The text below was E-mailed to the Guardian (corrections) as dated. Unsurprisingly it was ignored, and no correction was ever published.
93c Venner Road, Sydenham, London SE26 5HU. 020 8659 7713 E-Mail A_Baron@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK September 24, 2001, Dear Sir, The letter below the dotted line was sent to "Guardian" letters as dated. May I ask that at least some of the lies and distortions in Simon Hattenstone's article about Satpal Ram be corrected? At the very least you should point out that Ram was drunk at the time of the murder, that he attended a different hospital, that he stabbed Clarke Pearce in the back more than once, and that there has been no previous reference to Ram's chin being cut as well as his face. If you fail to correct these serious errors you are guilty of wilfully misleading the public, something which no responsible newspaper should do at this most tragic and dangerous period in human history. Yours sincerely, A Baron Webmaster: http://www.geocities.com/satpalramisguilty/ -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/