-
Jamal's supporters has adduced any meaningful evidence that the police suppressed or
doctored any of the prosecution evidence, in fact the only hard evidence of such doctoring is
by the likes of Weinglass.

At two hearings in 1995 and 1996, the defence produced six alleged witnesses, one of whom
gave ludicrous "evidence", including claiming to have heard Faulkner's last words; he also
said Faulkner had been shot by a passenger in Cook's car. Three had previously claimed or
claimed during these hearings that they hadn't seen the shooting; another said Faulkner had
been shot by two different people, while the sixth substantiated the prosecution case! (38)

The eyewitness evidence is not the only evidence that has been doctored by the defence;
there is also the manufactured controversy over the calibre of the bullet which killed Daniel
Faulkner.

The reader will recall that the leaflet the current writer picked up in London claims that
Abu-Jamal's gun was a .33 calibre weapon while Daniel Faulkner was shot with a .44 calibre.
Weinglass claims that Abu-Jamal didn't fire his gun at all! (39) Actually, Abu-Jamal's gun
was a .38 calibre. According to the Mazelis World Wide Web article (already cited),
"Mumia's gun, a .38, could not have fired such a bullet. Moreover, the police allegedly failed
to conduct a test to determine if Mumia's gun had even been fired recently, or a routine test
to see if he had recently fired any weapon." Note the qualification there: "allegedly".

The DA takes a somewhat different view of this: "Abu-Jamal supporters contend he
couldn't be guilty because Officer Faulkner was killed with a .44-caliber bullet, not the .38-
caliber bullet from Mr. Abu-Jamal's gun. This assertion is based on a handwritten note on a
medical examiner's pre-autopsy worksheet. But the examiner who made the notation testified
that he was no weapons expert and could not precisely measure the bullet. The real expert
who examined the bullet determined conclusively that it was a .38 caliber. That bullet still
exists. It has been made available to the defense, whose expert refuses to look at it but
concedes that all the documentation supports the prosecution's evidence that the bullet is a
.38. If the Abu-Jamal legal team could have disproved the expert assessment and shown that
the .38 was a .44, it would have done so." (40)

Forensic tests were conducted, albeit rather belatedly, and they proved inconclusive. (41)
Under the circumstances - the fact that Abu-Jamal was found lying at the scene with the
murder weapon at his feet, with several eyewitnesses to boot - one can forgive the police for
failing to give immediate forensic testing of the weapon or of Abu-Jamal himself the highest
priority; the thought that he might actually deny shooting Faulkner probably never entered
their heads. (In fact, as we shall see in due course, he never has!)

Now for the biggest lie of all, Abu-Jamal had allegedly confessed to the murder, probably by
screaming something like "I shot the motherfucker" as he was dragged off to hospital,
himself in a critical condition. This confession, boast, or whatever, was ruled admissible, so
Abu-Jamal was "effectively barred from presenting crucial evidence that he had not made
any inculpatory statements. As a result, the prosecution's claim Mr. Jamal had confessed to
the killing of Officer Faulkner was never actually challenged at trial."

Why wasn't this apparently so crucial piece of evidence challenged at trial? Because Abu-
Jamal did not give evidence, that's why not! This is the other thing Mumia Abu-Jamal has in
common with Winston Silcott, but unlike Silcott he has no excuse for failing to testify. And at
this point we must introduce one of the major defects of the British legal system: the shield
against cross-examination.

A TALE OF TWO CONVICTED COP KILLERS

A Serious Legal Defect

character Ta prosecution witness, then he will lose his shield against cross-examination on

his P re T iou ^ convict ;. on '• - madness here let us SU ppo S e that the defendant in a rape case
Now there is a method in the madness here, let "UP fa the bushes and

Hkelv suspects living locally, if only to eliminate them from their inquiries (42)

makine a detailed confession to a police officer without accusing him of lying. Does he claim

squelched. (44)

A TALE OF TWO CONVICTED COP KILLERS

As Silcott himself explained in a 1994 interview from Swaleside Prison: "I wanted to go to
court to give evidence. But I knew that my previous record and my charge for the murder of
Anthony Smith would come out and prejudice the trial. The prosecution would have brought
it up, and the jury would think I'm guilty.

If I'd said the police were liars, all my criminal record would have been brought in. By not
taking the stand, the previous record didn't come out." (45)

My personal opinion is that an accused should always give evidence in his own defence no
matter how appalling his criminal record, unless there are really exceptional reasons - as in
the O. J. Simpson case, (see below). The correct approach is to make a submission of no case
to answer at the end of the prosecution case, and if this is rejected then it is essential that an
accused testify.

That being said, it is difficult to criticise Silcott for failing to do this, but his legal team is a
different kettle of fish. Silcott had the misfortune to be represented by Barbara Mills QC,
who later went on to become Director of Public Prosecutions until she was forced to resign for
persistently refusing to prosecute corrupt police officers. (46) At the trial, Mills made no
attempt to challenge the accuracy of the fabricated police record, and didn't even ask for a
voire dire in which to make a submission to the ju(Jge concerning the obvious difficulty of
Silcott's giving evidence. The bent copper Melvin spent a grand total of 30 minutes in the
witness box! (47)

In 1992 the judge himself told journalist and author David Rose that he would not have
allowed Silcott's murder conviction to go before the jury. (48)

That was Silcott's predicament, but Mumia Abu-Jamal is not Winston Silcott; Abu-Jamal
had no previous convictions at all, (49) and in fact called a number of character witnesses
who testified that he wasn't the sort of person who would murder anyone. (50)

How could Abu-Jamal have not given evidence in this case? It is not of course mandatory for
an accused to give evidence, but it is a calculated risk not to put him in the witness box. (51)
O.J. Simpson declined to give evidence at his trial for double murder, or rather his legal team
decided that to put the functionally illiterate, half-witted (and obviously guilty) Simpson on
the stand would be suicidal.

