Tuesday 5 March 2019

Roberta Woods: Speaking on the Judiciary and legal inconsistencies



Roberta Woods is a prominent and very coherent and consistent writer and presenter of what is usually known as Far Right, a segment of public opinion that is 
usually depicted as 'skin heads and street fighters constantly looking for trouble'.
Reality couldn't be more different. Roberta is no skin head or street fighter. She offers a different insight into what happens in British Courts and about how so called mainstream media and  what is known as the political establishment approach very public and very lamentable events. 


This happens at a time when the number of those injured or murdered on British streets is on the rise. Every human life counts. Every family, whatever their race, religion or nationality suffers the loss of a loved one to crime.  
Roberta Woods is not just a writer and presenter despite the fact that she introduces herself to the audience in a very humble way. She is politically active and has stood in elections both local and London-wide. 


Only Black Lives Matter

I have chosen this name for my talk as this definitely seems to be the case today in mixed-race murders.
You will all be aware of the glaring difference in the way the media report on white on black crime (default is, it’s a racist crime) and black on white (default it’s just a crime, race is kept out of it). Where a defendant is non-white, it is all too easy to deny murder with a claim of racism. The media rush to report at length any perceived racist murder, while more or less ignoring white victims of non-white violence. Then to compound the injustice, they will demonise any support offered to white victims by, what they call ‘right-wing’ groups, as ‘stirring up hatred’ , when all the while they continually stir up hatred themselves, with their non-stop references to the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence. The result of this is that the grieving white families are isolated from their only source of support. Our genuine wish to help is guaranteed to be made ‘toxic’ by the media. The legal fraternity will argue against deporting a foreign criminal back to his home country, in case he may not receive a fair trial, while we natives cannot get a fair trial in our own country despite our supposedly superior legal system.
 I would like to speak to you of just such a case and highlight what I see as serious flaws in the jury system, and also contrast the different outcomes for the two Greenwich families involved.
·        I am certain that all of you will have heard of one Greenwich mother, Doreen Lawrence whose son Stephen was murdered in 1993, in a supposed ‘racist’ killing. You cannot fail to forget this particular murder as you will have been reminded of it on a daily basis over the past 26 years, by a media obsessed by that ONE victim.
How many of you will have heard of another Greenwich mother, Sue Gregory whose two sons were murdered by non-natives, almost 2 years to the day apart. One perpetrator West Indian, the second Vietnamese? Sue was just getting her life back together following Terry’s murder, when a tragic quirk of fate, saw her elder son Billy, murdered almost 2 years to the day after Terry, in the Earl of Chatham pub in Woolwich on Dec 25th 2005 aged 23, by a Vietnamese immigrant For this talk I will concentrate on the case of Terry Gregory as there was some measure of justice for Billy, with his murderer, Thu Nguyen being sentenced to 14 years imprisonment in October 2006, although he almost certainly will be out of prison now and free to commit more violent crime – he had attacked another drinker with a glass not long before murdering Billy.
·        Sue Gregory was always at pains to say that the family were not claiming a racist attack in the case of Terry, although all it requires for an attack to be deemed ‘racist’ is for someone to claim it was and Terry’s murder seems to have almost certainly had black aggressive elements of feeling disrespected, especially in front of 3 young black women. Billy’s murder may also have been racist, as Vietnamese, like blacks, have fragile egos and are also easily disrespected. Who can know what was in the mind of the murderer and whether he was having racist thoughts as he plunged the knife? Why the disparity of media and police attention? The CPS were not even prepared to seek a third trial in the Gregory case, although the evidence appears compelling, while the law of double-jeopardy was changed in order to pursue Lawrence’s murderers and that case goes on to this day.
Is Doreen Lawrence’s grief for her one son any more than Sue Gregory’s for her two sons, simply because one murder was deemed to be racist?.
·        On the night of Sat 27th December 2003, Terry, his girlfriend Louise Reed and his friend Sam Nelson went to the Pullman pub in Woolwich for a night out. They were probably all quite merry by the time they left, catching the N1 bus to where they lived in Charlton – crucially there was no CCTV footage available although all buses have these cameras.

Terry felt sick and they got off the bus so he could get some air. There was an umbrella lying around which Terry started fooling around with – he was soon confronted by a black man who claimed it as belonging to one of his 3 female companions. A scuffle ensued in which Terry, being the younger, fitter man unfortunately seems to have got the better of his antagonist. Some Asian men stopped in a car and seemed to have been successful in defusing the situation as the black man and his companions got on a bus and disappeared. Terry and his friends continued walking home along Woolwich Church Street and as they approached The Albion pub, about half a mile from Terry’s home, the black man from the umbrella incident reappeared. In the following minutes, in a frenzied attack, Sam Nelson sustained a deep knife wound to his hand and Terry in attempting to protect his friend, was stabbed 9 times including twice in the back. Terry was rushed to hospital but did not survive.

