In order to establish the angle between the original trajectory of the bullet and the trajectory of the fragment after hitting the pole, Schiffmann shows the approximate trajectory of that fragment in the vestibule of Locust 1234. The hole in the door was somewhere in the upper right portion of the glass. The fragment was located 2.08m south of the entrance and 2.03m east of the west wall (6' 10'' and 6' 8''). For illustration purposes the distorted sketch shows a starting point (hole in the door) and another point where the fragment has been found - at least it looks like that.

I have doubts regarding the size of the vestibule of Locust 1234. According to Race Against Death it has to be more than 8 meters (26 ft) wide and it includes the window right of the entrance door. Even though that window belongs to the same property it does not necessarily belong to the vestibule. However, since I do not know the size of that vestibule I will accept that sketch despite my doubts. It's easy to show why the room size does not matter.

The photo above shows two possible locations for the hole in the glass because the trial transcript does not reveal the exact location.

It is obvious that the fragment should be placed at approximately the same distance from the entrance and the west wall (bottom and right). The distorted sketch clearly doesn't do so. There the distances are roughly 2.8m and 1.6m (9' 2'' and 5' 3''). The width of door is roughly half the room size. This means it is the door including the plaster reveal. As a result, the cross marking the hole in the door is already outside the door. The pole, which has been marked by a rather thick “dot” is too far left.

The corrected sketch at the right side contains a dot where the fragment has been found. The actual door size has been marked with two small lines. The precise location of the hole in the door is not known but clearly differs from the original sketch. The pole's location had to be moved a bit, as well. The shape of the pole in that sketch results from the fact that it is visibly bent towards east (see figure 5). The alleged trajectory of the fragment doesn't even come close to the pole. Again, Schiffmann's sketch has been carefully fabricated to mislead the readers.

Anyway, these fabrications are not the real problems. The location of the fragment does not show the trajectory inside the room. It could have hit a wall or any other object inside the vestibule before coming to a rest. The doted line shows one possible trajectory but there are many others. In fact it is not possible to say anything regarding the trajectory by looking at the location of the fragment, not even whether it came from left or right. Therefore, the room size is not important at all.

Based on the idea that the fragment ricocheted from the pole of the no-parking sign there is a way to determine the trajectory of that fragment. It is equal to the line from the pole to the hole in the glass. Unfortunately we do not know their exact locations but we can make an estimation based on crime scene photos. Figure 5 shows the location of the pole with respect to the center of door and the corner of a ventilation grille. When using that line we can estimate the location of the pole, which fits quite well to other crime scene photos. The angle is not more than 25° to 30°. That's quite different from Schiffmann's 46° but fits well to the location of the pole according to the more detailed sketch in the German version (I have no idea why he uses two different sketches).

A combination of this angle with Abu-Jamal's direction when running towards the scene is quite different from Schiffmann's conclusion. He assumes the fragment would have had do have ricocheted from the pole approximately at a right angle. My conclusion is that this angle could have been anywhere from 0° to 60°, which does not exonerate Abu-Jamal.

Race Against Death draws the conclusion that the first shots did not come from Abu-Jamal but from the sidewalk at the south side of Locust Street. At first, Faulkner shot Abu-Jamal and than Freeman shot Faulkner from behind. This conclusion seems to be reinforced by the fact that Faulkner's police tie has been found at the intersection (see figure 3). The metal clip of the tie had blood type 0 and lead residue on it, which proves that it has been hit by a bullet. At the trial Roy Land indicated the tie fell to the ground when Daniel Faulkner has been carried to a car. Schiffmann thinks the tie has been carried along with the bullet after Freeman shot Faulkner in the back. Maybe the force of the impact could have carried the tie away but there is no way to explain that enormous distance. It has been found 18 to 20 meters (20 to 22 yards) away from the crime scene. Since the tie is light but rather big it would have fallen to the ground close to the police car but not at the intersection. Schiffmann's conclusion regarding the tie is pure nonsense and, additionally, that scenario contradicts Abu-Jamal's sworn statement where he wrote he heard “something like gunshots” before he ran to the scene.

Anyway, there is still the question whether the first shot could have come from the sidewalk. We do not have much evidence to determine the direction of the first shots. The best indicator is the complete bullet at the west (right) side of the entrance door. It obviously did not hit an obstacle.