But Abu-Jamal was found at the crime scene with a gun at his feet, and independent
witnesses claimed they'd seen him shoot Faulkner. On top of that he was alleged to have
confessed to the killing, and Weinglass has the gall to claim that Abu-Jamal was "effectively
barred from presenting crucial evidence that he had not made any inculpatory statements."
No, he wasn't! He could have taken the stand and said "I didn't shoot him", or words to that
effect, but then he would have had to subject himself to cross-examination, and that would
have made him a laughing stock.

And what was the nature of this "confession"? The current writer's guess was not a bad one,
because the Vanity Fair article reports that Abu-Jamal was alleged to have said: "I shot that
motherfucker and I hope the motherfucker dies." Officer Gary Bell is said to have reported
this only 77 days after the event, while another officer filed a report to the effect that Abu-
Jamal had said nothing. Abu-Jamal's supporters make much of this supposed discrepancy,
but a woman security guard reported it the next day. She told hospital investigators Abu-
Jamal had said: "I shot the motherfucker and I hope the motherfucker dies." (52) Not a
world of difference.

Where Were The Defence Witnesses?

One final point regarding Abu-Jamal's possible line of defence, there was another witness
who could have been called, his brother, whom he so gallantly attempted to rescue from this
alleged act of police brutality, remember?

A TALE OF TWO CONVICTED COP KILLERS

Weinglass f s claim that Abu-Jamal v s brother had "a history of drug problems and was
terrified of police retribution" is pathetic. And remember what Paul Mulshine said: "the
defense one day produced a witness who said that Faulkner was shot by a passenger in
William Cook's car". Of course, if that were the case, Cook would have found himself an
accessory to murder, but he has never been charged with any offence relating to this cold-
blooded slaying because this is a classic open and shut case with one victim and one
perpetrator. Are we really expected to believe that Cook was so terrified of police retribution
that he refused to give evidence in his own brother's defence? What could he have said other
than that Abu-Jamal shot Faulkner? (53)

One other point, the leaflet in Abu-Jamal's defence which proclaims that "We" have got to
stop "the execution of a man who has not committed any crime, except that of speaking out
against oppression and violence" is more than a touch on the naive side. The tendency of his
defenders to portray Abu-Jamal as a cuddly, dreadlocked teddy bear is totally out of touch
with reality. In addition to disrupting his trial, Abu-Jamal was said to have disrupted a pre-
trial hearing, calling the judge a bastard and telling him to go to Hell. (54) Most amusingly,
an American correspondent who did a World Wide Web search for me came up with a
headline from the Philadelphia Inquirer, the print out of which does rather dent Abu-Jamal's
teddy bear image: ABU-JAMAL, SENTENCED TO DIE, THREATENS THE JUDGE. This
was published June 26, 1983:

In a final act of courtroom defiance, convicted murderer Mumia Abu-Jamal yesterday
threatened the judge who had moments before sentenced him to die in the electric chair,
shouting "Judge, you have just sentenced yourself to die. "...Several dozen supporters of Abu-
Jamal shouted their encouragement to him. "Sabo, you won't be around for the execution,"
one of them yelled...

What was that about stopping the execution of a man who speaks out against oppression and
violence? Still want to free Mumia?

One final point before we move on, Abu-Jamal's reputation as a critic and exposer of police
brutality has been made up out of the whole cloth. He had indeed been a promising radio
talent, but had gone downhill over a period of time prior to the slaying of Daniel Faulkner.
He was said to have done practically no original reporting on alleged police brutality; one
informed critic says that the claim that he was some sort of crusader is "a triumph of
propaganda over truth". (55) Just like the entire "Mumia is innocent" campaign.

i

COINTELPRO: The Government Aren 't <
The Only Liars Out There

Returning to the book by Leonard Weinglass, on pages 213-27 he refers to the book The
COINTELPRO Papers, and even reproduces a document relating to the young Wesley Cook,
ie Abu-Jamal. I was familiar with this book, having consulted it some time ago in connection
with totally different matters. COINTELPRO is an acronym for the FBI's Counter-
intelligence Program. This was directed initially against political "extremists" of the far left;
its targets included both the Black Panthers and pro-race-mixing activists such as Martin
Luther King; COINTELPRO was also later used against the far right.

