Kathryn Morris should BOYCOTT SUNDANCE.

[boxman]

As Kathryn Morris has gained her international fame through her fictional portrayal of Lilly Rush--Philadelphia's first female homicide detective--she should boycott this year's Sundance festival as it also premieres "In Prison My Whole Life", a UK documentary that seems to me will be a biased view of convicted Philadelphia cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal and his murder of Officer Daniel Faulkner.

[riche]

First off I'll say that until I read your post boxman I'd never heard of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the murder or the film.

I've done a very quick bit of reading (IMDb, Wikipedia and a quick Google - none of which I am saying have any particular authority on the subject) so I am making no claims of great knowledge of this.

There does, however, seem to be a number of question marks over the case on both sides. Witnesses that may or may not have been present. Statements made and then changed or withdrawn. An apparent 1992 confession by Abu-Jamal.

You say "seems to me will be a biased view" can you elaborate? Any book, film, TV show is going to have a bias towards the views of the creators of some sort, whether intentional or otherwise. The one "review" on IMDb suggests that the film doesn't concentrate on the case that much and widens out into a look into the wider issues raised by the case. Should these issues not be addressed?

Should Kathryn boycott Sundance because they are showing Young @ Heart and some people don't like the idea of old people singing songs by Jimi Hendrix? Or CSNY Deja Vu if you agree with the war in Iraq?

We don't know what Kathryn's knowledge of or feelings on this case might be. She may agree with the original verdict, she may not. She may be involved in campaigning for Abu-Jamal's release, she may not. Yes, Lilly is a Philly police officer and the killing of people working to serve the public, like police officers, or anyone else for that matter, should not be tolerated in any society. We also know that Lilly works tirelessly to see the right person brought to justice, whoever that may be.

[boxman]

riche said:

There does, however, seem to be a number of question marks over the case on both sides. Witnesses that may or may not have been present. Statements made and then changed or withdrawn. An apparent 1992 confession by Abu-Jamal.

You say "seems to me will be a biased view" can you elaborate? Any book, film, TV show is going to have a bias towards the views of the creators of some sort, whether intentional or otherwise. The one "review" on IMDb suggests that the film doesn't concentrate on the case that much and widens out into a look into the wider issues raised by the case. Should these issues not be addressed?

There's a lot of disinformation on Abu-Jamal's plight floating around mainly because for many years, those who sought to have Abu-Jamal freed have had the larger and better financed voice. Here, we know the actual fact that he's gone through several fair and legitimate court proceedings that over-and-over confirm his guilt. But beyond this area, Abu-Jamal is being used as a "poster boy" for many different causes and agendas, such as by groups opposing the death penalty, black activists, disenfranchised youth, and so on. It's not a priority for our local law enforcement agencies to go abroad and contest the disinformation these groups put out about his case, nor is it Mumia's interest to correct them either. As a result, he's become a sort of 'folk hero' amongst these groups when a lot of them won't bother to look into the actual court proceedings to find he's actually got several fair trials and is rightfully in jail.

To my understanding, the film hasn't interviewed Officer Faulkner's widow, nor any of her supporters either. I doubt they put any serious effort to do so, because there *are* several willing and very capable people here who can speak of the opposing view in Abu-Jamal's case. I don't mind a discussion of capital punishment, racism, police brutality, unfair courts, and so on. Just don't start the discussion with a Lie--It makes the rest of the conversation pointless when it shows an unwillingness and laziness to look beyond the superficial hype and to find the truth in the first place.

Should Kathryn boycott Sundance because they are showing Young @ Heart and some people don't like the idea of old people singing songs by Jimi Hendrix? Or CSNY Deja Vu if you agree with the war in Iraq?

Now you're being silly. Of course Kathryn should boycott because of "Young @ Heart" too.

We don't know what Kathryn's knowledge of or feelings on this case might be. She may agree with the original verdict, she may not. She may be involved in campaigning for Abu-Jamal's release, she may not. Yes, Lilly is a Philly police officer and the killing of people working to serve the public, like police officers, or anyone else for that matter, should not be tolerated in any society. We also know that Lilly works tirelessly to see the right person brought to justice, whoever that may be.