Figure 8 shows the approximate location of Freeman, Abu-Jamal, Faulkner, and the projectile beside the door. Abu-Jamal was coming from the parking lot, Freeman left the Volkswagen and Faulkner was between Volkswagen and police car. All locations include certain inaccuracies.

Figure 9 shows the possible directions of firing for both, Freeman and Abu-Jamal. Even though there is a range of 120° to 150°, Freeman never would have shot at the entrance door. On the other hand, that bullet lies in the center of Abu-Jamal's range of direction of firing.

Additionally, the sketch illustrates where a bullet hitting the pole would have come from. As we have seen already, it could have come from Abu-Jamal. This is not sufficient to prove that it did come from him but it is at least possible. We cannot draw the same conclusion for Freeman. After leaving the Volkswagen Freeman was very close to that pole and with each step towards Faulkner he would have come closer. Not even a bad shooter could have hit the pole accidentally - it was too close and at the same time too far away from the target. Crime scene photos by Pedro Polakoff illustrate that fact. The assumption that one bullet hit the pole and a second bullet hit the building beside the entrance door cannot be explained by a shooter coming out of the Volkswagen.

The last part of the drama consisted of 2 or 3 shots fired at close range, one of them killing the officer instantly. Schiffmann says, that description is "physically and ballistically impossible" because no divots generated by the missing shots can be seen at the photos. Since White, Scanlan and Chobert gave similar testimony all three of them were lying and the testimony has been fabricated by the police. The author of Race Against Death likes to use strong but empty words together with insults and defamatory allegations. In reality the missing divots are by far not the “nail in the coffin” of the prosecution's case. Let's take a look at his arguments.

Witnesses testified to some shots at Daniel Faulkner after he fell to the ground. Scanlan said there were two or three shots and he could remember seeing two flashes. Since evidence of two or three shots has been found at the entrance of Locust 1234 that number fits quite well to Abu-Jamal's Charter Arms revolver with 5 spent shells. As a result, at least one missing shot has to be explained.

An alternative scenario has to fulfill a few prerequisites in order to be used as evidence which outweighs the testimony given by eyewitnesses:

• The crucial area of the crime scene has to be covered by photos.
• The groove has to be clearly bigger than any common irregularity of the concrete surface.
• Photos of the crime scene have to be sufficiently detailed in order to distinguish between gun shot traces and the natural grainy surface of concrete.
• There must be no evidence that Daniel Faulkner has been shot when lying on the ground.

Schiffmann gave a scenario that takes care of that problem. He writes that the first shot killed Faulkner while he was standing. Afterwards Faulkner fell on his knee (his left knee was injured) before falling to the ground and the shooter lowered the gun for a second shot. The second shot went through the collar of the jacket and disappeared towards 12th street. This scenario includes a clear time problem. There is a considerable distance between head and collar and in order to fire a bullet at the collar the shooter requires some time to realize that his victim is falling down and to aim again. However, Daniel Faulkner would have fallen to the back (due to the impact), he would have collapsed immediately and he would have been lying on the ground within a fraction of a second. At the time the shooter was able to shoot at the collar Daniel Faulkner already would have been on the ground. Therefore, that shot would have hit the pavement and would have left gunshot traces. This scenario contradicts itself.

There is no good photo that shows the area around Daniel Faulkner's head. The best photo ever published is a crime scene photo (figure 10) showing the entire bloodstain near Locust 1232 (between Volkswagen and Ford Galaxy). None of the published photos by Pedro Polakoff offers a better view of that area. Actually, the quality of Polakoff's photos is not impressive. The digital copies that are available show impurities and some reflections, which may have been generated by drops on the lens, and they have been scanned from old paper printouts with visible cracks.

In figure 10 the area around Daniel Faulkner's head has been marked. The width of that square is 20% of the entire photo. Of course, the original photo would be much more detailed than figure 10. Compared to the information contained within digital photos the width of the marked part amounts to a few hundred pixels only. The photo's quality depends on factors like type of film, depth, angle, lighting, or the quality of the camera. Negative for the picture quality are the considerable depth, the flat angle, and decreasing light towards the back. On the other hand, the picture most likely has been taken by an experienced person with a high quality camera. However, the photo is not free of impurities. Figure 11 shows a light stain, which cannot be explained. The distance from the bloodstain is rather big and most likely it is not the trace of a shot. Additionally, the pavement is a typical concrete floor with dark and light stains.

