ďSatpal had a small knife that he used in his work at a warehouse...Ē
The above phrase appears in the lie-ridden leaflet published by the Free Satpal Campaign. Ramís apologists continue to insist that the knife he used to murder Clarke Pearce was a pen knife. What are the facts?
Mrs OíNeill is adamant that the weapon was a flick knife. Her evidence was apparently accepted by the jury. She insists that Ram opened it with one hand.
In the carefully edited extracts forwarded by the Free Satpal Campaign to the current writer, Ram says when questioned by the police that after the incident he was pulled into the restaurant toilet by Schneider, who took the knife off him, folded it, and put it on the towel machine.
The inference here is that the knife was left in the toilet (and mysteriously disappeared). This inference is again refuted by Mrs OíNeill, whose recollection of that night is far more reliable than Ramís (and unlike his was given under oath and tested by cross-examination). She is adamant that Ram had the knife in his hand when he left the restaurant, and that as he passed where her brother lay dying on the floor, he menaced Dave with it. (1)
Interestingly she says too that Ram claimed originally to have stabbed Clarke with a table knife! (2) The Free Satpal Campaign make no comment about this, nor do they comment on the fact that Ramís witness, Schneider, admitted that her boyfriend had actually used a flick knife.
The law on offensive weapons is a bad law, (3) because almost anything can be construed as an offensive weapon; a woman who stabbed an attacker with a nail file could in theory be charged with possessing an offensive weapon, as could an electrician who was stopped in the street with a small screwdriver in his pocket. But a flick knife is an illegal weapon per se; Ram had more no business carrying a flick knife than a bazooka. There can be no doubt that Ram carried the knife for defensive purposes, and on the balance of probabilities for offensive purposes as well.
Paradoxically, it might even be argued that Ramís trial defence of provocation would be weakened by the acceptance of a jury of the lie that he had used a pen knife. As too would his pre and post trial claims of self-defence.
It is conceivable - if one accepts Draycottís (4) proposition - that Ram was provoked, snapped suddenly, pulled out a flick knife, and stabbed the man who had goaded or attacked him. It is much less conceivable that he could have snapped suddenly and then stabbed his antagonist with a folding knife. Similarly, it is conceivable if Ram was being attacked by a much larger and heavier man that he could have drawn a flick knife and stabbed him repeatedly. It is far less conceivable that he could have fought off such an adversary while at the same time opening a folding blade.
All the above is in any case hypothetical, because the weight of the evidence demonstrates clearly that Ram attacked Pearce rather than vice versa.
Back To Other Articles Index
Back To Site Index