Mumia Abu Jamal Essay, Research Paper

Chris Sandman

Mumia Abu-Jamal

Wesley Cook was born in 1954. While he was protesting at a George Wallace for president mass meeting in 1968, several white work forces attacked him. He claims that two work forces grabbed him. One kicked his face and skull, while the other kicked him in the inguen. As the whipping progressed, ? he looked up and saw the two-toned gold-trimmed pant leg of a Philadelphia constabulary officer. ? He yelled for the constabulary, who saw him on the land being beaten to a mush. ? A constabulary officer marched over briskly, and kicked him in the face. ? 1? I have been grateful to that faceless bull of all time since, for he kicked me straight into the Black Panther Party. ? 2 Wesley Cook became a founding member of the Black Panther Party? s Philadelphia chapter in 1969 at the age of 15.

After fall ining mainstream intelligence organisations in the 1970? s, Wesley Cook changed his name to Mumia Abu-Jamal. As a adolescent journalist, Jamal took an involvement in narratives about constabulary ferociousness. Jamal was known to be a rare endowment of wireless news media. He had a powerful mind and a combustion empathy for hapless people. He was known as a adept interviewer and became a well-known figure in local broadcast medium news media. Jamal appeared on National Public Radio, the National Black Network, and local Philadelphia Stationss including WUHY-FM ( now WHYY ) . He had a batch of look up toing friends in news media and political relations, and had no anterior record of offense or force. Despite his personal experience of constabulary ferociousness and old ages as a adolescent Black Panther, he kept his noise clean even under the microscope of the FBI and Philadelphia constabularies surveillance.

By the late 1970? s, Jamal was besides an fervent sympathiser and protagonist of MOVE? a black activist antiestablishment, antipolice group. He started have oning his hair in long dreadlocks like a MOVE member. By mid 1981, Jamal? s turning compulsion with MOVE had compromised his standing as a journalist and cost him his occupation at WUHY. He started freelancing his authorship accomplishments, while moonlighting as a taxidriver. He was robbed while on responsibility with his cab, so he started to transport a gun. 3

During this clip, the Philadelphia Police Department was so ill-famed for force and constabulary ferociousness, that the United States Justice Department, in an unprecedented 1979 civil suit, charged so city manager ( and former constabulary commissioner ) Frank Rizzo and the top constabulary brass with? promoting rampant constabulary ferociousness, racism, and lying. ? This suit was subsequently dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.4

On December 9, 1981, Philadelphia constabularies officer Daniel Faulkner was shot to decease. On July 3, 1982 Mumia Abu-Jamal was convicted of Officer Faulkner? s slaying and sentenced to decease. Beyond these two facts, there are a figure of versions of the incidents that lead to Mumia Abu-Jamal? s strong belief. This paper will reexamine the incidents of December 9, 1981 and demo that Mumia Abu-Jamal was non provided a just and impartial test by his equals, and was wrongly convicted and sentenced for the decease of Officer Faulkner.

What the Jury Heard:

On December 9, 1981, at 3:51 a.m. Officer Faulkner stopped Mr. William Cook ( Jamal? s brother ) , who was driving a Volkswagen Beetle for a traffic misdemeanor, on the south side of Locust Street about 80 pess east of 13th Street. The country at the clip was known for its shabbiness. The country had many late-night bars, cabarets, coffeehouse, and street girls. Officer Faulkner radioed his location and so added: ? On 2nd idea, direct me a waggon. ? 5 He was seemingly be aftering to collar Mr. Cook or person in Mr. Cook? s auto for an unknown ground.

Harmonizing to two prosecution informants, both Faulkner and Cook got out of their autos. Faulkner spread-eagled Mr. Cook across one of the autos and so all of a sudden turned and slugged Officer Faulkner. Faulkner responded by clubbing Cook several times with his 17-inch torch. Mr. Cook? s face and cervix were bloody when constabulary arrived. By happenstance, Mumia Abu-Jamal was parked in his cab and came out of a parking batch on the nor’-east corner of Locust and 13th. He accelerated from a walk to a tally as he charged toward Officer Faulkner across Locust Street. It was ne’er to the full disclosed at the test, why Jamal? s cab was parked nearby. He merely happened to be about. In any event, this is when the point space hiting started to happen.