The light stain appears on all copies of that crime scene photo. It is visible in Daniel William's Executing Justice and David Lindorff's Killing Time. The PDF-file of the English version of Race Against Death shows that stain, as well. However, the PDF-file of the German version (Wettlauf gegen den Tod) does not do so. That PDF-file contains a picture measuring 498x325 pixels, which has been manipulated. To compare Schiffmann's manipulated version with the original version I have scaled down the correct photo to the same size (I've used PhotoPaint). Figure 11a shows the result. That light stain has been covered in the German version of Schiffmann's book. Maybe it was too dangerous for the no-divots-argument because the photo would not have supported that argument anymore. Of course, if the evidence does not support the claim than the evidence has to be changed. (Please note that I refer to the PDF-file. I do not know whether the printed version shows the same manipulation.)

It’s not possible that the light stain has been blurred out because of reducing the size of the photo. That stain is so big that it would be visible in any case. Only a much smaller picture would not show it any more. Even at a size of 100x150 pixels the stain is visible. Additionally, the manipulated photo shows a darker pixel just right of the location were the light stain should be. That darker pixel is a clear sign of deliberate manipulation. Most likely something like PhotoPaint’s cloning tool has been used. Maybe a darker area like the darker pixels just below the right end of the cross hair (or any other dark area) has been copied to cover the light stain. Usually, such pictures are called faked evidence.

Another problem is the size of the bloodstain. A big area around Daniel Faulkner's head was covered with blood. That is the same area where a bullet most likely would have hit the sidewalk. A groove under the blood would require a rather big size to be visible. A small groove would have been filled with blood and could not be seen anymore. How big a groove could be expected?

A final answer can be obtained by tests only. The result depends on many factors and it would not be a clear result but a wide range of possible results. No one ever asked for tests like this. Without those tests we can base our estimation on the other projectiles from the crime scene. Most important factors are the concrete's strength and resistance against abrasion, the projectile's strength and the angle of impact. We cannot find out how deep the groove would be but we can make a rough estimation whether the groove could be too small to be visible on the photo.

The first complete projectile has been found in the plaster beside the door. Due to its deformation it could not be used to determine the gun but it still was one piece and did not splinter. The plaster was not broken out because otherwise the projectile would not have stayed there. The second complete projectile was found in the head of Daniel Faulkner. It entered the head at the front but could not break the backside of the skull. This projectile too was severely deformed but did not splinter (maybe except for a small fragment 10 by 3 by 2 millimeter).

Compared to the plaster beside the door and to human bones the concrete of the pavement is much harder. Concrete surfaces of sidewalks or streets show a very high resistance against mechanical abrasion, especially if the concrete is old. Cement hardens fast during the first days and weeks but that process continues at a lower pace for many years. Typical strength of concrete starts at 20 MPa (around 2500psi) but is considerable higher if concrete is already a few years old. Strength of plaster is only a fraction of this value. At the same time the surface becomes harder due to constant use. Traffic removes the softer parts of the surface and after some time the gravel (natural stones) embedded within the cement matrix becomes visible. This effect is responsible for the hard surface and the grainy appearance of concrete pavements. Crime scene photos show that the pavement was already old.

How big an effect could be expected on the sidewalk? Most likely no concrete chunks would have been broken out. This did not even happen to the much weaker plaster beside the door. We cannot determine how big the groove would be. The hole in the plaster can be used as upper limit but we don't have a lower limit. We only know that it would be clearly smaller then the hole in the plaster but not how much smaller. It is at least possible for that groove to be hidden under the bloodstain or to be undetectable at the given resolution. There is no evidence to rule out that small a groove. Schiffmann's assumptions about divots and concrete chunks have no basis. He writes about his conversation with an expert but cannot give details. Years ago the defense used similar arguments and did not provide clear expert testimony. There is no sufficient evidence to call the prosecution witnesses liars. Maybe the unreliable nature of that so-called evidence is the reason why it did not generate much media response.

While figure 11 most likely does not reveal any divots (maybe except the unexplained light stain) it reveals some additional evidence in support of the eyewitness testimony.

After the deadly bullet has entered Daniel Faulkner's head the high pressure blew out some blood. The bloodstain reveals that he has received the deadly shot when he was lying on the ground. Figure 11 shows a straight line of blood with a length of some 50cm (20 inches). It could not have left the victim's body due to normal blood pressure because it clearly goes upwards while all the other blood goes down to the curb. That line of blood has been generated when Daniel Faulkner was on the ground and someone shot him.