Abu-Jamal's supporters place great emphasis on his youthful involvement with the Black
Panthers, and claim that he was set up partly on account of this. The FBI and its fellow
travellers obviously still take an interest in Abu-Jamal because the document reproduced on

10

A TALE OF TWO CONVICTED COP KILLERS

page 227 of Weinglass's book is very recent. It also states, incorrectly, that Abu-Jamal was
convicted of murder in 1983. Some people though are skeptical of the COINTELPRO
connection. In his essay True Lies, Cristopher Rapp comments "The evidence indicates that
COINTELPRO was neither far-reaching nor particularly successful." (56) I consulted The
COINTELPRO Papers wherein the reader is informed that

...Mumia Abu-Jamal, a former BPP member in Philadelphia, convicted and sentenced to
death on July 3, 1982, ostensibly for having killed a cop, despite eyewitnesses having
identified an entirely different individual as the assailant. On March 6, 1989, the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Abu-Jamal's last possible appeal prior to the electric
chair even while acknowledging that "genuine doubt" exists as to the killer's identity... (57)

This is very damning, superficially, and the extract above is footnoted. However, when one
turns to the footnotes, the source given on page 417 is Wages of COINTELPRO: The case of
Mumia Abu-Jamal, by Ward Churchill, published in New Studies on the Left, Vol. XIV, Nos.
1-2, Spring-Summer 1989, pages 96-9.

Ward Churchill is co-author of The COINTELPRO Papers.

Suspicious that Churchill had cited his own work I fished around for a copy of this article;
the British Library does not hold New Studies on the Left, but through an American contact I
managed to obtain a faxed copy of Churchill's article. It contains a great deal of background
on Abu-JamaPs involvement with the Black Panthers and so on, but precious little about the
murder of Daniel Faulkner. What Churchill does say is revealing, though sadly it reveals
more about himself than it does about the incident. Abu-Jamal witnessed the "beating" and
moments later

an unarmed Mumia Abu-Jamal was sitting on the curb, a serious bullet wound from a police
service revolver in his stomach. Nearby, the patrolman who had been engaged in the beating
lay dead, killed by a weapon which was never recovered...Witnesses to the event did not
describe Mumia as being the man who shot the cop. Instead, they described a "short"
individual of approximately "200 pounds" wearing an "Afro hair-do".

How many lies is that? Was Faulkner beating Cook? There was certainly a struggle, but
according to Mulshine, "Cook sucker-punched Faulkner, eyewitnesses said." (58)

Faulkner was "killed by a weapon which was never recovered". As Mulshine says,
"Weinglass can nibble at the edges of the evidence all he wants, but he can't get rid of the
Charter Arms revolver found at Mumia Abu-JamaPs feet". (59) Nor of the five spent casings
found in the gun. (60) Weinglass can't get rid of the gun, but Churchill doesn't even mention
it!

"Witnesses to the event did not describe Mumia as being the man who shot the cop." Really,
then how about cab driver Robert Chobert who when cross-examined by Abu-Jamal replied:
"I saw you, buddy. I saw you shoot him and I never took my eyes off you." (61)

Churchill refers to what he calls an eerie parallel to the 1967 killing of patrolman John Frey
in Oakland, California which resulted in the conviction of Black Panther founder Huey
Newton for manslaughter, a conviction which Churchill says was subsequently overturned
"on evidentiary grounds" because "there was no evidence that Newton had fired a weapon at
all".

This is yet another bare-faced lie and an apology for a cop-killer. Newton's conviction was
overturned on a technicality; years later Newton boasted to his circle that he had murdered
Frey. (62)

Churchill might have alluded to another case in which another black activist gunned down a
police officer in (genuinely) disputed circumstances. This was in New Jersey in May 1973 and

11

A TALE OF TWO CONVICTED COP KILLERS

the gunwoman - in this case - was Joanne Chesimard aka Assata Shakur. Unlike Abu-Jamal
though she - or rather her supporters - do not claim that she didn't actually shoot the cop (or
that she wasn't involved in the shoot-out) - but claim he shot first. She was in a car with two
other Black Liberation Army members stopped on the turnpike. She was gaoled for life in
1977 but subsequently escaped; she was granted asylum by Cuba in 1984. (63)

The fact that one case has parallels with another is hardly evidence of evil intent by
COINTELPRO specialists, which is clearly what Churchill wants his readers to think it is.
Sadly the murders of police officers are all too common. In Britain there have been many
such murders, including shootings, over the years, and we have already alluded to the
Braybrook Street Massacre of 1966, not to mention the hacking to death of Keith Blakelock.

Churchill again: "At trial, the prosecution faced obvious evidentiary difficulties in
demonstrating that Mumia had killed anyone at all..." But these were as nothing as compared
with the difficulties Abu-Jamal would have faced in explaining away how he had drawn his
gun and fired five bullets without killing Faulkner, and that without calling his brother or
giving evidence himself. Abu-Jamal was denied the counsel of his choice, says Churchill;
again, the representative Abu-Jamal wanted was not qualified to represent him so he made
the unwise decision to represent himself, to plead not guilty, and at the end of the trial to
threaten to kill the judge!

Churchill again: "...the prosecution capped its performance in its summation by arguing
that the defendant must be guilty simply on the basis of his having believed in the Panther
ideology of black liberation and armed self-defense for nearly 20 years."

What about the eyewitnesses, the murder weapon found at the scene and Abu-Jamal's total
inability to discredit the prosecution evidence?

Churchill's article not only has no merit, it is a dishonest and dangerous polemic. There is
enough injustice in the American legal system as in the British without people like him
spreading lies and distortions of this magnitude which are likely to discredit campaigns
against real injustices.

