Sis. Marpessa.
FORWARD!
//////////////////////////////////////////////
9/27/99
REQUIEM FOR SUSAN BURNETT
My sincerest condolence to Ali Bey Hassan and family on the
passing of his wife, Susan Burnett.
i and almost everyone who knows her will dearly miss her and
the constant many-faceted ways she contributed to the struggle
to free all oppressed people.
Susan was a founding member of the Sundiata Acoli Freedom
Campaign. She led it thru its formative years and well into
its later development ~ and i'm forever indebted to her for
doing so.
During our sojourn together we encountered both good times
and rough times, harmony and friction, joys and sorrows ~
but thru it all i never had a moments doubt that she had
my and oppressed people's best interest at heart. Overall
i'm convinced that a bigger heart and a more dedicated
comrade than Susan can not be found.
May Susan Burnett rest in peace, assured that her spirit
lives on, cherished by us who loved her so.
Sundiata Acoli
/////////////////////////////////////
From: AliBeyH@aol.com
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 23:13:09 EDT
Below is Linn Washington's response to Maureen Faulkner.
‘True facts’ show Abu-Jamal’s trial was unfair
Dear Ms. Faulkner:
Thank you for the recent letter expressing your views about my Sept. 8,
1998 column published in the Philadelphia Tribune bearing the headline,
“Fundamental fairness forgotten in Mumia’s case.”
While we hold differing views on this controversial case, I appreciate
your frank expression of opinion. Exchanging views is always
informative. I trust that we can disagree without being disagreeable.
I accept your offer to contact you for comment when writing about this
case. I would like to extend an invitation to you to conduct an
interview with the Philadelphia Tribune.
Ms. Faulkner, apparently you have misconceptions about the differing
roles and ethical responsibilities of newspaper reporters and newspaper
columnists.
Reporters have a responsibility to report the news as accurately and
objectively as possible. A component of accuracy is the thoroughness,
which means the reporter digs for as much information as possible in the
time allotted to prepare the story for publication.
Reporters are supposed to report news free of their personal opinions.
However, newspaper columnists are free to include their personal
opinions in their reports. One purpose of a columnist, according to
accepted newspaper practice, is to provide their opinions on news
events.
While a basic element of the balance required of news reporters is
getting comment from both sides, columnists are not bound by this
standard. An important distinction between news reporters and columnists
is journalistic license. Columnists have the discretion (license) to
construct their commentary, as they deem appropriate. If a columnist
wants to seek comment, they can. If a columnist chooses not to seek
comment, they have neither violated essential elements of journalism,
nor “human decency” as you allege.
The published item sparking your ire is a column. My column about this
case is clearly marked as representing my personal opinion. (See
editor’s note at end of column: The views expressed in this column are
the writer’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the
Philadelphia Tribune.) Had I written a straight news article instead of
a column, your criticism would be relevant.
For your information, Ms. Faulkner, when I teach basic and advanced news
reporting, I emphasize the necessity of obtaining comment from both
sides. Interestingly, in my lectures, I tell students that they must get
comments from both sides even if they firmly believe one party is an
absolute liar.
What would be ‘frightening’ Ms. Faulkner, is if journalism professors,
myself included, advocated that students use selective application of
reportorial balance. It would be frightening to instruct aspiring news
reporters that they do not need to get comment from both sides if they
feel that one side is a confirmed liar.
Ms. Faulkner, under the standards that you suggest, if a news reporter
felt that you are a confirmed liar, this would eliminate their
journalistic obligation to obtain comment from you. I think we can both
agree that this would be a destructive and deceptive journalistic
practice.
Concerning my column regarding that May 18, 1995 Washington Post
article, the source of the “shoddy journalistic efforts” that you accuse
me of practicing is that article and quotes attributed to you in that
article.
The article begins by stating there is “an image” from the trial that
you cannot forget and quotes you in the second paragraph declaring, “He
smiled at me.”
The opening paragraph of the article describes this smiling incident
occurring when a “ballistics expert” held up your late husband’s shirt
“to display the bullet holes.”
A ballistics expert named Tumosa did testify on June 26, 1982 and he did
hold up the shirt for display, according to the transcript and my
column.
The Justice for Police Officer Daniel Faulkner Website lists Tumosa as
“Prosecution ballistics expert” in its “Names of key individuals in this
case” section. Mr. Weinglass mentions this expert in his published
account cited in my column.
The court transcript for June 26 notes and you agree that Mr. Abu-Jamal
was not in the courtroom that day.
Now you claim in your letter that this smiling incident actually
occurred on June 21. The Faulkner Website offers the same claim.
However, neither the Post article nor the comments attributed to you in
that article stated that this smiling incident occurred on June 21, as
your letter contends.
The June 21 court transcript excerpt cited in your letter states that an
Officer Heftner identified the shirt. That transcript excerpt does not
specifically state that Officer Heftner held up the shirt or “displayed”
it as you assert in your letter.
The Philadelphia Inquirer article cited in your letter as proof of your
claim states the shirt was “admitted as evidence” on June 21. This
article does not say a ballistics expert displayed the shirt.
Additionally Ms. Faulkner, contrary to the ’95 Post article, the court
transcript excerpt cited in your letter does not identify Heftner as a
ballistics expert.
Isn’t it true Ms. Faulkner that the court transcript from June 21, 1982
does not list Officer Heftner as a ballistics expert?