Harmonizing to the prosecution? s theory, Jamal ran up behind Officer Faulkner to within one pes, and shot him in the dorsum. The hurt Faulkner turned around and returned fire, hitting Jamal in the thorax, and falling onto his dorsum. Jamal so emptied his gun into Officer Faulkner at near scope, completing him off with a shooting between his eyes.6 Less than one-minute subsequently, constabularies arrived at the scene. The hurt Jamal was sitting on a kerb four pess from Faulkner, with his empty shoulder holster on and his empty gun nearby. Cook was standing a few pess off against a wall, with what two informants called, ? a expression of daze? on his face.7 He allegedly told constabularies that he had nil to make with the shot and was merely prosecuted for hitting Office Faulkner.

On the surface, the prosecution presented a clean theory. The prosecution & # 8217 ; s instance pointed to a clear legal decision that Jamal had committed first-degree slaying of a police officer with a maximal sentence of decease. However, as one examines Mumia Abu-Jamal supposed confession, the public guardians deficiency of experience in capital slaying instances, the altering testimony of the three oculus informants, the physical grounds procured at the scene, and disagreements between the officers at the scene, the clean prosecution theory starts to unknot. The Philadelphia constabulary section themselves could of gone a long manner to turn outing Jamal? s guilt. For illustration, there was no unequivocal lucifer between Jamal? s gun and the slug that killed Officer Faulkner. The constabulary could hold tested Jamal? s custodies to find if he had late fired a gun. The officers on the scene, could of smelled the gun barrel to find if it had been late fired.8 The Philadelphia constabularies failed to travel the excess stat mi in analyzing the grounds and in making so failed to turn out beyond a sensible uncertainty that Jamal was guilty and deserved to be sentenced to decease.

The Confession:

Priscilla Durham, a hospital security guard and Officer Gary Bell ( Faulkner? s former spouse and best friend ) both swore that they heard Jamal, as he was lying on the floor of the infirmary exigency room rebelliously shout: ? I shot the mother*censored*er, and I hope the mother*censored*er dies. ? 9 Jamal contends this confession was fabricated. The? confession? was allegedly shouted in the exigency room while he was being detained by 15 or so Philadelphia constabulary officers. In fact, none of the officers present mentioned Jamal? s? confession? in their constabulary studies or interviews over the following few months. Not a word of the? confession? found it? s manner into any police study for more than two months.10 Furthermore, it is really curious that an intelligent adult male whose support depended on articulate communicating would spontaneously and showily incriminates himself.

Priscilla Durham foremost mentioned Jamal? s? confession? to patrol research workers in a February 9, 1982 interview, 62 yearss after the shot. She claimed that she mentioned the? confession? to infirmary research workers the twenty-four hours after the slaying, which was, written down by manus. Prosecutor McGill apparently surprised, claimed to hold ne’er seen the study. While Ms. Durham was on the witness base during the test, an unsigned, unauthenticated, typewritten piece of paper dated December 10, 1981 was read to the jury and admitted as grounds against Jamal. 11 Officer Gary Bell made no reference of Jamal? s? confession? in his studies after the shot. It was non until 78 yearss subsequently that Officer Bell remembered the confession. Officer Bell explained that he was so devastated by seeing Officer Faulkner with his face about blown off that he did non retrieve the confession. 12

Due to the ineffectualness of Jamal? s defence attorney and the prejudice of Judge Sabo ( the presiding justice ) the jury ne’er heard any exculpatory grounds. Officer Gary Wakshul, who was in the Paddy waggon that took Jamal from the scene to Jefferson Hospital, reported later that forenoon that? we stayed with the male at Jefferson until we were relieved. During this clip, the Negro male made no remarks. ? 13 Did Officer Wakshul non hear the confession, or did he step off for a minute and lose it? While questioning Officer Wakshul on charges of constabularies ferociousness by Jamal, Officer Wakshul issued a new statement, 64 yearss after the slaying ( February 11, 1982 ) . Officer Wakshul now claimed to hear the full confession loud and clear. When asked by the interviewer to explicate his initial study, Officer Wakshul said that? the statement disgusted me, and I did non recognize it had any importance until today. ? 14

Judge Albert Sabo

Jamal? s defence squad and protagonists claim that Judge Sabo has sentenced more people to decease than any other justice in the United States. Therefore, the justice was biased against Jamal from the start, due to the nature of the alledged offense. However, the defence squad seeking a rhenium trail, fail to advert the frequent riotous nature of Mr. Jamal during his test. The truth is that Judge Sabo has been a sitting justice since 1974. During his term of office, he has about entirely presided over capital slaying instances. Therefore, if Judge Sabo has presided over more capital penalty tests than any other sitting justice in the United States, it would be due to his term of office as a justice non his prejudice. The fact that more decease punishments have been issued from Judge Sabo? s tribunal is non a map of Judge Sabo but of the single juries in the instance. 15