One final point, Churchill is even wrong about Abu-Jamal's last possible appeal; ten years
later he is still on Death Row.

The "Racist" Jury Claim

According to Churchill, the jury at Abu-Jamal's murder trial contained eleven white
members. This is a slight exaggeration. According to Mulshine, two of the jurors were black.
(64) Churchill mentions Amnesty International in his essay in connection with its
condemnation of the death penalty. On July 19, 1999 I wrote to Amnesty in London asking
for information concerning the case of Abu-Jamal stressing that "I am particularly interested
in the allegations concerning a police frame-up."

I received a letter from Allan Hogarth of the organisation's Information and Publicity Office
dated 29 July 1999. Significantly his reply contains no reference to any possible police frame-
up. The four main points the letter makes are that Amnesty is opposed to the death penalty -
fair enough, so am I in most cases, including this one - that there has been a great deal of
animosity directed towards Abu-Jamal by police officers in particular (which may in turn
have prejudiced his trial and appeal); that the prosecution overplayed its hand concerning
Abu-Jamal's political beliefs, and that "The jury [of 10 whites and 2 blacks] did not ethnically
represent the local community [which was 40% black]".

This last is a rather weak claim, the inference being that whites would be more likely to
convict and sentence a black man to death. This is nonsense. With regard to conviction, Abu-
Jamal was not in the same position as O.J. Simpson whose lawyers could argue speciously
(albeit successfully) that he had been framed by an all-encompassing conspiracy of racist

12

A TALE OF TWO CONVICTED COP KILLERS

police officers. Abu-Jamal never left the scene of the crime and there were witnesses to the
event. With regard to the death penalty, Abu-Jamal would probably have had less chance of a
death sentence from an all-white jury. As I write these words the Caribbean island of
Trinidad is waging a campaign to hang more convicted murderers in defiance of the Privy
Council in England - to which there is a right of final appeal. Blacks tend to favour the death
penalty more than whites the same way working class people tend to favour it more than than
the middle and upper classes; there is no racial inference in this statement one way or
another, it is just one of those things.

In any case, a jury doesn't have to "ethnically represent the local community", the prime
concern is that a jury should be random. In practise - in Britain at any rate - certain types of
people are more likely to find their ways onto juries than others. The trial of the Broadwater
Farm suspects lasted for forty days; some trials last considerably longer. One should not be
surprised if people who are unemployed or retired were to find their ways onto juries in such
cases. In Britain, the defence can't choose a jury by actively selecting jurors as in the United
States, but this is something which cuts both ways: if the defence has the right to exclude
certain jurors on the basis of race or whatever, then so does the prosecution. One could also
argue that if a jury was selected deliberately to "ethnically represent the local community"
that it wouldn't be random!

Another weak claim, by Leonard Weinglass, is that "The prosecution's guilt-phase
summation violated Mr. Jamal's right to due process. The prosecution invited the jury to
draw a negative inference from Mr. Jamal's decision not to take the witness stand." (65) An
entirely proper inference in my humble opinion.

The jury's sentencing Abu-Jamal to death may have had something to do with his obvious
contempt for them. In his letter to the Journalist (already cited), Jeffrey Blyth points out that
Abu-Jamal called his court appointed lawyer a baboon and a shyster, the jury a pack of
racists and the judge a hangman. He adds that "Abu Jamal's case has been investigated by
many journalists, of who few appear to be convinced of his innocence."

But that doesn't stop Weinglass and Abu-Jamal's noisy coterie from banging the drum of
police fit-up. The motive behind this isn't at all obvious, but Paul Mulshine has Weinglass
sussed.

Abu-Jamal was back in the news recently when a former prison visitor, Philip Bloch,
claimed in the magazine Vanity Fair that in an unguarded moment seven years ago he had
admitted shooting Daniel Faulkner. (66) This puts the man himself in a difficult position
because he cannot publicly deny that he shot Faulkner. As Mulshine points out, Abu-Jamal
has never actually denied the killing, including at his trial. All the talk about fit-ups and a
mystery gunman emanates not from Abu-Jamal but from others and is window dressing, part
of a fund-raising stunt engineered by his supporters to win a retrial. "In the event that he and
his supporters outside the courtroom manage to win a retrial, Weinglass is likely to admit the
obvious: that Jamal shot Faulkner." (67) He could then plead guilty to manslaughter and if
sentenced to say fifteen years, he would walk free time served.

In the meantime though if he claims that he didn't kill Faulkner, that could be used against
him in any future retrial. Although some media dupes have been convinced and have called
for a retrial, (68) Abu-Jamal's chances are somewhere between zero and minus one. The
reason for that is that in the United States as here, before a retrial can be ordered there must
be not just proof of procedural or factual error but substantial grounds for believing that in
the absence of such error there would be a possibility of the verdict being reversed. (69)
There is no realistic possibility of that, so Abu-Jamal's goose is cooked.