·        A description of a man wanted for questioning was circulated and on 30th December, 65 year-old George Edwin of Maryon Rd Charlton gave himself up at Shooters Hill police station. He was charged with Terry’s murder and GBH in relation to Sam Nelson.

·        CPS must have been confident in a murder charge as opposed to manslaughter, as the evidence showed clear premeditation (time lapse between original altercation and defendant reappearing armed with a knife)

·        The first trial was in August 2004, at the Inner London Crown Court, and not at the Old Bailey as the Gregory family expected. The defendant George Edwin, admitted Terry had wound him up during the umbrella incident and when he saw the three friends again later, he feared HE would be attacked. He claimed this second encounter was near Prospect Vale and not the Albion. In my opinion, this was done in order to give the impression that the other three had followed him, and not vice-versa, as this would be nearer his home in Maryon Rd, whereas The Albion was nearer to Terry’s. Not only did Edwin admit to being in possession of a knife – he went as far as admitting drawing the knife, but supposedly to frighten off HIS would-be assailants. He denied stabbing Terry. The murder weapon was never found but the pathologist estimated it as being at least 10cm long.

 Edwin had no criminal convictions and it was easy for the defence to portray this supposed law-abiding black pensioner as the victim rather than the aggressor. The jury was unable to reach a majority verdict on the murder charge and were dismissed and a new trial ordered.
Someone mentioned double-jeopardy, but this case was outside the remit of double-jeopardy, as there was no verdict or acquittal.

·        The second trial commenced on 21st October 2004. On this occasion the jury visited the scene of the crime by the Albion pub. This pub as one would expect from its name, boasts a sign depicting Winston Churchill in the guise of John Bull, complete with Union Jack waistcoat. Lying nearby was a wreath , also in the style of a Union Jack, which had been placed there by a local lady who knew Terry had been a sports fanatic. This was not long after Britain’s Olympic winners victory tour in London and as we all know, sports merchandising is full of Union Jack images, but our national emblem is now used as a stick to beat us and is always seen by the establishment as evidence of that ubiquitous racism, when it comes to whites.
The NF had already laid a wreath at the scene of the crime in January 2004, and this, tragically, served only to strengthen the defence’s claim of Terry’s possible racist connections.
Needless to say, on returning to court, the seeds would have been well and truly sown in the minds of the jurors, that this was perhaps, a racist enclave. The mention by Edwin’s defence, of the proximity (same borough, not really close) to where Stephen Lawrence was killed, the inference being ‘this is an area where blacks are in fear of their lives’ – the character of the victim then being sullied when he cannot defend himself. It is almost OK for a black to kill a white if the victim is portrayed as a racist. If, God forbid, I was murdered by a non-native, regardless of motive, they would have a cast-iron ‘stay out of jail card’ as my BNP membership would be seen as mitigating. The assailant had to be the victim and the victim ‘had it coming’.
Why was the defence lawyer allowed to draw the jury’s attention to the fact that this was not far from where Stephen Lawrence was murdered as though to infer that it was acceptable to overlook white victims as all whites in this part of Greenwich must be racist and it’s ok to murder racists – Isn’t it? It was also easy for the defence to demolish unsophisticated witnesses like Sam Nelson and Terry’s 16 year-old girlfriend Louise Reed, and then attack their conflicting evidence. Louise had been so traumatised by the first trial that she chose to give evidence via video link in the second trial.

This time round Edwin claimed not to remember much of what happened that night, he responded:-

 To my knowledge I never stabbed that boy. I am not a murderer. I am not a killer’

His performance and the underhand tactics of his defence seem to have been sufficient to convince the jury of his innocence, despite the damning evidence.

·        Is it not unbelievable that you can have a defendant who admits to both HAVING the knife and DRAWING it but whose memory then fails at this crucial moment? Did the jury believe that someone else intervened at this point and stabbed Terry 9 times? On this occasion, the jury found Edwin NOT GUILTY on the GBH charge relating to Sam Nelson but again could not reach a verdict in relation to the murder charge. After deliberation the CPS said they did not intend to seek a third trial. On 3rd November 2004, the judge dismissed the murder charge, declaring George Edwin NOT GUILTY, adding ‘You leave this court without a stain upon your character’.

The Gregorys were devastated

·        It is possible that the jury was split over whether it was a case of murder OR manslaughter, NOT as to the defendant’s innocence of either. The second jury should have been directed by the judge to reach a majority verdict on either murder OR manslaughter, but it seems that in our antiquated judicial system, this is not permissible. It is quite possible that George Edwin walked free when both juries believed him guilty and were only split between those believing it was murder and those thinking it was manslaughter. Thus a man who admits to carrying a large bladed weapon and is not averse to drawing it when crossed, was allowed to walk free.