Sure... And at the same time, she also represents a group of writers, directors, film crew, and so forth that receive assistance from the Philly PD. Does she not also have a responsibility to keep that relationship positive and without difficulties?? What about the people in the Philly PD who are fans of the show and welcome them when they film here?? Shouldn't they matter also??

[pealee]

To be honest I'm really confused on this. Lol.

I don't know anything about this Abu person or the film. But even if whats in the film is wrong why is that KM's concern to boycott it?? A lot of films aren't truthful to real events. And KM doesn't come across as the kind of person to stir up stuff and get in the media like that. And that would probably cause attention she doesn't seem to want.

[riche]

You clearly have strong feelings on this case boxman and know very little about it, so I can't debate the finer points with you.

boxman said:

There's a lot of disinformation on Abu-Jamal's plight floating around mainly because for many years, those who sought to have Abu-Jamal freed have had the larger and better financed voice.

So because one group is more effective at putting its point of view across it is wrong?

Here, we know the actual fact that he's gone through several fair and legitimate court proceedings that over-and-over confirm his guilt.

The trial may have been completely fair and legitimate but it doesn't mean the it ended in the right result. The fact that Arnold Beverly apparently confessed to the crime immediately brings things into question. I'm not saying either did or didn't commit the crime but it raises doubts.

To my understanding, the film hasn't interviewed Officer Faulkner's widow, nor any of her supporters either.

To play devil's advocate, what would interviewing the widow achieve from the perspective of understanding the case better? She wasn't there when her husband was shot. She wasn't a witness. Just because she was married to him doesn't mean she knows what happened. She can only base her opinion on the presented evidence like everyone else. Evidence that has seen Abu-Jamal convicted.

I doubt they put any serious effort to do so, because there *are* several willing and very capable people here who can speak of the opposing view in Abu-Jamal's case.

You don't know whether they tried or not. Maybe they did but the supporters felt it wouldn't be productive, feeling that the film is biased in someway.

Sure... And at the same time, she also represents a group of writers, directors, film crew, and so forth that receive assistance from the Philly PD. Does she not also have a responsibility to keep that relationship positive and without difficulties?? What about the people in the Philly PD who are fans of the show and welcome them when they film here?? Shouldn't they matter also??

If, and stress if, KM (or others involved in CC) came out and actively supported the move to get Abu-Jamal freed then maybe that would cause some problems. She'd probably be on this list for a start. But she's not. She's attending a film festival to promote a film she's involved in. She has a responsibility to the actors, writers, directors, crew of that project. However, as we know KM is an intelligent woman that I am sure is mindful of causing problems with anyone. If she feels that having anything to do with this film would cause problems elsewhere I'm sure she will just keep her distance and concentrate on why she is at Sundance.

And because CC involves Philly cops everyone involved in the show has to do all they can to portray them in a good light? CC itself has on several occasions dealt with "dirty cops" and wrongful convictions.

[boxman]

riche said:

You clearly have strong feelings on this case boxman and know very little about it, so I can't debate the finer points with you.

boxman said:

There's a lot of disinformation on Abu-Jamal's plight floating around mainly because for many years, those who sought to have Abu-Jamal freed have had the larger and better financed voice.

So because one group is more effective at putting its point of view across it is wrong?

It's wrong when they disseminate nonsense like the stuff you're about to cite below:

The trial may have been completely fair and legitimate but it doesn't mean the it ended in the right result. The fact that Arnold Beverly apparently confessed to the crime immediately brings things into question. I'm not saying either did or didn't commit the crime but it raises doubts.

How so? Both Mumia and his brother were at the crime scene, yet neither ever testified in the seventeen years between the crime and Beverly's testimony of ever seeing the guy there committing the murder. If there's any doubt or question to be raised, it's the truthfulness of Beverly's statements.

To play devil's advocate, what would interviewing the widow achieve from the perspective of understanding the case better? She wasn't there when her husband was shot. She wasn't a witness. Just because she was married to him doesn't mean she knows what happened. She can only base her opinion on the presented evidence like everyone else. Evidence that has seen Abu-Jamal convicted.