13

A TALE OF TWO CONVICTED COP KILLERS

The Bottom Of The Barrel

There appears to be no limit to the depths to which some lawyers will sink. According to
Bissinger, Weinglass is currently working on a ridiculous conspiracy theory - for want of a
better phrase - which is nothing more than scurrilous gossip (which he may well have
invented himself). This is that Faulkner was set up for execution by his own department.
Bissinger refers to this as "a certain desperation on the part of the defense". (70)

Abu-Jamal And Silcott

Incarceration on Death Row in the United States is not a pleasant fate for anyone. At the
time of writing Abu-Jamal has been on Death Row for over a decade and a half, which does
rather make a mockery of its name. Perhaps Psychological Torture Row would be a better
one? All the same, it is difficult to have any sympathy at all with Abu-Jamal because he is the
author of his own misfortune. Mulshine points out that if he had told the truth and allowed
his lawyer to do his job he would not have been sentenced to death and would quite likely be a
free man by now. (71) Ie he would have escaped with third-degree murder or manslaughter.

In spite of Abu-Jamal's proven track record of animosity towards the police and in spite of
the murder of Daniel Faulkner being inexcusable, it was not a premeditated act in the sense
that he set out to kill Faulkner or anyone else that night. Clearly he didn't. A verdict of
second degree murder would I think have been appropriate, or at worse a verdict of first
degree murder with a life sentence. The current writer is opposed to the death penalty, by
and large, and most people who believe in the death penalty have some reservations about its
use. Certainly there is a case for restricting the death penalty only to the very worse types of
murder, which clearly this wasn't.

Likewise it is difficult to have any sympathy with Winston Silcott, in spite of his eventual
acquittal for the murder of Keith Blakelock. Silcott too claims to be a political prisoner, and
that although he was convicted of the murder of Anthony Smith he is in reality serving a life
sentence for the murder of Keith Blakelock. (72) This is not true, even though Silcott was the
victim of "noble cause corruption". (73) This practice is widely endorsed not only by the
police but by many members of the public; the argument goes something like this: Silcott and
people like him deserve to be taken off the streets; they are a menace to society, if Silcott
didn't murder Keith Blakelock he murdered someone else, and if he didn't murder anyone he
is the sort of person who would if given the chance.

There is some merit in part of this.argument; Silcott does have an appalling criminal record
in spite of his being rightly acquitted of the murder of Leonard Mcintosh. In his book on the
case, Observer journalist David Rose (74) does his best to whitewash Silcott and goes as near
as he can to absolve him of the murder of Anthony Smith, yet by his own admission Silcott
habitually carried a knife and was not shy about using it. Moreover, Anthony Smith suffered
truly appalling injuries: his face and abdomen were slashed, he had a lacerated lung and he'd
been stabbed in the heart. (75) It is difficult to reconcile such injuries with Silcott's claim of
self-defence - he denied the killing at first, of course - and for all the talk of racism which this
case generated, Silcott has never shown the slightest remorse or regret for the death of
Anthony Smith, a fellow black man.

Winston Silcott would probably be viewed by many people as a worthy case of "noble cause
corruption"; the real problem with "noble cause corruption" though is that it is a slippery
slope; Mark Braithwaite and Engin Raghip who were convicted and sentenced to life along
with Silcott were neither career criminals nor knife-wielding psychos, they just happened to

14

A TALE OF TWO CONVICTED COP KILLERS

be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and then only maybe. Both men were none too
bright - to put it mildly. (76) And let us not forget that at the beginning of the trial there were
three juveniles in the dock along with these three men. This is the real face of "noble cause
corruption 1 '.

While there are many disturbing features of the Tottenham Three case there are none with
regard to the open and shut case of Mumia Abu-Jamal, except the way damned liars with
political and racial agendas have duped large tranches of the public with the constant refrain
of a murderer's innocence in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Abu-Jamal's
supporters have played the race card for all it is worth, in fact if Abu-Jamal had been white,
no one would have batted an eyelid and he would have been sent to the chair donkey's years
ago. As I said, Death Row is not a pleasant place even for a guilty man, but don't shed any
tears for Mumia Abu-Jamal; he and he alone is the author of his misfortune. There are
countless young black men in gaol in America and Britain, many of whom are every bit as
guilty as Abu-Jamal, and all of whom are more deserving of your sympathy.

Appendix: Derek Bentley
- A Waste Of Space (77)

After nearly half a century of campaigning, the Bentley family has finally secured not only a
pardon but a hand out for the supposed injustice meted out to their imbecile relative who was
sentenced to death and executed for the murder of PC Miles while Christopher Craig, who
actually pulled the trigger, escaped the hangman on account of his youth. Bentley has been
portrayed by his family as a victim in the same manner as Winston Silcott - framed for the
murder of PC Keith Blakelock - or even as Stefan Kiszko - the tragic, "vulnerable" man who
spent the best years of his life in gaol branded a child rapist and murderer because forensic
evidence that would have exonerated him was suppressed by police officers and a forensic
scientist.

The "injustice" allegedly perpetrated against Derek Bentley is not in the same category as
the misfortunes of either of these men. Bentley went out with his youthful chum Craig with a
loaded gun, and during the course of committing a felony, Craig shot and killed a totally
innocent police officer. When two men go out armed with a common purpose and one of them
commits a murder during the course of committing a felony, they can both rightly be
convicted of murder. Why else carry a loaded gun? There is the manufactured controversy
over "Let him have it, Chris". But if Bentley had really intended his chum to give up he could
have shouted something like "Put the gun down, Chris".

