The letter below was E-mailed to the Independent and Asian Xxpress as dated. It is published here verbatim.
93c Venner Road, Sydenham, London SE26 5HU. 020 8659 7713 E-Mail A_Baron@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK June 23, 2002 Dear Sir, I am writing to ask you why your newspaper has yet again published a tissue of lies about convicted murderer Satpal Ram? Displaying a sense of racial solidarity that would put the most rabid apologist for Bin Laden to shame, your correspondent Amar Singh has simply parrotted the propaganda churned out by Mr Ram's small but dedicated army of liars for the past decade and more. The suggestion that he should be "honoured appropriately" is an insult both to victim and to the criminal justice system, inadequate though it may be. To compare this cowardly thug with Stephen Lawrence, also defiles the memory of another innocent young man cut down in the prime of his life in a senseless act of violence. You should take note of the following: 1) the waiter who witnessed the attack BY RAM was a prosecution witness, as was the restaurant manager; the latter's testimony was particularly damning, but the Court of Appeal pointed out that the testimony of Abdul Mozomil, the waiter, was not of much relevance because he did not have a clear view of the incident, although he did say in his witness statement that he recognised Ram and his co-defendant because they had been to the restaurant before, and had been very abusive towards the waiters. 2) After fleeing the scene of the crime with the murder weapon still in his hand, Ram attended a local hospital where he was treated for a small cut to his face. This required three stitches. A graze to his wrist required no treatment. Ram gave the hospital a false name, and was described by the doctor who treated him as so drunk and abusive that initially he could not be treated. 3) The murder weapon was a flick knife - not a pen knife - and was described as such by Ram's witness Evelyn Schneider. This is an illegal weapon; as this cannot be bought openly and as Ram had previous convictions he would have known that stabbing someone with such a weapon under any circumstances would land him in serious trouble. The Court of Appeal rejected Ram's claims about the knife and the attack as manifestly untrue. 4) The "racist nature" of the so-called attack on Ram was never brought out in court because it did not exist, although before he attacked his victim Ram himself shouted "Don't you like Paki music then?" 5) Your correspondent gives the impression that Ram was abused by a group of white men. Ther were six people in the victim's party: three couples. One of the women was his fiancee, another was his sister. 6) The claim that Clarke Pearce refused medical treatment, went home and died is a vile lie. He was pronounced dead at 4.23am; he was in no position to refuse anything; his sister signed a consent form for the operation. 7) Accurate documentation on this case including the transcripts of both Court of Appeal judgments and the pathologist's report on the victim can be found on the website http://www.geocities.com/satpalramisguilty/ Yours sincerely, A Baron