Rating: 
Summary: Not accurate
Review: ...I covered the Mumia trial. He did everything he could to sabotage his own defense. Mumia insisted again and again to a weary Judge Sabo that John Africa, founder of MOVE, represent him in the murder trial...even though John Africa was not a lawyer. A shooting that takes place in the wee hours of the morning in a shady center city neighborhood will NOT have very savory or perfect witnesses. This one did not. But if Mumia was defending his brother from Officer Daniel Faulkner, why didn't Mumia's brother testify on Mumia's behalf? Why was Faulkner shot in the head with Mumia's gun at point blank range? This documentary is a one sided mess. Mumia and Officer Faulkner deserve better.
Rating:
Summary: Nonsense
Review: Anyone who has the ability to read comprehensibly can go through the court transcripts to see what actually happened. Jamal never once tried to defend himself in court, he mearly tried to sabatoge his own trial in an attempt to make himself appear to be the victim of what he percives to be a racist judicial system. Don't be fooled by the half-truths and double-speak that his supporters will try to sell. They try to say Faulkner was shot by a .44 cal gun, while Jamal's gun was a .38 cal. Even Jamal's defense ballistics expert has stated that the slug recovered from Officer Faulkner's body was a .38 cal. As for new witnesses, none of Jamal's witnesses that have appeared so long after the original trial had ever seen the killing occur, they arrived minutes afterward, and can only testify to seeing people "running away". It is assumed by Jamal's supporters that one of these people was the killer, when four witnesses to the actual killing testified that Jamal was the man who repeatedly shot Officer Faulkner. This man is no martyr, no Martin Luther King. To compare the two as so many Jamal supporters have is appalling. Look at all the information objectively, pro & con, and you will have no trouble seeing through the twisted spin that Jamal's supporters have put on this situation. Thankfully, the appellate courts have seen through it all.
Rating:
Summary: Lack of a "fair" trial does not equal innocence
Review: As a hardcore progressive activist (involved in the peace movement, oppose the death penality, etc.), I've followed the Mumia situation for quite some time. However, I've been troubled, not by the pro-death penality advocates, but by the Pro-Mumia movement itself which has repeatedly relied upon lies and manipulation to make a case for Mumia.There are claims made in this documentary that don't hold up to scrutiny. The caliber of the gun "not matching" the murder weapon: This claim is based on a hand written note of the initial doctor who saw Faulkner's body who had very little training in ballistics. Afterwards this doctor retracted his statement and stated quite bluntly that he was just guessing. Those trained in ballistics have stated that the bullet that killed Faulker did indeed come from the gun owned by Mumia. It was in fact Mumia's gun which killed officer Faulkner. Did Mumia pull the trigger? We can't be 100 percent sure. Mumia's brother has not testified on his behalf nor made ANY - EVER - public statement in defense of Mumia. And Mumia's brother was at the scene of the crime. Mumia activists state that the brother won't come forward because of fear of reprisals. This just doesn't make sense. Mumia has been on death row! Couldn't he make a video statement taped in another country which won't extradite him should there be any ramifications from his actions? Mumia's confession: Pro-Mumia activists claim that the police officer who quotes Mumia confessing to the killing only came forward months after the fact. The argument is that a confession of this importance should have been reported immediately and that this kind of behavior indicates a possible fabrication given the delay. This seems to make sense on its face. However, there was another witness to this incident. A hospital security guard reported within a day or so that Mumia had confessed to the shooting. Pro-Mumia activists point out that the guard was a "friend" of Faulkner. OK, maybe that creates bias, but the fact of the matter is, the guard's statements destroys the attack on on the delayed police report - because there was no delay. This doesn't mean that no one is lying, of course. The trial: There is in fact evidence to show that Mumia did not receive a fair trial. However, as pointed out by others, Mumia certainly didn't help his case by being disruptive. The man seemed almost intent upon angering the judge and doing everything possible to have himself removed from the court room. Eyewitnesses: This is perhaps the most problematic portion of either side. Some say Mumia did it, some say he didn't. Some say there was a running man from the scene of the crime. Just about all the witnesses have ulterior motives and could be dismissed as lacking credibility. Many people don't realize this, but Faulkner had on his body a driver's license which had not been called into the police department. The obvious conclusion is that this license belonged to a third suspect (Mumia, his brother, and someone else). Tracing this license, the police discovered that it belonged to a man with a solid alibi - but he had loaned it to another man who was a friend of Mumia's brother. Voila. Now you have the "running man." Unfortunately, this man has been dead for many years now, killed in an apparent gang shooting. So did Mumia do it? And did he receive a fully fair trial? The evidence points straight to Mumia as the shooter. However, none of this means he got a fair trial or that the police didn't lie to make their case. The problem is, Mumia has come to represent much more than a single event. Progressives of all stripes bring this case up as evidence of police lies and manipulation. This is unfortunate. Mumia's case is not as clear cut as activists make it out to be. Even worse, the constant arguing of his innocence damages the credibility of an entire movement which opposes the death penalty and the rampant racism within the US justice system. More than any other case, Mumia has come to represent to death penalty advocates the overall "lies" of the progressive left. This documentary only contributes further to the damage.
