One of the most frequently touted - and undoubtedly the sickest - of lies, spewed out by the Free Satpal Campaign, is that “the attacker” as Clarke Pearce is often referred to, died because he refused medical treatment. To this end, Ram’s apologists have quoted the words of one important witness out of context. Here is the refutation. The reader is referred too to the relevant extract from Satpal Ram GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, which is also published on this site - click here.

Dr Jeanne McGivern battled vainly to save Clarke Pearce the night he was murdered by Ram. She is currently in private practice in Australia. The following message was received from her in February 2001. *

Dr Jeanne McGivern writes:

I have read the draft of your article and in some ways I feel that I cannot make much comment on the content. I am happy to recount the events as I saw them - and recall them, (it was a long time ago). You must realise that to make comment without the benefit of using my notes might result in statements that might not bear up in a court of law.

On the night in question I was the junior surgical registrar on-call at the General Hospital. I was woken from a deep sleep by a call from the Emergency Department. I got there as quickly as I could. The patient (Mr. Pearce) in the department was indeed shouting loudly. He was clearly agitated.

I think that he was bleeding from more than one wound but cannot accurately recall the number of wounds; this would be a matter of record at the time - both in my medical records and in the pathologist’s report. I have never seen the pathologist’s report and do not have access to the records. My recall from that night is that I asked an orderly or one of the nurses to maintain pressure on a wound in the upper flank/lower chest area. This wound was bleeding profusely and therefore was almost certainly very deep, penetrating a lung and possibly an abdominal organ. It was clear that Mr. Pearce was losing a lot of blood.

We attempted to get an intravenous line in place to increase the volume of circulating fluid in his blood vessels. Unfortunately Mr. Pearce did pull this line out. However, in my opinion this was not a calculated act, but rather the action of a man who was confused and irrational. The smell of alcohol suggests that he may have been inebriated, but the major blood loss and resulting severe shock would have caused major confusion and loss of judgment on Mr. Pearce’s part. In essence much, if not most, of his confusion would have been a result of his injuries. I do not recall any inference by Mr. Pearce that he would not be treated by a woman doctor.

Shortly after Mr. Pearce was placed on the operating table he died. He did not leave hospital before he died. I cannot now recall the exact time of death, but it was within an hour or so of his arrival in hospital. The time would be a matter of accurate record in the hospital notes. The records would have been the source used for completion of the death certificate. I cannot recall if I signed it or if it was signed by my Senior Registrar.

I did not attend the inquest, nor did I give evidence at the trial. I emigrated in early January 1987, before the trial commenced. Since my contemporaneous notes would have been a matter of record, they may have been presented as evidence by my Senior Registrar or a hospital representative. I made my statement to the police based on the medical record and shortly after (within days of) the time of the incident.

In view of my limited recall I cannot comment on the characteristics of the weapon used. Nor am I able to comment on whether these were likely to have been inflicted in self-defence. I can say that the depth of wound I can recall would not, in my opinion, have been consistent with falling on broken glass.

I do not think that a doctor at the scene, presumably unequipped, would have been able to save Mr. Pearce.

At the time of the incident I was a very junior and inexperienced registrar. I qualified as a doctor in 1981 and I achieved my Fellowship of the Royal College of Surgeons of England in 1985. I was 29 years old at the time of the incident. I was coming to the end of a two year surgical rotation in the Birmingham teaching hospitals.

Your E-mail was the first I have heard of this case. I was not previously aware of the Free Satpal Campaign.

I would like to add that I believe in both truth and justice. I am upset that my statements have been misquoted - at best inaccurately or, at worst, in an attempt to mislead the public.

I would also like to say that if Mr. Ram is truly receiving unduly harsh treatment in prison, then I would not in any way support or condone this, irrespective of his crime.

* Dr McGivern’s comments have been edited slightly; her original message contained personal details.

Back To Other Articles Index
Back To Site Index