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