I keep seeing everyone call the Sikh the killer, but like, no mentions on whether he actually stabbed the other person in actual self defense or not, even in some articles, and find that highly suspicious as well.
Edit: as in, what was the actual real motive?
Edit 2: apparently, the motive was anger after subtle racist commentary. Explains why it’s left out more.
Here’s some reporting from the actual criminal trial with comments from the judge on some of the questions you’ve asked.
Judge William Mousley KC says Henry Nowak “perhaps cheekily” had made a comment to Vickrum Digwa, asking him “if you were a bad man”.
“He was filming you on his phone when he spoke. The tone of his voice was not aggressive or threatening.”
But Mousley says this turned out to be a “tragic error of judgement”.
“You moved towards him and confidently told him that you were a bad man,” he adds.
“You drew the dagger from its sheath…and deliberately stabbed Henry with it. It passed upwards through soft tissue between the two uppermost ribs, catching a lung and cutting an important vein behind the collarbone.” Judge William Mousley KC
The judge says the pathologist explained how no emergency medical treatment would have permitted access to the bleeding vein: “In simple terms, he would not have survived, however quickly he received first aid, CPR or medical treatment.”
So it’s as suspected - racism, just not the kind the murderer said (or to make this more relatable to Americans, imagine a white guy asking a black dude in a sarcastic way “are you a bad guy?” while filming).
He still needs to be incarcerated for murdering, but I had a feeling there was a reason most news aren’t mentioning how the incident happened. And life in prison for what wasn’t premeditated murder seems excessive - but don’t know how laws in the UK work. Then again, it’s UK. Maybe had Vickrum been honest the sentencing would be different, but either way it’s unlikely the court would see how such commentary is racist, especially if described as “cheeky”. Likely this comment was the one that finally make Vickrum snap after who knows how many. At least, based on anecdotal experience.
The suspect claimed the white kid said racist things, tore off his turban, and pulled his hair. In trial, the court found that literally nobody else supported the suspects claims and the history of the victim cast serious doubt as to the legitimacy of the claims to begin with. The courts also found that the suspect had his mom hide the knife. All combined it was enough for a guilty verdict and a life sentence.
Can you link the court case? Searching it up can’t find the details because the news is now flooded by the right wing groups taking advantage of this and about protests that happened.
Of the reason of racist harassment was disproven, then what was the real reason?
The court wasn’t looking at why the guy who claimed racial harassment actually attacked the victim. They just had to prove he did it, which they know because he admits it, and that the claim of racial harassment wasn’t actually justified. They did that to the best of their abilities and managed to secure a conviction. What actually happened leading up to the stabbing is moot besides the finding the court made that the claim of racial harassment was not supported by any statement besides the suspects nor by the character of the victim in the judgement of the magistrate.
Maybe in the UK it’s different, but in other countries motive is very relevant.
Getting approached while being filmed and cheekily asked “are you a bad man?” Before getting stabbed would be very relevant in multiple places, both Finland, Mexico, El Salvador, and USA, for example, because it would indicate it was not premeditated murder and instead “crime of passion” and in some cases, “crime of instigation”.
I’ve been curious about what led up to it not because of legality however, but because of morality.
I don’t think it’s moral to stab someone over this. But I understand now why someone was stabbed over this. And most importantly, it’s not just a random stabbing, but one that was instigated by the victim, which could have been avoided by not being an asshole. It’s unfortunate he couldn’t learn the lesson in a way that resulted in his life coming to an end, and more unfortunate still that the police didn’t act professionally and try to save his life, although apparently a pathologist said it would have been unlikely be would have survived that wound.
Thankfully these details were provided by another comment with a link.
Motive is situationally relevant in pretty much all countries. Motive plays a particularly significant role in trying to prove someone may have done something, be it murder or theft.
In this situation, the motive is less important. We know the guy did the thing. He says he did it. He claimed he did it because x, and the court ruled that x wasn’t supported by any other witnesses and was out of character for the person accused of x, and therefore likely did not happen. That is the end of the relevance of the Motive to this situation.
Even in the case that the Motive had been relevant, there is no justification legally for what he did. “This guy said x. I dont like x. I hated the guy that said x, so I stabbed him.” is not a legally recognized justification for self defense.
I keep seeing everyone call the Sikh the killer, but like, no mentions on whether he actually stabbed the other person in actual self defense or not, even in some articles, and find that highly suspicious as well.
Edit: as in, what was the actual real motive?
Edit 2: apparently, the motive was anger after subtle racist commentary. Explains why it’s left out more.