As for Bentley's supposed mental deficiency, he was certainly of low intelligence, (he was 19
years old with a mental age of 11), but since when has a low mental age absolved
responsibility for murder? The child killers of James Bulger - Robert Thompson and Jon
Venables - were not even eleven years old when they committed their terrible crime, but no
reasonable person would suggest they were not culpable.

True, PC Miles was not a two year old boy who was abducted, sadistically tortured then
callously put to death, but he had a right to life, and it is an insult to his memory that the
heirs of one of his killers should be paid "compensation" for what was without doubt a totally
unnecessary and unprovoked murder, and one which would most certainly not have
happened if Derek Bentley had refused his chum Craig's invitation to burglary and carrying
a loaded firearm with intent. The death sentence on Bentley may have been harsh, but he was
no victim, and neither he nor his family should profit from his crime.

15

A TALE OF TWO CONVICTED COP KILLERS

Postscript

Since the first draft of this short monograph was completed there have been developments in
I^^^W. fmal appeal (his final final appeal?) has been dismissed and a new
date set for his Execution: December 2, 1999. It seems likely however that he will be with ns

TnVhtstottts" 1 JheTew" mock outrage when the Metropolitan Police agreed an out-of-

foTwh ch he " Trig a .if. sentence, Keith Blakeloek would probably sfl. be ahve
" Yeah, sure. He continued: "One thing's for certain, Silcott certamly made snre he

Xre^n!lr« ta n*erT«ve evidence a, the Broadwater Farm murder trial have been
^"h some detail, and Smyth obvionsly knows these reasons; h K comment, ar
beneath contempt Silcott himself wanted to give evidence, as he explamed m 1994 and as I
have luted out here. He got his reward for following his legal team's advice, and Barbara
SgThers unti. she was forced to resign for refusing to prosecute ben. coppers. Glen
Smyth obviously knows about that too.

16

A TALE OF TWO CONVICTED COP KILLERS

Notes And References

(1) For the benefit of overseas readers (and future generations?) Harry Roberts was a former
soldier turned career criminal who gunned down three police officers in the Braybrook Street
Massacre of August 12, 1966. Peter William Sutcliffe (the Yorkshire Ripper) was convicted of
the murders of thirteen women, mostly prostitutes; he is now insane. Myra Hindley was the
partner of fellow child killer Ian Brady (known collectively as the Moors Murderers); she has
often been the subject of sensationalist reporting due both to the enormity of her crimes and
to the misguided campaign by upper class do-gooders and half-wits to secure her release.

(2) The term "race card" appears to have come into common usage in the wake of the
acquittal for double murder of O.J. Simpson due to the outrageous antics of Simpson's legal
team who, with a little help from police perjury, secured their client's acquittal in the face of
overwhelming evidence of guilt by presenting him as the victim of a police frame-up for
racially motivated reasons.

(3) Braithwaite and Raghip were freed by the Court of Appeal on November 27, 1991; their
murder convictions were quashed December 5, 1991.

(4) See for example Tests bring hope for Silcott appeal, by John Mullin, published in the
Guardian, [CD-ROM version], July 15, 1991, page 2. According to this report the "evidence"
against Silcott was an "unsigned interview".

(5) See for example Silcott and a system in the dock, published in the Guardian, [CD-ROM
version], November 26, 1991, page 22. (This article refers to Keith Blakelock as Colin
Blakelock and to Mrs Cynthia Jarrett as Cynthia Jarman, but the then ongoing case was
reported widely in all newsmedia).

(6) For it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is to bring a bent
copper to justice.

(7) Detectives to be tried, published in the Guardian, [CD-ROM version], July 13, 1992, page 2.

(8) Silcott 'confession' detective retires, by David Rose, published in the Observer, [CD-ROM
version], November 27, 1994, page 8.

(9) The Voice, December 3, 1991, No. 475, page 5.

(10) Broadwater detective guilty, by David Rose, published in the Guardian, [CD-ROM
version], June 5, 1990, page 1.

(11) See The Law Magazine, 27 March 1987, pages 5-6 and the Times, March 20, 1987, page 3.

(12) FREEMUMIA ABU JAMAL, published in CARF, December 98/January 99, page 11.

(13) CARF is an acronym for Campaign Against Racism and Fascism.

(14) Abu-Jamal's surname is spelt both with and without the hyphen; he was born Wesley
Cook.

(15) Re his conviction for the murder of Anthony Smith, "At his trial in 1986, Silcott denied
the killing, but now claims he acted in self-defence..." (Silcott is refused murder appeal, by
Richard Ford, published in the Times, [CD-ROM version], July 22, 1997, page 4).

(16) The aforementioned leaflet refers to Abu-Jamal's career as a radio journalist in the
present tense.

(17) Downloaded from FREEMUMIA at

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8533/MUMIA.HTML. This precis was apparently
penned by Robert Meeropol, the son of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg who were executed in
Sing Sing in June 1953.

(18) RACE FOR JUSTICE: MUMIA ABU-JAMAL 'S FIGHT AGAINST THE DEATH
PENALTY, by Leonard Weinglass, Introduction by E.L. Doctorow, published by Common
Courage Press, Monroe, Maine, (1995), page 4.

(19) Weinglass, Race For Justice, page 15, (ibid).

(20) Weinglass, Race For Justice, page 20, (ibid).

