Having solved the Toynbee tile enigma, I thought I’d turn my attention to another long-standing Philadelphia mystery. Is Mumia guilty?
After years of research: Hell yes, he’s guilty as shit.
Here’s what happened. Mumia shot Faulkner. The city of Philadelphia had a strong case… but decided to make it stronger by coercing witnesses, making up a confession, cherry picking a judge and rigging a jury. Corrupt? Yes. Does it make him not guilty? No.
But here’s the problem. I’ll spell it out by continuing to ask myself questions and then answering them.
Should he get a new trial? If you’re worried about the criminal justice system and justice in that respect, then yes he should. But would he walk if he got a new trial? Absolutely.
Mumia’s got enough top notch legal support available to conjure up enough confusion and reasonable doubt to walk. Add to that the clear corruption in the City’s original case and 30 years of distance from the event and they’d fail miserably in any new trial. So if you’re worried about a man doing time for a murder that he committed, then he shouldn’t get a new trial… even though the first one was a sham… even though he’s guilty.
But anyway, what new information do I have to offer? Here’s my personal run-down of the event:
I never liked the idea that Mumia was sitting in his cab at 4AM waiting for fares, when his brother just happened to get pulled over half a block away. Here’s what I’m convinced happened. Mumia and his brother, William Cook were together in the parking lot at 13th and Locust. What business they had is unimportant, but could be interesting. I always wonder why Mumia doesn’t admit to being together in the minute before the shooting, (his brother’s made no statement at all about anything that happened) but I’m convinced that they were.
Mumia’s brother leaves. He wants to drive east. Locust is a quarter block south, but the wrong way up 13th for that quarter block. Instead of heading all the way up to 13th to Chestnut, he figures it’s 4AM, so he jets that few dozen feet the wrong way up 13th and makes the eastbound turn on Locust. From where Faulkner is sitting on Locust street, all he sees is a car headed the wrong way up 13th and pulls him over.
The next most important fact is this:
At 3:51 and 8 seconds, Faulkner radios in and says: “I have a car stopped at 12th, 13th and Loucst.” He calls for a wagon… which makes me think there are 2 people in Cook’s car. The call ends at 3:51 and 23 seconds.
At 3:52 and 27 seconds, a witness to the murder is at Juniper and Walnut… several blocks away reporting the shooting to police.
That makes the time of the incident, really, really short. There couldn’t have been more than 45 seconds between the time Faulkner exited his car, Cook exited his car, Mumia was shot and Faulkner was killed. What happened?
The car is pulled over and Faulkner gets out of his patrol car. I’m guessing that things go wrong from the start. Maybe both men get out of the car as Faulkner approaches. Maybe there’s a physical confrontation. Either way, Faulkner loses control quickly and when Mumia comes out of the parking lot across the street, it’s a surprise. I’m guessing that Mumia had his gun drawn and that Faulkner, seeing this, fired first. I’m guessing that the second man ran, Faulkner tried to take cover and Mumia fired at him, hitting him in the back. Then Mumia approached and knowing that he had already shot a cop and is also seriously wounded himself, made sure that Faulkner was dead.
Why am I convinced that Mumia is guilty? I hate to get all Smerconish on this site, but Mumia’s version of events just doesn’t make sense. First off, he doesn’t explain how he was shot with any bit of credibility. In his version, the shooting occured before he got out of his cab. How the hell did he end up with a bullet from Faulkner’s gun in his chest if the man was already dead? But he also claims that he was shot by an officer… presumably Faulkner? After the shooting? Huh? And when exactly did Mumia fire 5 bullets?
His version seems tailored to causing confusion in a second trial. With the city case already full of holes, Mumia adds a few more to the narrative… which his lawyers will explain away with more corruption from the city. Suddenly you’ve got such a big mess and a little reasonable doubt.
The whole Mumia’s gun didn’t fire the fatal shots argument is bogus. It’s not based on foresnics, it’s based on a cursory examination.
The Mumia is innocent because he was an intellectual and worked for NPR and got fired and was a radical and kept it real argument is just stupid. If anything, a revolutionary minded angry mother fucker is more likely to kill a cop than some random asshole sitting in a cab at 4AM. That’s not a knock on revolutionaries, it’s just an observation. What would Che have done?
I guess were lucky that people argue his innocence, instead of extolling the virtues of his guilt.