Here’s some reporting from the actual criminal trial with comments from the judge on some of the questions you’ve asked.
Judge William Mousley KC says Henry Nowak “perhaps cheekily” had made a comment to Vickrum Digwa, asking him “if you were a bad man”.
“He was filming you on his phone when he spoke. The tone of his voice was not aggressive or threatening.”
But Mousley says this turned out to be a “tragic error of judgement”.
“You moved towards him and confidently told him that you were a bad man,” he adds.
The judge says the pathologist explained how no emergency medical treatment would have permitted access to the bleeding vein: “In simple terms, he would not have survived, however quickly he received first aid, CPR or medical treatment.”
https://news.sky.com/story/vickrum-digwa-sentencing-live-killer-who-murdered-student-and-told-wicked-racism-lie-about-victim-faces-jail-13549752
just to add, it is most likely here that ‘bad man’ in the transcript is actually the slang term ‘badman’
https://www.artandpopularculture.com/Badman_(slang)
https://grimedictionary.net/badman
Thank you.
So it’s as suspected - racism, just not the kind the murderer said (or to make this more relatable to Americans, imagine a white guy asking a black dude in a sarcastic way “are you a bad guy?” while filming).
He still needs to be incarcerated for murdering, but I had a feeling there was a reason most news aren’t mentioning how the incident happened. And life in prison for what wasn’t premeditated murder seems excessive - but don’t know how laws in the UK work. Then again, it’s UK. Maybe had Vickrum been honest the sentencing would be different, but either way it’s unlikely the court would see how such commentary is racist, especially if described as “cheeky”. Likely this comment was the one that finally make Vickrum snap after who knows how many. At least, based on anecdotal experience.
The killer was sentenced the other day with life imprisonment for murder, so yeah, no doubts for this one.
Why did he do it though? That’s what I haven’t seen when I looked this up in the past.
People don’t usually just stab a person.
The suspect claimed the white kid said racist things, tore off his turban, and pulled his hair. In trial, the court found that literally nobody else supported the suspects claims and the history of the victim cast serious doubt as to the legitimacy of the claims to begin with. The courts also found that the suspect had his mom hide the knife. All combined it was enough for a guilty verdict and a life sentence.
Can you link the court case? Searching it up can’t find the details because the news is now flooded by the right wing groups taking advantage of this and about protests that happened.
Of the reason of racist harassment was disproven, then what was the real reason?
The court wasn’t looking at why the guy who claimed racial harassment actually attacked the victim. They just had to prove he did it, which they know because he admits it, and that the claim of racial harassment wasn’t actually justified. They did that to the best of their abilities and managed to secure a conviction. What actually happened leading up to the stabbing is moot besides the finding the court made that the claim of racial harassment was not supported by any statement besides the suspects nor by the character of the victim in the judgement of the magistrate.
Maybe in the UK it’s different, but in other countries motive is very relevant.
Getting approached while being filmed and cheekily asked “are you a bad man?” Before getting stabbed would be very relevant in multiple places, both Finland, Mexico, El Salvador, and USA, for example, because it would indicate it was not premeditated murder and instead “crime of passion” and in some cases, “crime of instigation”.
I’ve been curious about what led up to it not because of legality however, but because of morality.
I don’t think it’s moral to stab someone over this. But I understand now why someone was stabbed over this. And most importantly, it’s not just a random stabbing, but one that was instigated by the victim, which could have been avoided by not being an asshole. It’s unfortunate he couldn’t learn the lesson in a way that resulted in his life coming to an end, and more unfortunate still that the police didn’t act professionally and try to save his life, although apparently a pathologist said it would have been unlikely be would have survived that wound.
Thankfully these details were provided by another comment with a link.
This is victim blaming - motive is relevant when it’s something like self defence, not fucking mouthing off a bit.
That racism isn’t relevant a motive to you says more than anything. And shows the downfall of the primary English speaking countries.
Motive is situationally relevant in pretty much all countries. Motive plays a particularly significant role in trying to prove someone may have done something, be it murder or theft.
In this situation, the motive is less important. We know the guy did the thing. He says he did it. He claimed he did it because x, and the court ruled that x wasn’t supported by any other witnesses and was out of character for the person accused of x, and therefore likely did not happen. That is the end of the relevance of the Motive to this situation.
Even in the case that the Motive had been relevant, there is no justification legally for what he did. “This guy said x. I dont like x. I hated the guy that said x, so I stabbed him.” is not a legally recognized justification for self defense.