17

A TALE OF TWO CONVICTED COP KILLERS

(21) Weinglass, Race For Justice, page 30, (ibid).

(22) Weinglass, Race For Justice, pages 35 & 38, (ibid).

(23) Weinglass, Race For Justice, pages 35-6 & 160, (ibid).
n&\ Weinslass, Race For Justice, page 161, (ibid).

25 POLICEMAN'S DEATH STIRS RACE TENSION, published in the New York Times,
Sunday, December 13, 1981, (LATE CITY EDITION) page 35

nd\ Fvpp Mumia? bv Paul Mulshine, is pages 29-44 of THE "RACE CAKJJ. wmin vuu*i,
Collier and David Horowitz, published by Prima Publishing, Rocklin, CA, (1997). See page

32.

(21) The Journalist, August/September 1995, page 19. L inn . _

28 Letter from Jeffrey Blyth published in the Journalist, October/November 1995, page 5.
(29) itrSrom the cafe McKenzie v McKenzie [1970] although the principle actually

WfccMdl^e'cases an accused may no longer cross-examine his accuser in person,
omething any defendant would be ill-advised to do in any case in view of the hysteria such
cZ always generate. More recently there have been suggestions that an accused should b
dented the right to cross-examine his alleged victim in rape cases This ; resu ted from two high
profile cases in which the perpetrators: Ralston Edwards (in 1996) and Mi ton Brown (in
?998) conducted their own defences and conducted "improper cross-examination". Both men
were convicted and received heavy sentences. Brown's case is now the leading case on cross-
examination by defendants in person in rape cases.

(31) Mulshine, Free Mumia?, page 32, (op cit).

(32) Mulshine, Free Mumia?, page 30, (ibid).

33 The Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal: Political prisoner denied new trial after 16 yean ton death
row, by Fred Mazelis, published on World Socialist Web Site; the article is dated 18

WMUMMABU-JAMAL, CELEBRITY COP KILLER, by Lynne Abraham, published in the
New York Times, Late Edition Final, [CD-ROM], August 13, 1995, Section 4, page 15.
05) Actluy they don't say that, what they say is that he was denied sufficient funding, which
is not quite the same thing.

(36) Mulshine, Free Mumia?, page 38, (op cit). A * mrA u/ »roni?rc n Qia\

(37 See R v Turnbull and others, published in the ALL ENGLAND ^W^JM.
VOL. 3, pages 549-60. Turnbull and his co-defendant had their appeals dismissed, and rightly
so, but ^vo other appeals which were heard at the same time, R v Roberts and R v Whitby,

were successful. , . ...

(38) See page 37 of THE FAMOUS AND THE DEAD, by Buzz Bissinger, published in

VANITY FAIR, August 1999, No 468, pages 32-9.

(39) Weinglass, Race For Justice, page 56, (op cit).

(40) Abraham, New York Times, August 13, 1995, (op cit).

(41) Bissinger, The Famous And The Dead, page 36, (op cit).

(42 In the Nickell case the police went way over the top when they tried to fit up a local
oddball, going to the extraordinary lengths of using an undercover temptress to encourage
Mm to ccfnfesf . The "case" against Colin Stagg was never heard by a jury. In the Russell case
a mentally disturbed man named Michael Stone was convicted of the grisly double murder; at
the time of writing his conviction is under appeal and it is widely believed - including by
senior police officers - not only that he will win his appeal but that he is not the man
responsible. The "case" against Stone was built almost totally on unreliable confessions he is
alleged to have made to people of dubious character, one of whom has since been charged

^Tc^aine into force January 1, 1986, shortly after Silcott and company were fitted up.

18

A TALE OF TWO CONVICTED COP KILLERS

(44) According to crime reporter (the appropriately named) Tim Crook, the trial of Winston
Silcott for the murder of Anthony Smith was censored by Section (4)2 of the Contempt of
Court Act: "Not one word of this case was published anywhere before the trial for murdering
PC Blakelock." And during the former case, no reference was permitted to the then
forthcoming Blakelock trial. [Letter from Tim Crook published in the Journalist,
August/September 1995, page 5].

(45) Winston Silcott: from the inside speaking out, by Tessa Mayes, published in the Guardian,
[CD-ROM version], August 13, 1994, page 23.

(46) Mills finally resigned in 1998 after sustained pressure.

(47) A CLIMA TE OF FEAR The Murder of PC Blakelock and the Case of the Tottenham
Three, by David Rose, published by Bloomsbury, London, (1992), pages 156 and 159.

(48) Rose, A Climate Of Fear, page 156, (ibid).

(49) Bissinger, The Famous And The Dead, page 36, (op cit).

(50) But see below re Abu-Jamal's failure to actually deny the killing.

(51) Or on the stand, as they say in America.

(52) Bissinger, The Famous And The Dead, page 36, (op cit).

(53) According to Bissinger, Cook's words at the scene were "I ain f t got nothing to do with
it"

(54) Bissinger, The Famous And The Dead, page 37, (ibid).

(55) Bissinger, The Famous And The Dead, page 35, (ibid).

(56) From THE "RACE" CARD, page 25, (op cit).

(57) The COINTELPRO Papers: Documents from the FBI's Secret Wars Against Domestic
Dissent, by Ward Churchill and Jim Vander Wall, Foreword by John Trudell, Preface by
Brian Glick, published by South End Press, Boston, MA, (1990), pages 319-20.