Under the system of justness used in Pennsylvania, the justice does non condemn the suspect to decease. A jury of 12 citizens hear the grounds against the accused and so must make up one’s mind nem con to enforce the decease sentence. In this instance, Judge Sabo did non condemn Jamal to decease, the racially assorted group of 12 jurymans, which Jamal assisted in choosing did. This determination was subsequently upheald by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on direct appeal.16

The tribunal transcripts and appeal tribunal determinations uphold the fact that Judge Sabo was eminently just and patient with Jamal during his test. He often was riotous during the test which resulted in many holds. One can merely conceive of how the actions of Jamal during his test adversly influenced the jury as they sat sequestered in a hotel for six hebdomads. Judge Sabo defends himself by saying, ? In the old yearss we attorneies had a expression: If you have the grounds on your side, argue the grounds. If you have the jurisprudence on your side, argue the jurisprudence. And if you have neither the grounds or the jurisprudence on your side, shriek like snake pit. Now the intelligence media has changed that to read: If you don? Ts have the grounds or the jurisprudence on your side: fault the justice. Who else are you traveling to fault it on? ? 17

The Jury:

Jamal? s protagonists and defence squad have claimed during the entreaty procedure that the jury was racially stacked against the suspect, go againsting his civil rights. During the 1982 trail, Judge Sabo encouraged the defence to observe the race of each prospective juryman so it could go portion of the populace record. Unfortunatly, the defence failed to make so. Therefore there is no record to corroborate or back up how many prospective jurymans for the 1982 trail were black and of that figure, how many of the prosecutions 15 preemptory challenges to pardon jurymans were used against eligible black jurymans. This is unfortunate since during this portion of the test, Mr. Jamal was moving as his ain lawyer during the choice procedure. Having demanded to stand for himself, Jamal assumed the duty of inquiring prospective juryman what their race was and observing it in the authorship of the record.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has reviewed the grounds and ruled that Jamal? s civil rights were upheld. The facts clearly show that at the beginning of the test, 3 or the 12 jurymans seated were black. When one of the black jurymans, Ms. Jenny Dawley, violated segregation to go to to a ill cat, the defence every bit good as the prosecution agreed to her remotion. The defence claims that the justice provided a white juryman particular agreements who needed to take a civil service test, and was non as flexible for the Ms. Dawley. The facts clearly indicate that the white juryman had asked the Judgess permission prior to taking the trial. Ms. Dawley did non pass on with the justice or any tribunal officers sing her cat. Ms. Dawley while under sequesture at the hotel, merely take to travel and take attention of her cat. She was told by the tribunal that she could non merely go forth, and responded per the populace record, ? I don? T attention what Judge Sabo or anybody says, I do what I have to make, cipher is traveling to halt me. ? Ms Dawley chose to go against her segregation without inquiring the justice to suit her personal demands. The record besides shows that both the defence and prosecution agreed to her dismissal.

In short, the 1982 jury that Mr. Jamal helped choose was decently selected and seated. The racial mix of the jury was about indistinguishable to that of Philadelphia at the clip. The prosecution had four ( 4 ) preemptory challenges left when the jury was eventually seated. If the prosecution had desired, they could of used these staying challenges to except the three black jurymans that were seated. The tribunal transcripts verify that each of the jurymans dismissed by the prosecution were dismissed for valid non-racial grounds. 18

The Witnesss

Both the defence and prosecution have a litany of informants. Over the old ages, many of these informants have changed their narratives. A few of the informants have filed pledged affidavits that the constabulary coerced them into doing false statements to back up the prosecution? s claims. The defence witnesses contend that a 3rd individual was present during the routene traffic halt by Officer Faulkner. This 3rd individual was responsible for hiting Officer Faulkner and so fled on pes. This? running adult male? theory is the lone theory of all time presented on the record that purports to demo Mr. Jamal? s artlessness. 19 This subdivision will seek to place all cardinal informants for both the prosecution and the defence and analyize their statements separately.