Rating:
Summary: Lack of a "fair" trial does not equal innocence
Review: As a hardcore progressive activist (involved in the peace movement, oppose the death penality, etc.), I've followed the Mumia situation for quite some time. However, I've been troubled, not by the pro-death penality advocates, but by the Pro-Mumia movement itself which has repeatedly relied upon lies and manipulation to make a case for Mumia. There are claims made in this documentary that don't hold up to scrutiny. The caliber of the gun "not matching" the murder weapon: This claim is based on a hand written note of the initial doctor who saw Faulkner's body who had very little training in ballistics. Afterwards this doctor retracted his statement and stated quite bluntly that he was just guessing. Those trained in ballistics have stated that the bullet that killed Faulker did indeed come from the gun owned by Mumia. It was in fact Mumia's gun which killed officer Faulkner. Did Mumia pull the trigger? We can't be 100 percent sure. Mumia's brother has not testified on his behalf nor made ANY - EVER - public statement in defense of Mumia. And Mumia's brother was at the scene of the crime. Mumia activists state that the brother won't come forward because of fear of reprisals. This just doesn't make sense. Mumia has been on death row! Couldn't he make a video statement taped in another country which won't extradite him should there be any ramifications from his actions? Mumia's confession: Pro-Mumia activists claim that the police officer who quotes Mumia confessing to the killing only came forward months after the fact. The argument is that a confession of this importance should have been reported immediately and that this kind of behavior indicates a possible fabrication given the delay. This seems to make sense on its face. However, there was another witness to this incident. A hospital security guard reported within a day or so that Mumia had confessed to the shooting. Pro-Mumia activists point out that the guard was a "friend" of Faulkner. OK, maybe that creates bias, but the fact of the matter is, the guard's statements destroys the attack on on the delayed police report - because there was no delay. This doesn't mean that no one is lying, of course. The trial: There is in fact evidence to show that Mumia did not receive a fair trial. However, as pointed out by others, Mumia certainly didn't help his case by being disruptive. The man seemed almost intent upon angering the judge and doing everything possible to have himself removed from the court room. Eyewitnesses: This is perhaps the most problematic portion of either side. Some say Mumia did it, some say he didn't. Some say there was a running man from the scene of the crime. Just about all the witnesses have ulterior motives and could be dismissed as lacking credibility. Many people don't realize this, but Faulkner had on his body a driver's license which had not been called into the police department. The obvious conclusion is that this license belonged to a third suspect (Mumia, his brother, and someone else). Tracing this license, the police discovered that it belonged to a man with a solid alibi - but he had loaned it to another man who was a friend of Mumia's brother. Voila. Now you have the "running man." Unfortunately, this man has been dead for many years now, killed in an apparent gang shooting. So did Mumia do it? And did he receive a fully fair trial? The evidence points straight to Mumia as the shooter. However, none of this means he got a fair trial or that the police didn't lie to make their case. The problem is, Mumia has come to represent much more than a single event. Progressives of all stripes bring this case up as evidence of police lies and manipulation. This is unfortunate. Mumia's case is not as clear cut as activists make it out to be. Even worse, the constant arguing of his innocence damages the credibility of an entire movement which opposes the death penalty and the rampant racism within the US justice system. More than any other case, Mumia has come to represent to death penalty advocates the overall "lies" of the progressive left. This documentary only contributes further to the damage.