(58) Mulshine, Free Mumia?, pages 39-40, (op cit).

(59) Mulshine, Free Mumia?, page 38, (ibid).

(60) One of the criticisms levelled at the police is that the gun wasn't tested to see if it had
been fired recently. When asked how a gun is so tested Weinglass replied "You just smell it",
to which Mulshine retorts cynically "Wonderful: His client was literally caught with a
smoking gun, so he criticizes the police for not smelling the smoke."

(61) Mulshine, Free Mumia?, page 39, (ibid).

(62) THE SHADOW OF THE PANTHER: HUEY NEWTON AND THE PRICE OF BLACK
POWER IN AMERICA, by Hugh Pearson, published by Addison-Wesley, New York, (1994),
pages 4 and 221.

(63) See for example a black and white case, by Alix Kirsta, published in the times magazine,
29 may 1999, pages 24-5, 27-8 & 30-1.

(64) Mulshine, Free Mumia?, page 32, (op cit).

(65) Weinglass, Race For Justice, page 171, (op cit).

(66) Death row inmate defended by stars 'admits f cop killing, by Martin Kettle, published in the
Guardian, July 10, 1999, page 16. [This is where I first learned of the Vanity Fair article].

(67) Mulshine, Free Mumia?, page 39, (op cit).

(68) In 1995 a Channel 4 TV programme was devoted to this case. A review in the Guardian
claimed that "The programme did not clear Jamal but raised enough questions in one's mind
to doubt the safeness of the original conviction. The stay of execution granted to Jamal on
Wednesday opens the way for a retrial." * The Journalist reported that Abu-Jamal had won a
retrial; ** this was wishful thinking.

* Rough justice meted out in the land of the free, by Stuart Jeffries, published in the
Guardian, [CD-ROM version], August 11, 1995, page 9.
** Journalist, August/September 1995, page 19.

(69) In England, on conviction in the Magistrates Court there is an automatic right of appeal
to the Crown Court where the case will be heard by a judge sitting with two magistrates. A

19

A TALE OF TWO CONVICTED COP KILLERS

conviction on indictment can be appealed to the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, but first,
leave must be obtained.

(70) Bissinger, The Famous And The Dead, page 38, (op cit).

(71) Mulshine, Free Mumia?, page 44, (op cit).

(72) Mayes, Silcott interview, the Guardian, August 13, 1994, page 23, (op cit).

(73) Which is defined by the Police Complaints Authority as "the use of dishonest practices to
secure convictions or boost performance figures".

(74) I have some experience of Rose from another - and totally unrelated matter - and it is my
experience that not everything he says is to be taken at face value, to put it mildly. He is also a
little on the gullible side.

(75) Rose, A Climate Of Fear, page 230, (op cit).

(76) According to Rose, Braithwaite was very poorly educated and only learned to read
properly while in prison. * Raghip was said to have had a mental age of ten and to have been
highly suggestible. ** At the time of the trial both Braithwaite and Raghip were twenty years
old, *** so lost the best years of their lives.

* Rose, A Climate Of Fear, page 200, (ibid).

** The Voice, December 3, 1991, No. 475, page 5.

*** The Times, March 20, 1987, page 2.

(77) This was originally written as a stand alone article.

20

Abu- Jama 1 : Icon Or Cop-Killer?

On Death Row since the early 80s, Mumia Abu-Jamal has become a virtual living saint for
radicals" and opponents of the death penalty. The story of how campaigning black
journalist and social activist Abu-Jamal was framed by the racist Philadelphia Police
Department for a murder he didn't commit has been reported widely in the left press the
mainstream media, the Internet and the WorldWideWeb. The campaign to win a retrial for
Abu-Jamal has been supported by media personalities such as actress Whoopie Goldberg and
musician Sting, and orchestrated on three continents.

Though Abu-Jamal remains on Death Row, another campaign to clear a young black man
convicted of murdering a police officer was ultimately successful. In November 1991, Winston
Silcott was cleared by the Court of Appeal of the murder of PC Keith Blakelock during the
now notorious Broadwater Farm riot of October 1985. Silcotfs unsigned so-called confession
had been made up out of the whole cloth by corrupt police officers; the confessions of his co-
accused were extracted by holding these none-too-bright youths incommunicado for up to
twelve days. v

Some people might be tempted to draw comparisons between Mumia Abu-Jamal and
Winston Silcott; the sad truth though is that the only thing Abu-Jamal and Silcott have in
common is an inability to face up to their crimes: Abu-Jamal was convicted of the murder of
ollicer Daniel Faulkner on overwhelming evidence, and Silcott, although framed for the
murder of PC Blakelock, lingers in gaol rightly convicted of the brutal knife murder of a
young boxer.

This comparative study exposes the lies of the Abu-Jamal camp, the whitewashing of Silcott
by Observer journalist David Rose, and the mendacity of the Metropolitan Police a
mendacity which even British judges in their ivory towers are coming increasinoJv to
recognise. & *

Published by In/oText Manuscripts,

93c Venner Road,

Sydenham,

London SE26 5HU.

England.

ISBN 1 871473 G4=d

Copyright Alexander Baron, 1999