The defence claims that Veronica Jones is a cardinal oculus informant to turn overing the slaying strong belief. The dark of the slaying, Ms. Jones was a cocotte working the vicinity around 13th and Locust. Ms. Jones originally told the constabulary that she had witnessed two work forces run from the scene

in which Officer Faulkner was shot, but changed her narrative after having menaces and promises from two Philadelphia investigators. Ms. Jones was a female parent of two at the clip and was confronting felony charges of public assistance fraud and was subsequently convicted of these felony charges. However Ms. Jones testified in 1982 that she did non see the existent shot. She stated that she was working the street around the cornor and did non look across the street until after the shot stopped. When she looked around the cornor, she saw? two work forces kinda ramble oning off? from the offense scene. Ms. Jones has ne’er testified that these two work forces were involved in the offense in any way.21

Today, Ms Jones claims in a pledged affidavit that she gave false testimony under curse against Jamal. She claims that at the clip of the test, she was coerced by the constabulary to lye. In her statement, Ms. Jones provinces that approximatly one hebdomad before the test she was visited by two white field clothed investigators. The investigators began by discoursing Mr. Jamal instead than the facts of the instance. They told her that if she testified at the test and identified Jamal as the taw, she would non hold to worry about her upcoming pending felony charges. She claims to of told the investigators at the clip that she did non see the shot, but merely heard the shootings. The investigators were non satified with this response and reminded Ms. Jones that she faced a long prison sentence if convicted. She felt at the clip that if she did non attest against Mr. Jamal, she would ne’er see her kids once more and pass many old ages in prison. Ms. Jones besides claims in her pledged statement that during the test both investigators were in apparent position, standing at the rear of the courtroom.

Debra Kordansky is another defence eyewitness that was in the sleeping room of her flat down the street from the offense scene. She heard all five shootings but thought they were bangers so she did non look out her window until the constabulary arrived on the scene. She saw 10 squad autos and two new waves and a adult male running on the South side of Locust Street. 22

Mr. Desie Hightower testified in 1982 that he was down the street from the shot, behind a edifice in a parking batch, acquiring into a auto with his friend. Like Ms. Kordansky, Mr. Hightower ab initio thought the shot was a child illuming bangers. Mr. Hightower testified that he? did non hold a direct line of vision to the offense scene because he had sought cover behind a wall when the shot started and so remained there until the shot stopped. Having waited until rather some clip after the shot stoped before looking around the corner towards the offense scene, he stated that he saw person running from the general country of the shooting. ? Mr. Hightower has ne’er testified or stated that the individual he saw running from the scene was the taw or involved in the offense in any manner.

It should be noted that Mr. Hightower? s 1982 description of the individual he saw running after the constabulary arrived was an exact complex of Mr. Jamal the forenoon of the shot and Mr. Hightower had no account for this fact. Furthermore, Mr. Hightower was given a polygraph trial on his testimony and passed.

William Singletary was a secondary eyewitness for the defence. He non merely was present at the offense scene the dark of the slaying, he had a long treatment with one of the presiding officers. However, he did non attest in the original test but was called by Judge Sabo during the 1995 entreaty of the determination. Subsequently in 1996, Mr. Singletary was called the key informant in the 1996 HBO docudrama on the Jamal trail. He stated that he saw two taws. The first changeable Officer Faulkner in the dorsum and so escaped down the street. The 2nd gunslinger stepped out of the auto Officer Faulkner pulled over ( Jamal? s brother ) , shot the hurt officer in the face, threw the gun off, and ran off. Then harmonizing to Singletary, as Mr. Jamal approached Officer Faulker to offer aid, Officer Faulkner raised his manus and shooting Mr. Jamal in the thorax. Mr. Singletary went on to state that he personally approached Officer Faulkner and heard him state? Get Maureen, acquire the children. ? Maureen is in fact Officer Faulkner? s married woman foremost name, nevertheless they ne’er had any kids.

Mr. Singletary? s testimony does raise some interesting inquiries. Both the prosecution and defence medical experts both agreed that Officer Faulkner died instantly from his caput lesion. Did Mr. Singletary really speak to Officer Faulker? How did Mr. Cook? s enigma rider acquire posession of Mr. Jamal? s gun, out of its holster, and shoot Officer Faulkner in the caput? How was Officer Faulkner shooting in the dorsum? . Was there a 2nd adult male ( mystery adult male ) in Mr. Cook? s auto? If there was a 2nd adult male in Mr. Cook? s ( Jamal? s brother ) auto, why hasn? t Mr. Cook come frontward? Mr. Cook has stated for the record many times that he had nil to make with the slaying of Officer Faulkner and has refused to attest during the test.

