SATPAL RAM CASE: LETTER TO THE “GUARDIAN” NEWSPAPER (2)

                                                93c Venner Road,
                                                       Sydenham,
                                                London SE26 5HU.
                                                   020 8659 7713
                               E-Mail A_Baron@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK


September 21, 2001


Dear Sir,

I am writing to the "Guardian" for the second time in less than a 
fortnight to correct errors concerning the case of convicted 
murderer Satpal Ram. The article in Thursday's "G2" is outrageous 
and I hope you will publish at least a qualified retraction 
before I post this letter to the Internet and to other national 
newspapers.

To begin with, Ram was convicted in June 1987 and not November 
1986 as implied on the front page. He murdered Clarke Pearce on 
November 18, 1986.

Ram was not the victim of a racially motivated attack or of any 
attack, and he did not kill Pearce with a pen knife. The weapon 
Ram used on his unarmed victim was a flick knife, an illegal 
weapon. Evidence to this effect was given by Nadine O'Neill, the 
sister of the victim who was present when the knifing happened. 
Even Ram's own witness Evelyn Schneider admitted that Ram had 
used a flick knife, probably because she walked into the police 
station and made a statement a few days before he gave himself 
up. The forensic evidence is consistent with the use of a flick 
knife rather than a pen knife. The only person present at the 
time who insists that a pen knife was used is Ram himself, and as 
the knife was never recovered and all the other evidence points 
away from this, we must reject this claim. 

It is not true that both men were taken to hospital. Clarke 
Pearce was taken to Birmingham General Hospital, where he was 
pronounced dead at 4.23am; Ram on the other hand attended another 
hospital where he was treated for a small cut to his face. This 
required three stitches. There was no mention then that Ram's 
chin had been cut, much less scarred, and indeed this is the 
first reference I have found to this claim anywhere.

It is claimed or implied here that Clarke Pearce died because he 
was drunk and resisted medical treatment. In fact it was Ram who 
was drunk rather than his victim. When he attended Sandwell 
General Hospital, where he gave a false name, the doctor was 
unable to treat him for some time. Clarke Pearce did not have 
that privilege; according to the doctor who treated him he was in 
severe shock and suffering from confusion due to blood loss. 
Nadine O'Neill said her brother probably thought he was still in 
the restaurant and being attacked.

Another claim made by Ram's organised lie campaign but one which 
is not, fortunately, repeated here, is that Clarke refused to be 
treated by a woman doctor, pulled out his drips, went home and 
died. This claim was made in a leaflet issued by the Free Satpal 
Campaign and also on the website of the grandly styled National 
Civil Rights Movement.

The claim that Ram had to wait nearly ten years for his appeal is 
again incorrect. Ram's first appeal was dismissed at the leave 
stage by the full court in March 1989; it was presided over by 
Lord Chief Justice Lane, whom your article implies expressed 
sympathy for Ram. 

Ram's mother may have been in her seventies but she died shortly 
before this article was published. Ram is 35 years old, not 34. 

At Ram's 1995 appeal, Lord Justice Beldam pointed out that in his 
summing-up, Mr Justice Ognall made a significant mistake, "but 
one which could only have assisted the appellant". In particular, 
the judge stated that Clarke had been stabbed once in the front 
of his chest and once in the back. In fact, Clarke was stabbed 
twice, perhaps three times, in the back. There were two wounds, 
one of them a complex wound.

You quote Ram's solicitor Gareth Peirce as saying that she can 
think of no good reason for Ram to still be in gaol. If Mrs 
Peirce sincerely believes this she is living in cloud cuckooland.

Ram murdered a stranger in a frenzied knife attack in a drunken 
rage over a triviality. He has refused to face up to his guilt, 
has been disruptive in prison and he and his gang of liars have 
spat on the corpse of the man he murdered ever since, heaping the 
most vile abuse not only on Clarke Pearce but on the dead man's 
entire family. That is surely reason enough. It is to the eternal 
credit of then Home Secretary Jack Straw (not my favourite poli-
tician by any means) that he vetoed the decision of the Parole 
Board to turn loose this unrepentant and duplicitous thug on the 
public, at least for the immediate future.


Yours sincerely,
A Baron

Webmaster: http://www.geocities.com/satpalramisguilty/

Unsurprisingly, this letter went unanswered.

Return To Media Correspondence Index