Isn’t it true that the Justice for Faulkner Website describes Officer
Heftner as “the courts evidence handler” and not a ballistics expert in
its section assailing Mr. Weinglass for questioning your account of the
smiling incident?
Your letter contains an excerpt from the June 21 court transcript (T.R.
PG 4.10) where the prosecutor is asking Heftner to identify the shirt.
This excerpt is part of a series of questions where the prosecutor is
asking Heftner to identify various articles of clothing worn by your
husband that Heftner collected and turned over to homicide detectives.
Yet, minutes before this line of questioning about the clothing, Heftner
tells the prosecutor that he is a “Police Officer” assigned to the “6th
District” when the prosecutor asked where did he work on Dec. 9, 1981.
Officer Heftner, in the court transcript (T.R. PG 4.7) identifies
himself as a patrol officer, three pages before the excerpt cited in
your letter.
Officer Heftner, under direct questioning from the prosecutor, does not
identify himself as a ballistics expert.
If Abu-Jamal smiled at you during Heftner’s testimony as claimed in your
letter, why does the ’95 article identify Heftner as a ballistics expert
instead of a patrol officer?
Did Heftner receive a promotion from patrolman to ballistic experts
before his testimony on June 21? If so, you failed to note that
development in your letter.
Ms. Faulkner, as you can see from the “true facts” contained in the
court transcript, any confusion about the smiling incident occurring
during testimony by a ballistics expert results from misinformation
contained in that ’95 article.
Corroboration is a method reporters employ to access credibility.
There was no corroboration in that 1995 article that anyone else in that
packed courtroom observed Abu-Jamal smile at you.
The 1995 article could have made a tremendous contribution to increasing
the credibility of your account of Abu-Jamal smiling by quoting one or
both of the two individuals that your letter states also witnessed this
heinous act.
Are these individuals available for interview?
Another element impacting the credibility of this account is the lack of
contemporaneous confirmation of the smiling incident.
The last paragraph of the Tuesday, June 22, 1982 Inquirer article did
state that you left the courtroom crying. Yet, this article does not
state that the defendant’s mean-spirited smile caused your tears. The
article states that you left crying after the shirt “was admitted as
evidence.”
None of the Inquirer articles about the trial for the remainder of that
week (6/22-27/82) report your account of the smiling incident or the
defendant even glancing at the prosecution side of the courtroom.
Was your 1995 Washington Post interview, over a dozen years after this
smiling incident, the first time that you told a reporter about
Abu-Jamal’s antic? Did you immediately inform the prosecutor, police, or
the judge about this act of intimidation?
Ms. Faulkner, you criticize critics of Abu-Jamal’s conviction for laying
blame in improper places. One reason why so many people question the
propriety of Abu-Jamal’s conviction is that improprieties in the justice
system occur far too often.
One impropriety that people question is alleged misconduct by
prosecutors.
The eleventh paragraph of that June 22, 1982 Inquirer article quotes the
prosecutor stating in court that the prostitute who identified Abu-Jamal
as your husband’s shooter did not receive “leniency or any other
consideration” from his office. “True facts” (court records) now reveal
that this witness did receive leniency on outstanding criminal charges
after her testimony.
Shortly after news reports last month about Phillip Bloch claiming he
heard Abu-Jamal confess, a California Appeals Court cited “serious
prosecutorial misconduct” in overturning the convictions of four gang
members convicted of murdering a San Diego policeman. The officer’s
widow filed a $2.6-million lawsuit against San Diego prosecutors for
mishandling the case.
The day before the press conference earlier this month, releasing
information crippling the credibility of Philip Bloch’s confession
claim, a federal judge in Missouri ordered the release of a woman
convicted of murder. This judge, “overturned” her conviction, calling
the case Missouri prosecutors built against her “fundamentally unfair,”
according to a Washington Post news article. This woman spent 16 years
in prison.
Ms. Faulkner, I concluded that Sept. 8, 1998 column by stating
Abu-Jamal’s “conviction is based on an unfair trial.” This opinion is
based on my review of voluminous records in this case, contrary to your
criticism that I “never have the courage to look at the evidence, the
FACTS…”
I apologize for being a little wordy in this letter. You asked for a
reply and I wanted to provide you with some of my perspectives.
You ask for a public apology. Because I did not breach any ethical
obligations as a columnist, there is no basis for your charges or your
demanded public apology.
However, I’ll make you a deal.
I am hopeful that this proposal will erase your doubts that I am not “a
big enough person.”
This deal regards simultaneous public acknowledgements by us.
I will publicly acknowledge that I did not ask you to comment in my
column simultaneous to you publicly acknowledging that Mumia Abu-Jamal
does have First Amendment rights to express himself freely.
I’m not asking you to publicly apologize for your organized efforts to
deny Abu-Jamal his constitutional rights. That 1995 article quotes you
as stating, “By taking another man’s life, he forfeits the right to
freedom of speech.” I respect your right to hold this opinion
irrespective of federal judges ruling that you are wrong on this
forfeiture issue.
Thank you for your time.
Linn Washington Jr. is a Tribune columnist.
The Philadelphia Tribune, Friday, September 24, 1999
/////////////////////////////////////////////
International Concerned Family & Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal
P.O. Box 19709 - Philadelphia, PA 19143
Ph: 215-476-8812 / Fax: 215-476-7551
Web: www.mumia.org / E-mail: mumia@webcom.com
MUMIA MUST LIVE! TIME IS RUNNING OUT!