Mr. Singletary besides swears that he was admitted in the Philadelphia Police Headquarters ( Roundhouse ) at 4am on the forenoon of the shot and released at 9am. During this clip he was interogated and threatened by a black Philadlephia constabulary investigator. Mr. Singletary claims he provided a handwritten version of the forenoons events, and one time it was reviewed by the investigator it was balled up and thrown off. Finally frustrated, the questioning investigator typed up his ain version of the events that forenoon and demanded that Mr. Singletary sign the typed papers. Fearing for his safety, Mr. Singletary claims he unwillingly signed the typed constabulary version of the forenoon? s events. Mr. Singletary besides claims that the constabulary treatened him at his topographic point of concern, Windowss of his gas station were routinely broken by constabulary, and that his tow trucks were cited for legion misdemeanors. He claimed in the HBO docudrama that the alleged bullying became so oppressive that he was forced to abandon his concern in Philadelphia and go forth town, traveling to South Carolina. There are many inconsistancies with Mr. Singletary? s statement. Log books at the Philadelphia Police Headquarters indicate that Mr. Singletary signed himself in and out of the roundhouse. He was non questioned by a black investigator as he claims, the records show Mr. Singletary was interogated by a white investigator with less than eight months experience. It is impossible to turn out or confute conditions or non he was threatened by a detective with less than eight months experience.

Both the prosecution and defence agree that Robert Chobert was an existent eyewitness to the shot and one of the closest persons to the offense. When he was 18 yeas old, Mr. Chobet was paid to throw a Molotov cocktail into an empty school edifice. He pleaded no competition to the charges and was placed on probation. The dark of Officer Faulkner? s slaying, Mr. Chobert was parked in the cab he was driving 30 pess behind Officer Faulkner? s constabulary auto. He swore in the 1982 trail and 1995 entreaty that he saw Mr. Jamal shoot Officer Faulkner and did non take his eyes off of Jamal until he was arrested and placed in the constabulary new wave. The defence claims that Mr. Chobert was driving his cab without a valid drivers licence and that the Assistant DA Mr. McGill had an understanding with Mr. Chobert that he would set up to acquire his licence back in return for favourable testimony. Mr. Chobert confirmed during his 1996 testimony that back in 1982, he did inquire the DA on how he could acquire his licence back. Thirteen old ages after the shot and testimony of Mr. Chobert, he still does non hold his drivers license back due to his limited beginning of financess, but has been allowed to go on driving a cab cab.

Four persons, Michael Scanlon, Cynthia White, Robert Harkins, and Albert Magelton all provided testimony for the prosecution. All four informants were unimpeachably present during the shot, eyewitnesses to the slaying, and have been deemed believable by the tribunal.

? Michael Scanlon was sing Philadelphia from out of province and was sitting in his auto at the intersection of 13th and Locust and witnessed the full slaying, get downing to end. ? Mr. Scanlon testified extensively at the 1982 trail and confirmed that William Cook attacked Officer Faulkner. He went on to attest that the officer reacted to Mr. Cook? s onslaught seeking to repress Mr. Cook. As this was traveling on, another adult male came running out from the parking batch across the street towards the officer and Mr. Cook in forepart of the constabulary auto. Mr. Scanlon saw Jamal? s manus rise and heard a gunfire. Then the officer fell down on the pavement and Mr. Jamal walked over and shot the officer two extra times at point space scope.

Another cocotte working Locust street that dark was Cynthia White. Ms. White testified that she was across the street in the parking batch when? I noticed Mr. Jamal running out of the batch and practically on the kerb when he shot two times at Officer Faulkner in the dorsum. The officer turned about and staggered and seened like he was catching for something but fell. Then Jamal came on top of the officer and shot him some more. ? After it was all over, Jamal slouched down and sat on the kerb.

Credible Eyewitness Albert Magelton was a prosaic walking across the intersection of 13th and Locust approximatley 20 paces from the shot. While attesting in 1982 to what he had witnessed Mr. Magelton stated, ? I noticed the gentleman ( Jamal ) coming from the parking batch. He was traveling across the street towards where the officer had stopped the Volkswagen. I heard shootings and I did non see the Officer any more. I proceeded back across the street to see what happened to the Officer. And so, as I was traveling across the street, I looked to where I heard the shootings. When I got to the paving, I looked down and saw the Officer prevarication at that place. I did non see the other gentleman ( Jamal ) until I moved up closer and saw him sitting on the kerb. ?