Schiffmann claims that Faulkner has been shot while he was standing. To support this claim he used a statement by Pedro Polakoff and one by a medical doctor named Dr. DeForest who in 1999 tentatively thought Faulkner was standing when he was shot. I simply don't trust experts who tentatively think something because such experts usually - not tentatively - say whatever they get paid for. If an expert has something to say he shall do so in a clear form. Interestingly, on 23 January 1999 Weinglass announced a ballistics expert with the same name who discovered critical new evidence that suggests the bullet that killed Faulkner was switched. (Is this man a medical doctor and a ballistics expert?) All this happened 8 years ago but no clear sworn statement by an expert has been produced so far.

We know from Scanlan, Chobert, and Harkins that only 3 persons were at the crime scene when Daniel Faulkner has been killed - Faulkner, Cook, and the shooter. Supporters of Abu-Jamal could claim that he directly went to the curb beside the Volkswagen and Freeman took his gun and killed Faulkner. Scanlan and Chobert could not see the side of the Volkswagen and Chobert's identification is doubtful. White's testimony is confusing and Harkins could be explained away. Is there any evidence that Abu-Jamal was the one person observed by Scanlan and Chobert? Yes, there is evidence, and it does not depend on eyewitnesses. A photo by Polakoff helps us to illustrate that evidence.

Roy Land from the Mobile Crime Detection Unit collected blood samples at two different locations, which are marked above. Since only two persons were bleeding at the crime scene (I do not count Arnold Beverly) it is simple to determine the blood types without having a DNA-test. Blood type 0 came from Daniel Faulkner (it has been found at the back of his tie and on his t-shirt) and blood type A came from Abu-Jamal (it has been found on his clothing and 2 vials of blood have been taken). The approximate limit of Chobert's and Scanlan's field of vision shows clearly that Abu-Jamal was the person they have seen shooting at the prone officer. Even if Freeman really has been in the VW he never entered their field of vision. The shooter was Mumia Abu-Jamal.

Please note the distance between Daniel Faulkner's head - approximately the circle “blood type 0” - and the place where his gun has been found. Daniel Faulkner already has lost his gun before he fell to the ground. When he was on the pavement Abu-Jamal could see him from head to toes. There was no room for misunderstandings. He could see that Daniel Faulkner was unarmed. Unmoved by that fact he aimed at Faulkner's head and pulled the trigger. Schiffmann concludes if Abu-Jamal really fired the deadly shot (despite all of his fabricated evidence) the murder charges should be dropped. Since Faulkner fired the first shot without reason (according to Schiffmann), Abu-Jamal acted in self-defense. I did not make this up to destroy his reputation. He really wrote this. Killing an unarmed police officer is self-defense??? Mr. Schiffmann, this is sick. (Interestingly, the last sentence containing the word “self-defense” appears in the English but not in the German version.)

District Attorney McGill asked: “Isn't it ironic that Daniel Faulkner after stopping someone in the normal course of his duties was killed by a bullet that he could not put in his own gun, because it was too highly powered?” I don't think a Plus P bullet would have stopped Abu-Jamal. I think it's ironic that Faulkner died because he shot only once and turned around to run to the sidewalk. If he would have shot twice he still could be alive. If he would have emptied his gun on Abu-Jamal he most likely would be alive today. He died because he did not attempt to kill. That's the real irony. But Schiffmann prefers to blame a police officer with a spotless record for his own death because he was “...shot not in the line of duty, but while engaged in an ordinary act of police brutality.” (Schiffmann in a paper about William Cook.)

Why both brothers should have remained silent after Freeman died in 1985? No one is that loyal to a dead friend. Schiffmann's argument is pure nonsense.

Why Schiffmann tried to prove Abu-Jamal's innocence? I have no idea. Maybe he saw himself as a master detective. On a pro-Mumia website (freedom-now.de) two reviewers criticized that portion of the book. One called it a major mistake and wrote about Schiffmann's “shaky evidence.” The other reviewer simply asks Schiffmann “Did it really happen in this way?” I can answer that question: “No, it did not.”

Without that chapter Race Against Death still would be an American bashing piece of propaganda full of insults and defamatory allegations but the lies would not be that obvious. Conspiracy theories need mystery and suspicion but have no need for details. When Schiffmann tries to “find the real killer” he has to give details and he fails terribly. All his carefully fabricated and distorted “evidence” does not help him. Even supporters of Abu-Jamal are aware of that. Yes, there are many lies in that book and most German readers do not buy into these lies.