Letter To Asian Xpress
And The Independent

The letter below was E-mailed to the Independent and Asian Xpress as dated. It is published here verbatim.

                                                93c Venner Road,
                                                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

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

Return To Media Correspondence Index