·        In January 2005 the NF planned another wreath-laying ceremony, preceded by a march. On the day, the usual suspects, UAF/Hate Not Hope, came out in force with ‘Stop the fascist BNP’ banners, press reports mentioned the NF having ‘very short haircuts’, some having their faces covered with scarves – Again, everyone here will know that it is the fascist UAF and their-like, who hide behind scarves and masks, not patriotic groups like the NF and BNP, who were there simply to remember white victims of non-white violence. A copy of the Fallen List was laid where Terry had fallen.

·        I would also like to highlight the difference in outcomes for the two mothers:-

Doreen Lawrence feted in the media, a whole pack of lawyers at her   disposal and then a seat in the House of Lords. Her son’s name constantly mentioned by the media and in parliament. Not content with the existing memorials, there is now to be an annual Stephen Lawrence Day and there is also a petition for a statue in Trafalgar Square.

Sue Gregory, ignored by the media, no lawyers coming forward to help her in her fight against a patent miscarriage of justice. Her son’s names forgotten save for on the patriots Fallen List. Greenwich Council dragging their heels dealing with her council house transfer, which meant she came face-to-face with her son’s killer on a regular basis. A lowly job with Greenwich Council from which she is now on sick-leave due to serious illness.

·        I believe Juries generally, and certainly for murder trials, are no longer fit for purpose. They worked when we were a homogenous people being tried by 12 of our countrymen, but now with multiculturalism all sorts of other allegiances and identities are involved race, religion, sexual orientation.

·        I recalled initially reading of the murder in the local paper in December 2003 and thinking killed because of an umbrella? I then came across the story of the trial and acquittal in November 2004, and the man who almost certainly murdered Terry walking from the court a free man. My own son was a teenager at the time, I felt for the family - it could just as easily have been me in this nightmare situation.
The whole case struck me as a grave miscarriage of justice, having seen on more than one occasion as a juror, the injustice of our legal system eventually walking out of a jury trial in August that same year.

·         Meeting with Sue Gregory in about December 2004, I was determined to do what I could to draw attention to the injustice suffered by her family. When I called at her house in Charlton, her son Billy recalled reading MY jury-walkout story in the local paper – Billy would himself be a murder victim within a year.

I did not have myself have power, or a platform, but I could write letters and send emails. I joined forces with Stewart Rigby, a friend of Terry’s from his time as a lifeguard at Eltham Baths. Stewart had sat through both trials and was shocked at the outcome, he wrote to his local MP and Baroness Scotland, Attorney General at the time (subsequently discredited),questioning a legal system which delivers such injustice. Ironically, at the foot of the Attorney General’s letters was the following line:- ‘Building a safe, just and tolerant society’.
I wrote to several journalists whom I thought were in a position to perhaps take up the case and give it wider exposure:- Simon Jenkins, Peter Hitchens, Melanie Phillips, Joshua Rozenberg –not one expressed an interest. Simon Jenkins had himself written a lengthy article in the Times calling for the abolition of the jury system. Having served as a juror on 3 occasions, Jenkins, like me, felt they were time-wasting, inefficient and expensive. He argued that jury justice is largely guesswork, as they are denied crucial pieces of evidence, like previous convictions of a similar nature. Juries will agonise over their decision on serious cases, expecting a guilty verdict to attract a prison sentence, which seems to very rarely follow – that seems to have been both Jenkins and my experience. Not only was I unsuccessful in my attempts to draw media attention to the Gregory case, but Stewart Rigby who I had been working with, refused to speak to me on hearing that I was a member of the BNP – thus, I have many unanswered questions and no one to ask.
Evidence of guilt in the Gregory case, seems to have been conclusive, however, this trial was conducted amid blatant appeals to emotion and prejudice, when the jury are expected to make a decision based solely on the evidence. The judge in both trials should have intervened to stop the defence resorting to smear tactics against the victim and inferences that perhaps Terry and his friend Sam were part of a white gang-culture. Juries are all too easily swayed, especially if race is involved and again, I know this from my own personal experience as a juror where one jury was convinced that perhaps the black gang involved suffered racism at the hands of the police who had been called to crime scene, some jurors were quite prepared to believe that the police had planted evidence on the blacks.

I believe that if George Edwin had appeared in front of a panel of judges he would have been found GUILTY.

                                               


·        I was recently reminded that 28th Dec 2018, marked the fifteenth anniversary of Terry’s murder. We must not forget victims like Terry.
A first step would be to have the Terry Gregory case re-examined under the police’s increasingly successful cold case review process (New Tricks TV series).


 Is this asking too much when there is a police team still investigating the Stephen Lawrence case after 26 years?

In 2006, in the first trial under the amended double-jeopardy provisions of the Criminal Justice Act of 2003, William Dunlop was tried for the third time of the murder of Julie Hogg in 1989, this time Dunlop admitted to strangling the victim. Two previous trials in 1991 had broken down with both juries failing to reach a verdict, as in the Gregory case and an acquittal following the CPS not seeking a third trial.

No comments:

Post a Comment