Mr and Mrs OíNeill did not attend Ramís first appeal, and the first time they saw the full judgment in that appeal was when I met them in London on February 28, 2001. Mr OíNeill in particular studied the transcript very carefully and commented on the following points.
Judgment: [Quoted verbatim.] At the trial...there was evidence that the deceased, who was a larger man than the applicant, did behave provocatively. In addition to making racial offensive remarks about the music, he probably initiated the violence by moving towards the applicant armed with a glass which may well have been broken.
Mr OíNeill: [Not quoted verbatim.] This is completely untrue. Clarke did not initiate the violence, nor did he make racially offensive remarks about the music.
This evidence, such as it is, came from Ramís statement to the police. (It may also have come from Schneider, but to date I have not seen either her witness statement or a transcript of her live evidence). Similar lies cropped up in the law report on the second appeal.
The fact that the Court of Appeal appeared to accept these claims is nothing unusual; I know from personal experience that judges frequently get things wrong, but they would have to get a lot more wrong before they would even seriously consider quashing Ramís murder conviction.