(Please forward and distribute)

"Mumia in TIME Magazine"

With the spectre of hundreds of Mumia supporters set to descend on
Philadelphia to protest the RNC it is no surprise that the mainstream media
has set it's crosshairs on Jamal and his supporters.  This latest attempt at

"snuff journalism" appears on the July 31st issue of TIME Magazine.  The
article "Wrong Guy, Good Cause" penned by reporter Steve Lopez mixes fact
with fiction in an attempt to portray Jamal as the unquestionable killer of
P.O. Danny Faulkner, Mumia supporters as ill informed zealots, and the Widow

Faulkner as a valiant crusader for justice.  While all of this makes for a
good fairy tale it does little to shed the light of truth on this
complicated
case.

Lopez relies on a number of lies to support his thesis, the first of which
is
that supporters of Jamal make the assertion that Mumia's first attorney had
never "handled a homicide".  This contention has never been one that has
been
made by credible Jamal supporters.  There are however a number of legitimate

greviances that supporters have with Jackson's performances and his lack of
experience with capital cases.  In a legal brief filed by Jamal's defense in

January of this year it was contended by the defense that "The record
reveals
that Jackson did not devise a strategy; did not interview witnesses; did not

prepare examinations, opening remarks and voire dire topics; did not target
evidentiary issues to research; did not subpeona witnesses; did not
adequately consult with his client; did not familiarize himself with the
case
file; did not consider avenues of attacking the prosecution's case; and did
not assemble evidence to present to the jury that pointed to Jamal's
innocence.  In the end, having failed to even prepare modestly for this
capital trial, Jakcson lurched forward in the litigation making life and
death decisions serendipiously".  Not surprisingly none of these issues were

presented in Lopez' s article.

The other blatant lie in Lopez's article is that neither Jamal or his
brother
have offered to explain what happened on that fateful morning of Dec 9th
1981.  Mumia in an impassioned explanation as to why he would not take the
stand in his own defense during his 1982 trial made a statement reads in
part
that he "...wanted all of his rights not some of them...".  Jamal had been
saddled with an ineffective defense attorney, was facing an openly hostile
judge, and a virtually all white jury chose not to speak on the events of
Dec
9th at that time.  He has however indicated that if given a fair trial with
a
jury of his peers he would tell his side of the story.

Mumia's brother was by all accounts the closest witness to the shooting.
When police arrived at the scene Jamal's brother is quoted as saying that "I

ain't got nothing to do with it".  Lopez cites this as Billy Cook's only
statement on the issue in 19 years.  Some investigation would have led Lopez

to the fact that Cook stated in a signed affadavidt that neither he nor
Mumia
had shot P.O. Faulkner.  Like others who have chosen to testify on Jamal's
behalf Cook was subject to harrasment and threats on the part of authoritys.

He did not testify during the PCRA hearings claiming that he feared for his
life.  He can now not be located.

It is clear that Maureen Faulkner is the star of Lopez's article.  While it
portrays her as a lone crusader traveling throughout the country to tell
what
he called "the other side of the story".  He does not, however mention that
she along with the FOP are leading a crusade and raising thousands of
dollars
not to preserve the memory of Daniel Faulkner but to ensure that Jamal is
executed.  In essence Faulkner who will speak so passionatley of the pain of

losing her husband seems to have no moral qualms with plunging Jamal's
family
into the same hell she claims to have been living in for the last 19 years.

Lopez quotes Mumia's prosecutor Joesph McGill as saying that the case
against
Jamal was "the strongest I ever had".  McGill now a former prosecutor was
censured for knowlingly presenting false evidence in another murder case,
yet
this fact seems to have escaped Lopez's article.  It was discovered earlier
this year that McGill had withheld evidence favorable to the defense and had

allowed one of his witnesses Cynthia White to perjur herself on the witness
stand.  This powerful evidence pointed to the fact that there was 4 people
on
the scene at the time P.O. Faulkner was shot not 3 as the prosecution
contended.  The prescence of a 4th party on the scene gives much credence to

the defense contention that this fourth person was involved with the
shooting
and had subsequently fled the scene.  In his article Lopez dismisses the
entire scenario as "unsubstantiated defense claims", this despite the fact
that a number of witnesses testify to seeing someone fleeing the scene.  It
is also an undisputed fact that Faulkner had the drivers license of someone
who was not on the scene when police arrived.

Steve Lopez relies on other aspects of the prosecutions case in order to
buttress his contention of Jamal's guilt.  He writes about eyewitnesses yet
fails to mention the overwhelming evidence of police coercion of witnesses.

He brings up ballistics evidence and doesn't mention police "losing" parts
of
the bullet.  Lopez states that Jamal made "political speeches" yet fails to
mention that the judge presiding over the trial was a member of the
Fraternal
Order of Police, was known as the "hanging judge" as well as a "prosecutors
friend".  It was McGill who introduced Jamal's politics during the
sentencing
phase of the trial when he used statments Mumia made as a 15 year old Black
Panther to argue for the death penalty.

In his summation Lopez starts out by saying "What a shame for death penalty
foes".  No Steve it is not Mumia supporters who should feel ashamed, rather
it is hack journalists who pander to a corporate controlled media that ought

to be ashamed.  In an article that seems to willfuly obfuscate reality Lopez

has shown that rather than telling the truth about Mumia's case he is
writing
what he thinks people want to hear.
In doing that he does a disservice to us all.

Write to TIME Magazine and express your outrage over Steve Lopez's article
at
LETTERS@time.com