Yes, the word "reasonable" carries all the weight here. But this was a terribly mismanaged trial. By as a matter of law, Jamal should walk; he was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (not in contrast to other similar cases).
Do I think he did it? Yes, and with malevolence. But I wasn't there that night, and neither was anyone else making these judgements; we are all going on our respective, ignorant gut feelings. Which, of course, are worth about a bag of piss.
Said English jurist William Blackstone: “Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” I have every sympathy for Maureen Faulkner. She's been put in the worst position imaginable following such a tragedy. But I aim my criticism at the lousy job done by the D.A.'s office, who could've done this thing the right way and quelled our lingering doubts. And I aim my criticism at the callous celebs who -- let's face it -- jumped on the "Free Mumia" bandwagon because it was the cool thing to do, with zero regard for Faulker's widow and family.
And I aim my criticism at Mumia for acting like a horse's ass more than a few times over these past 28 years. But I cannot call him guilty. Nor can I ask to ease Maureen Faulkner's suffering through a measure of vengeance that isn't karmically owed her.
Legal procedure as an end in itself is not the reason we have laws. That would be government of the lawyers, by the lawyers, for the lawyers. We have grown perilously close to just that, of course, but it is nothing to be glad about. If the jury arrived at the right decision in spite of the trial's being mismanaged (and it was), fine by me. Mumia will not be executed. But, as you know, just the other day, a court denied him a new trial. He will end his days in jail, which seems proper to me. And there is more than just "feelings" to support the case for his guilt. There is evidence. And no one on a jury is ever judging what they have seen and experienced.
The DA has appealed the decision to convert Jamal's death sentence to life in prison. The U.S. Supreme Court will decide the matter in the future.
I read the original court transcripts, which was a massive undertaking. I have no doubt that Jamal murdered Faulkner.
Jamal acted like an ass at his trial. He wanted John Africa to act as his lawyer. Africa, one should note, advocated licking children clean, like a cat.
When two police officers came upon Jamal, moments after the shooting, he sat in the street with his smoking gun, so to speak, at his feet. I've spoken to one one of the responding police officers. He has no doubts. Jamal killed Faulkner.
Jamal has refused to discuss the murder, and so has his brother. Why?
I wrote a longer piece on the Faulkner murder, which can be read at: www.orchardpressmysteries.com/cop_killer.html
Beyond a reasonable doubt?
ReplyDeleteYes, the word "reasonable" carries all the weight here. But this was a terribly mismanaged trial. By as a matter of law, Jamal should walk; he was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (not in contrast to other similar cases).
Do I think he did it? Yes, and with malevolence. But I wasn't there that night, and neither was anyone else making these judgements; we are all going on our respective, ignorant gut feelings. Which, of course, are worth about a bag of piss.
Said English jurist William Blackstone: “Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” I have every sympathy for Maureen Faulkner. She's been put in the worst position imaginable following such a tragedy. But I aim my criticism at the lousy job done by the D.A.'s office, who could've done this thing the right way and quelled our lingering doubts. And I aim my criticism at the callous celebs who -- let's face it -- jumped on the "Free Mumia" bandwagon because it was the cool thing to do, with zero regard for Faulker's widow and family.
And I aim my criticism at Mumia for acting like a horse's ass more than a few times over these past 28 years. But I cannot call him guilty. Nor can I ask to ease Maureen Faulkner's suffering through a measure of vengeance that isn't karmically owed her.
-G
Legal procedure as an end in itself is not the reason we have laws. That would be government of the lawyers, by the lawyers, for the lawyers. We have grown perilously close to just that, of course, but it is nothing to be glad about. If the jury arrived at the right decision in spite of the trial's being mismanaged (and it was), fine by me. Mumia will not be executed. But, as you know, just the other day, a court denied him a new trial. He will end his days in jail, which seems proper to me. And there is more than just "feelings" to support the case for his guilt. There is evidence. And no one on a jury is ever judging what they have seen and experienced.
ReplyDeleteThe DA has appealed the decision to convert Jamal's death sentence to life in prison. The U.S. Supreme Court will decide the matter in the future.
ReplyDeleteI read the original court transcripts, which was a massive undertaking. I have no doubt that Jamal murdered Faulkner.
Jamal acted like an ass at his trial. He wanted John Africa to act as his lawyer. Africa, one should note, advocated licking children clean, like a cat.
When two police officers came upon Jamal, moments after the shooting, he sat in the street with his smoking gun, so to speak, at his feet. I've spoken to one one of the responding police officers. He has no doubts. Jamal killed Faulkner.
Jamal has refused to discuss the murder, and so has his brother. Why?
I wrote a longer piece on the Faulkner murder, which can be read at:
www.orchardpressmysteries.com/cop_killer.html
Paul Davis