Under curse in 1982, when asked by Assistant D.A. Joe McGil what the constabulary did with the adult male who was sitting on the kerb next to the dead Officer. Mr. Magelton responded that they handcuffed Jamal and put him in the waggon. One of the officers on the scene so took Mr. Magelton over to the waggon and asked him if this was the gentleman that he had seen coming across the street. Mr. Magelton confirmed his narrative under curse and there is no evidense that the defence of Mr. Jamal has of all time challenged his testimony.

Mr Robert Harkins was another cab driver placed instantly across the street from the offense scene. Like Mr. Chobert, Mr. Harkins was really near to the existent shot and witnessed the full offense. Mr. Harkins gave a statement to the officers on the scene corroborating the prosecutions theory. In his statement from 1981, Mr Harkins said that, ? I looked over and observed a police officer grab a cat, the cat spun about and the officer went to the land. He had his custodies on the land and so rolled over at this point and the male who was standing over the officer pointed a gun at the officer and fired one shooting and so he fired a 2nd shooting. At this clip the officer moved a small and so went level to the land. I heard a sum of three shootings and saw what appeared to be three flashes from the gun of the adult male standing over the officer. ?

Despite this fact, Mr. Harkins is in the alone place of holding neither the defence nor prosecution call him to attest at the 1982 test. However, Mr. Harkins was asked by the defence to attest at the 1995 entreaty test. Mr. Harkins stated under curse during the 1995 test that he had been repeatedly harassed by Mr. Jamal? s research workers between 1990 and July of 1995. He went on to state, that? there were many people that came about, many different people that would travel to my topographic point of work, and so name me at my place. Each clip Mr. Harkins refused to speak to the defence team. ? Finally after 13 old ages of maintaining his silence, Mr. Harkins eventually sucummed to the defence? s force per unit area and agreed to give a statement to one of Mr. Jamal? s research workers. After he gave his statement the defence squad continued to reach him. Under curse in the 1995 test, Mr. Harkins explained that? each clip I would state something to the defence, they would come back with something different than what I said. I don? Ts like that. ?

Sing the informants of this test, it is clear that four prosecution informants: Scanlon, White, Chobert, and Magelton, all gave virtually the exact same testimony. Furthermore, the adult male that defence informant Harkins describes as holding changeable Officer Faulkner and so sat down on the kerb, who was subsequently apprehended by constabulary was Munia Abu-Jamal. Witness credability is a major factor in this instance. There are four eyewitnesses for the defence that claim there was a 3rd individual at the scene of the offense or a rider in the Volkswagen?

Pamela Jenkins

Cynthia White was a cardinal informant for the prosecution, due to the fact that she was the lone informant who testified to seeing Jamal with a gun in his custodies. No other informant claims to hold seen Jamal with a gun. It should besides be noted Cynthia White has disappeared and can non be found by the defence. No other informant the forenoon of the shot can remember seeing her that forenoon. It seems that merely the prosecution and the Philadelphia constabularies now of Cynthia Whites exact whereabouts. Following Jamal? s strong belief, Ms. White continued to work the streets under constabulary protection. She was arrested many times after the test and all charges were dismissed, or a supplication deal was worked out.

Pamela Jenkins late came frontward for the defence. Apparently, Ms. Jenkins was working as a cocotte that dark and knew Cynthia White really good. Ms. Jenkins besides knew a figure of Philadelphia constabularies officrs at the clip and was dating Officer Thomas Ryan. Ms. Jenkins has provided a pledged statement that Officer Ryan asked her to attest against Jamal and to falsely place Mumia as the taw, in malice of the fact she wasn? t even present during the shot. Her statement went on to state that Officer Ryan paid her $ 150 to assist Ms. White and that the constabulary put force per unit area on Ms. White to lie at the Mumia test.

Is Ms. Jenkins testimony and statement credible after all these old ages? It appears the authorities has used Ms. Jenkins as a star informant in a constabulary corruptness instance in Philadelphia. At that test, Ms. Jenkins revealed how the Philadelphia constabularies used her to supply deceitful grounds to obtain a slaying strong belief against Raymond Carter. Ms. Jenkins testified that Officer Thomas Ryan paid her $ 500 to attest against Carter. As a consequence of her testimony, Officer Ryan is now in gaol and Raymond Carter is a free mom