|
|
Erklärung von Ronald L. Singer |
AFFIDAVIT OF RONALD L. SINGERUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MUMIA ABU-JAMAL, -vs- MARTIN HORN, Commissioner of the AFFIDAVIT OF RONALD L. SINGER IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER'S REQUEST TO FILE REDRAFTED AND AMENDED PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS AND FOR DISCOVERY AND EVIDENTIARY HEARING. STATE OF TEXAS Before me, the undersigned authority, came and appeared RONALD L. SINGER, who, after being sworn, deposed and said: 1. My name is Ronald L. Singer, I am over 18 years of age, of sound mind, capable of making this Affidavit, and personally acquainted with the facts herein stated. I am Crime Laboratory Director of the Tarrant County Medical Examiner's Office in Fort Worth, Texas, which is a full service, ASCLD/LAB accredited laboratory. From 1972 until 1988 I was employed by the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office Crime Laboratory in Metairie, Louisiana, as a Criminalist and as the Laboratory Director. I am experienced in the scientific testing, evaluation, and proper handling of physical evidence. By way of Background, I am a Fellow of the Criminalistics Section of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences; a Distinguished Member, and Past President of the Association of Firearm and Toolmark Examiners; and an Emeritus Member of the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors. A copy of my complete resume is attached as EXHIBIT "A" hereto. The statements in my resume are true. I have been qualified as a forensic science expert and given expert testimony in Federal, State and Local courts in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Colorado, Missouri and Kansas. 2. In July, 2001, I received the following items of evidence in the case of Mumia Abu Jamal: 3. After reviewing the above listed materials, it is my opinion that there are serious questions regarding the evaluation of the physical evidence collected at the scene as well as the reconstruction of the crime scene itself, which, had they been properly addressed, could have lead to a different outcome at the subsequent trial of Mumia Abu Jamal. It is essential that certain items of physical evidence be reexamined in light of (a) the errors in the conclusions originally reached and (b) the many advances that have occurred in the areas of biological testing, gunshot residue analyses, firearms analyses and crime scene reconstruction over the last twenty years. 4. Blood was identified on numerous items throughout the original shooting scene. While some of this blood was associated with areas of the crime scene that would be expected, i.e., the clothing and area around Officer Faulkner and Mr. Jamal's clothing, blood was also found in areas not associated with the immediate crime scene. None of this blood was tested beyond the most basic level, that of ABO typing. The two types reportedly found on evidence collected, type "A" and type "O", together account for over eighty per cent of the population. Based on these analyses, there is no way of knowing how many individuals contributed the samples collected from the scene. Testing was available at the time which had the potential of being much more discriminating, but it was apparently never attempted. Today, DNA testing would make it possible to determine with all certainty whether or not others besides Officer Faulkner, Mr. Jamal, and perhaps William Cook bled at the scene. Knowing whose blood is where at the scene will also enable a much more accurate reconstruction of the events that occurred on the night of December 9, 1981. 5. There is considerable confusion regarding the firearms evidence; in one part of the laboratory report, bullets are described as having rifling characteristics which are "indeterminable"; yet in other parts of the report the same bullets are described as having "rifling characteristics ... consistent with characteristics of CHARTER ARMS REVOLVER (sic)". Furthermore, there are bullet fragments reported as being collected and bullet holes described from locations which are inconsistent with the State's theory of how the shooting occurred. In addition, the trajectory of the bullet which entered Mr. Jamal is inconsistent with his being shot while standing over Officer Faulkner, but is much more likely the result of his being shot while both he and the shooter were standing upright. A reexamination of the firearms evidence in this case, given better microscopes and more scientifically trained analysts is necessary to establish (a) whether the various shots came from the Charter Arms revolver, the Smith & Wesson revolver, or other firearms that may have been discharged at the scene, and (b) a more accurate estimation of the positions of Officer Faulkner when he was shot and Mr. Jamal when he was shot. 6. The estimate of the muzzle to target distances for the shot to the back of Officer Faulkner's patrol jacket and the shot to the chest area of Mr. Jamal's jacket are based on an evaluation of the "primer lead" around the holes. The laboratory report indicates that no nitrates or nitrites were found to be present, and there is no indication that any visible gunpowder or gunshot residues were noted on either garment. In my opinion, the lack of visible gunpowder and gunshot residues and the absence of nitrates and nitrites on these garments is inconsistent with a muzzle to target distance as close as has been described in the criminalistics laboratory report of January 7, 1982, and is, in fact, indicative of a much greater distance. Assuming that the garments still exist and that they have not been handled too roughly, it may still be possible to conduct a proper evaluation of these garments and arrive at a much more accurate estimate of the distances involved in these shootings. Signature: RONALD L. SINGER SWORN AND SUBSCRIBED before me on this _______ day of September, 2001, |