A reporter who has followed the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal for nearly 18 years knew that the recent claim that Abu-Jamal had confessed was groundless. But he also knew that it would be accepted as gospel by the major media, in part of a disturbing but well-established pattern. PNS commentator Linn Washington Jr. is a journalism professor at Temple University and a graduate of the Yale Law Journalism Fellowship who writes extensively on inequities in the criminal justice system.

Death row inmate Mumia Abu-Jamal, bracing for a new execution order, recently beat back an orchestrated hoax proclaiming new evidence of his guilt.

This hoax centered on a claim that Abu-Jamal admitted killing a Philadelphia policeman -- a claim that followed a well-worn pattern I have observed in this case since I first began covering it hours after the December 9, 1981 murder of Officer Daniel Faulkner.

The first element of the pattern is the propensity of those who advocate Abu-Jamal's execution to embrace implausible accounts of his guilt to counter the inconclusive physical evidence.

The second element is the propensity of major media to report specious evidence against Abu-Jamal as fact, while dismissing favorable evidence as fallacious.

Phillip Bloch, a substitute teacher, earned prominent media coverage in July with the claim that he heard Abu-Jamal confess in late 1992. Block made this claim to Faulkner's widow earlier this year, and she directed him to a writer preparing an article about her battle against the "Justice for Mumia" movement for Vanity Fair magazine.

Bloch, a former prison volunteer, said he asked Abu-Jamal if he regretted killing Faulkner and Abu-Jamal said, "Yes."

Days after Bloch's claim made media headlines, Abu-Jamal found a letter from Bloch, written months after the alleged confession, that contradicts Bloch's recent account. In the letter, Bloch tells Abu-Jamal that he would win acquittal during a new trial because "justice is possible."

"Why write about a new trial if the guy confessed his guilt to you?." Mumia Abu-Jamal stated in an essay entitled, "Anatomy Of The Lie!". "The answer is simple. There was no confession."

Bloch says his letter was merely an expression of moral support for a fellow radical. "I continued to support him even after the confession. I sacrificed personal principals to political attitude."

Following the established pattern, execution advocates were quick to accept Bloch's strained explanation, and excuse him for going easy on a confessed murderer.

And following their established pattern, major media embraced Bloch's claim at face value. Vanity Fair, ABC's 20/20 and others dismissed the letter, finding no inconsistency in Bloch's endorsing Abu-Jamal's innocence after hearing his admission of guilt.

Abu-Jamal's essay assailed the media for failing to do basic reporting on Bloch before headlining his claim. For example, Bloch said he was a Pennsylvania Prison Society volunteer when Abu-Jamal confessed. However, the Society had dismissed Bloch over a year earlier, reportedly for violating Society regulations, including rules on keeping inmate conversations confidential.

I knew Bloch's claim had no merit the moment he stated that this admission took place inside a secured visiting booth at Pennsylvania's Huntingdon Prison.

I interviewed Abu-Jamal inside those same booths around the same time. He would not talk freely about Faulkner's shooting because prison authorities planted microphones in the booths to eavesdrop on inmate conversations.

Abu-Jamal is not a fool. He was a veteran of many battles with prison authorities at the time Bloch claimed he confessed, and was well aware of their tactics.

Bloch follows in the footsteps of four others making similar claims. None reported this information to police immediately and all offer implausible explanations to serious questions surrounding their allegations.

For example, Faulkner's partner claimed he heard a confession but forgot to report it for 77 days because hearing the confession "emotionally traumatized" him. He suddenly remembered it while being questioned about a brutality complaint filed by Abu-Jamal. Another policeman claimed he heard Abu-Jamal confess on December 9, 1981 -- but forgot to include it an official report that day, he later explained, because he did not realize its "importance."

Earlier this year the Philadelphia District Attorney's office reluctantly admitted that it had included inaccurate accounts of confession claims in legal papers submitted to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. This error, an improper act by prosecutors, could aid Abu-Jamal's appeal now pending in federal court.

Faulty confessions, plus other flawed aspects of this case, and their acceptance by judges and journalists, provide compelling evidence for millions that Mumia Abu-Jamal did not receive a fair trial.