Because while many groups and Mumia advocates have been able to spread disinformation about this case abroad in all these years, Maureen Faulkner and her supporters have always been central figures in not just presenting an opposing view, but also in debunking a lot of the nonsense and conspiracy theories out there.

You don't know whether they tried or not. Maybe they did but the supporters felt it wouldn't be productive, feeling that the film is biased in someway.

True, I am making a presumption about the movie.

If, and stress if, KM (or others involved in CC) came out and actively supported the move to get Abu-Jamal freed then maybe that would cause some problems. She'd probably be on this list for a start. But she's not. She's attending a film festival to promote a film she's involved in. She has a responsibility to the actors, writers, directors, crew of that project. However, as we know KM is an intelligent woman that I am sure is mindful of causing problems with anyone. If she feels that having anything to do with this film would cause problems elsewhere I'm sure she will just keep her distance and concentrate on why she is at Sundance.

pealee said:

I don't know anything about this Abu person or the film. But even if whats in the film is wrong why is that KM's concern to boycott it?? A lot of films aren't truthful to real events. And KM doesn't come across as the kind of person to stir up stuff and get in the media like that. And that would probably cause attention she doesn't seem to want.

You know, I'm thinking this discussion is probably all moot anyway. The studio lawyers for KM's new film likely have a clause in her contract that she's required to appear at these publicity events, with the exception of only health or family issues.

And because CC involves Philly cops everyone involved in the show has to do all they can to portray them in a good light? CC itself has on several occasions dealt with "dirty cops" and wrongful convictions.

Heh. I had a conversation with a Philly cop who along with his wife, both love the show. He said he gets a chuckle out of how the Philly PD and the crime in this city is negatively portrayed because things really aren't that bad. It's strange, but most Philadelphians actually seem to admire having a bad reputation amongst outsiders.

[riche]

boxman said:

riche said:

So because one group is more effective at putting its point of view across it is wrong?

It's wrong when they disseminate nonsense like the stuff you're about to cite below:

I've tried really hard to understand what exactly you are citing as "nonsense" but I can't. You are going to have to explain it to me.

Was it me saying that someone can be wrongfully convicted in a fair trial? All it takes is for a mistake in the forensic tests or one witness to lie. It's been (recently at least) seen that juries tend to take forensic evidence as fact, they call it the "CSI" effect. Where as, just like any other evidence, it is open to interpretation.

Was it me saying that Beverly had confessed? Plenty of news sources say so. Perhaps they are all part of some huge liberal media conspiracy.

How so? Both Mumia and his brother were at the crime scene, yet neither ever testified in the seventeen years between the crime and Beverly's testimony of ever seeing the guy there committing the murder. If there's any doubt or question to be raised, it's the truthfulness of Beverly's statements.

Of course the truthfulness of Beverly's statements should be questioned. As should why he made them in the first place. Why confess to a crime you didn't commit? All I'm saying is that there appear to be question marks over this case and they should be addressed by proper authorities. I have no feeling either way on whether Mumia did it or not.

From what I can see (such as HERE on the BBC's website) in 2001 the Beverly affidavit caused a judge to quash the death sentence. Why do that if you are certain of the original verdict?

Because while many groups and Mumia advocates have been able to spread disinformation about this case abroad in all these years, Maureen Faulkner and her supporters have always been central figures in not just presenting an opposing view, but also in debunking a lot of the nonsense and conspiracy theories out there.

If the film is about the case then yes both sides should be represented. If it is just about this one man and his time in jail, and not about why he's there, then that puts a different perspective on it.

A problem I have with an issue like this is why are, apparently, so many people keen to see Mumia's conviction quashed. What do they gain from this? Why him? I'm sure there are plenty of other people wrongfully jailed for a whole load of reasons.

You know, I'm thinking this discussion is probably all moot anyway. The studio lawyers for KM's new film likely have a clause in her contract that she's required to appear at these publicity events, with the exception of only health or family issues.

I'm sure Kathryn will do her utmost to fulfill her obligations as long as they don't conflict with her principals and beliefs.

[Gina]

im really confused...what does this have to do with kathryn morris?