Rating:
Summary: Well-meaning but woefully inaccurate
Review: Before you click the "NO" button, read the following all the way through. I have no doubt that supporters of Mumia Abu-Jamal's bid for clemency mean well. I myself have grave reservations about the death penalty's place in society. Yes, the criminal justice system is flawed, and the wrong people can be railroaded. What I do not have reservations about are Mumia's guilt in this particular crime. I am annoyed at the way people who analyze this incident factually are labeled as "racist." For that reason I am submitting this review anonymously. I do not consider myself a racist by any stretch of the imagination, but I do feel that someone who kills a policeman in cold blood is guilty of a crime, no matter who they are. No credible mitigating circumstances have ever been shown in this case. To that end, I submit that this documentary is only helping spread a lopsided, factually distorted view of the incident. To wit: 1. "Mumia never received a fair trial." In fact, Mumia attempted to dismiss his own lawyer and represent himself, or failing that have a man appointed to the position who had no experience with law (MOVE leader John Africa). Mumia repeatedly disrupted the courtroom with his outbursts and refused to call two key material witnesses for the defense to the stand. If anyone is responsible for Mumia not getting a fair trial, it was Mumia himself, who sabotaged his own defense time and again. 2. "The bullet that killed Officer Faulkner was a .44, while Mumia's gun was a .38." This was based on a misreading of preliminary notes made during the officer's autopsy, which was never intended to be entered into evidence and was later corrected by ballistics. Why this particular piece of information keeps being repeated is puzzling; ballistics has since shown that the bullets that killed Faulkner matched Mumia's gun (which he owned and was registered to him) to a high degree of accuracy. 3. "Witnesses reported seeing another man kill Office Faulkner and flee the scene." None of these witnesses supplied evidence that directly contradicted the testimony of other, more substantiated witnesses (as well as the heavy weight of the physical evidence). 4. "The jury was stacked." Mumia and his lawyer had a free hand in choosing the jury, 33% of whom were black (an accurate reflection of the racial makeup of Philadelphia). They approved a great many white jurors to deliver a verdict of guilty. 5. "Mumia was coming to the aid of his brother who was a victim of police brutality." The brother, who was being pulled over by the officer in question, has never spoken in Mumia's defense. Four on-the-scene eyewitnesses show that the brother (who sustained only a cut behind the ear) assaulted the officer first. [The officer was shot in the back, in the chest, and then in the head at close range -- allegedly in "self-defense."] And so on. Nothing in this documentary was derived from the public records of the trial, but has been taken directly from Mumia's supporters. I understand how emotionally charged this case is, but that is no excuse for shoddy scholarship -- or total absence of same. Get the facts, not the propaganda.
Rating: 
Summary: FREE MUMIA ABU-JAMAL!!!
Review: Finally a media outlet that fully illustrates the injustice done to Mumia Abu-Jamal. Props to HBO for taking on this project and making it work. Free Mumia Abu-Jamal. Dont let him be legally lynched on December 22, 1999. Stand up and fight for his freedom. If you were in his place he would fight. It is a shame that a man had to lose his life under these circumstanes but it would be tragic if an innocent man also has to die because of the racist and corrupt legal system of Philadelphia.
Rating:
Summary: A farce
Review: I am utterly amazed at the ease with which the average person can be duped. Saw the film, read the transcripts (both of the trial and the appeal to the Pennsylvania supreme court) and am thankful that the judicial system is not as ignorant as the typical Wesley Cook supporter. We do not have a perfect judicial system and politics do play a role in that system. Frankly, there are dozens of better cases, for those opposed to this system, to take on in support of their position. The fact that Cook was unable to make a mockery of our imperfect system (not from a poor effort) is cause to celebrate. Kill that unworthy martyr and be done with it.
Rating:
Summary: BRICK-BY-BRICK! WALL-BY-WALL! We'gonna free Mumia Abu Jamal
Review: If we truly want to free Mumia, we must free Shaka Sankofa first! Shaka Sankofa (Gary Graham) awaits his execution by George W. Bush, Jr. (potentially our next President!) in JUNE 2000! We people who believe in his innocence, who do not believe in the death penalty, who belive in justice for people of color in the US must stop BUSH and stop the execution of Shaka Sankofa! Sankofa is the test in the fight to free MUMIA! If you can't free SANKOFA! you can't free MUMIA! Free MUMIA? Free SANKOFA FIRST! Let Sankofa be the TEST! Free all Political Prisoners!
Rating:
Summary: Nonsense
Review: Maybe not the most unbiased presentation of facts, but there are numerous loopholes and obvious ploys by the FOP in Chicago to make sure Mumia took the fall. Enough pieces of evidence are so inconsistent that one would think any sane man, let alone any man in a position of power, would look into re trying the case. The big question in my mind after seeing this is "Where is Mumia's brother? " Surprising (not really!), too, that this case is hardly mentioned in mainsteam media yet is fairly well known in alternative press, even with consistent marches, protests, and rallies. Doesn't clearly define Mumia as guilty or innocent, but DEFINITELY makes one question the mechanics and political (both professional and personal) hand holding of media, government, and the justice system. PLEASE watch it, especially if your mind is already made up about the state of justice and personal security in the U.S. also reccommended: Bob Roberts, w/ Tim Robbins.
Rating:
Summary: Why is this case kept so quiet?
Review: Maybe not the most unbiased presentation of facts, but there are numerous loopholes and obvious ploys by the FOP in Chicago to make sure Mumia took the fall. Enough pieces of evidence are so inconsistent that one would think any sane man, let alone any man in a position of power, would look into re trying the case. The big question in my mind after seeing this is "Where is Mumia's brother? " Surprising (not really!), too, that this case is hardly mentioned in mainsteam media yet is fairly well known in alternative press, even with consistent marches, protests, and rallies. Doesn't clearly define Mumia as guilty or innocent, but DEFINITELY makes one question the mechanics and political (both professional and personal) hand holding of media, government, and the justice system. PLEASE watch it, especially if your mind is already made up about the state of justice and personal security in the U.S. also reccommended: Bob Roberts, w/ Tim Robbins.
| 
